Daily Legal News
- Declining of the plea by the Supreme Court of India about passing of injunction against states to not commit the crimes:
Supreme Court rejected the plea for entertaining the PIL by the Central bureau of investigation for the encounter of the criminal Rakesh Pandey in Lucknow. Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justice AS Bopanna, and Justice V. Ramasubramanium held the plea seeking for the inquiry of Rajesh Pandey.
- There is no reasonable explanation assigned by the selection committee : says in a plea in Delhi HC
A plea has been filed by Dr. Prasannanshu, a professor at NLU Delhi challenging the appointment of vice chancellor to NLU, Delhi. The petitioner is an assistant professor at NLU, Delhi since 2009. In 2014, he was promoted as a professor. He applied for the post of vice chancellor at NLU, Delhi satisfying with all the minimum eligibility requisites. But the selection committee did not call him up for any interview. So he approached the chancellor on the issue but the efforts had gone into vain. Then he filed a plea in Delhi HC stating that the selection committee is illegal and arbitrary. The court will hear the case on September 14.
- We leave it open to the committee privileges if it so choose : says Madras HC
In May, 2017 Tamil Nadu Government has banned the manufacturing and sale of Gutka and pan masala packets all over the state. In July, 2017, 21 DMK MLAs brought the banned substance into the assembly to prove that the state government is not taking a keen interest in banning the substance. As the 21 MLAs had violated the rule of bringing the banned substances into the assembly premises without the permission of speaker as it was a breach of privilege and referred the case to privilege committee. The privilege committee issued a show case against the 21 MLAs. Then the MLAs moved the case to Madras HC against notice issued by the privilege committee. Meanwhile 2 MLAs passed away. Now there are 19 MLAs including the DMK President Stalin. The court on Tuesday set aside the breach of privilege against the 19 MLAs and left open to the privilege committee for the reissue of the case against the leaders where the MLAs need to clear all the objections which are raised against them.
- The high court of Delhi has instructed to clear all the professional bills which have been raised by the government counsel before 1st of February 2020.
While hearing the case Piyush Gupta vs GNCTD & Ors, the bench stated that the government of Delhi and various municipal bodies along with the union government should pay or rather clear the bills that have been raised by the “empanelled counsel” within the span of four weeks. The petition contended that various advocates were not paid the dues, it further goes on to state that “The most unfortunate part is, the system doesn’t understand that as of today in this COVID era, all are suffering financially and for these people, in this hard time, (professional fee) is the only source of income. The Petitioner himself tried to persuade various officers to clear the professional fee bills of those panel advocates but no action so far has been taken..” the court addressing the plea questioned the government that “”Why are you not paying? Who will argue?. I will stay the salary of the Finance Secretary” while concluding the hearing the court assured to the empanelled counsel about payment of the pending dues by the government officials.
- The Government doctors have been warned of contempt charges by the high court of Patna if they don’t call off the strike.
The doctors’ association has been given orders by the Patna high court to immediately call of the strikes and get back to their duties. The court issued a warning that this will “only tantamount to aggravation of contempt”. The court has been informed by the senior advocate that Para Medical employees have gone on strike and now the doctors are also threatening to resort to strikes while boycotting their work from the 27th of the August. Considering the issue the bench stated that under the present situation where the normal orders have been disrupted by a global pandemic the doctors and para medics are not empowered or authorised under the Disaster Management act 1897, to resort to any such act of such as striking or boycotting the duties thereby refraining from discharging the duties assigned. The court opined that such an act of “resorting to the mechanism of strike which perhaps may be illegal”. The bench further highlighted the importance of doctors and paramedics who are constitutionally bond to perform their duties on the grounds of humanity in order to protect and preserve the human life. In conclusion, the court stated that “Perhaps, they may have some genuine grievance, but then for redressal thereof, proper mechanism has to be resorted to, but State cannot be put to ransom by resorting to an illegal method of protest, i.e. going on indefinite strike”.
- Class 10th evaluation method challenged- Madras HC dismisses Students’ Plea.
Single Judge Bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh has dismissed the pleas of students in relation to the government’s new policy wherein as the result of on-going Pandemic the government of Tamil Nadu State had passed an official notification stating the cancellation of class 10th final examinations and promoting them on the basis of the evaluation of quarterly and half yearly examination and their attendance; in ratio of 80:20.
This policy introduced by government has been challenged by students who are not satisfied with the evaluation method and have approached the Madras High Court, requesting for a judicial review of the policy passed by government. Justice Venkatesh on this point has opined that the policy so passed by the government is in no way arbitrary, irrational and actuated by any kind of malice on government’ part, and so court cannot poke its nose in this matter. The court further stated that though so e students may be unhappy with the evaluation method this does not itself form a ground for court to interfere with the government policy.
Thus stating the following points, court dismissed the pleas of students challenging the government policy of evaluation method.
- Delhi HC in Delhi Riots Case has issued notice to police on alleged leak of sensitive information from their part.
Delhi riots which took place earlier this year, have become a very sensitive issue. Accused in this case Asif Iqbal Tanha, a student of Jamia Millia Islamia, has filed a plea before a Single Judge bench of Justice Vibhu Bhakru of Delhi HC requesting the court to issue a notice to police on alleged leak of information from their part and also to order the OpIndia, Zee Media, Facebook and YouTube the famous media platforms to bring down the sensitive information which was passed to them by the police personnel.
The petitioner has stated that the police cannot leak the sensitive information related to a criminal case where the investigation is yet to be completed as that would create a bias in minds of public and court officials which is not fundamental. The court had earlier ordered the police to not share any kind of sensitive information about accused Devangana Kalita till the investigation is complete and the charges are framed.
The court after hearing the plea on behalf of petitioner has adjourned the matter for further hearing till 11th September.
- SC refuses to entertain plea for the reconstruction of religious structures.
A plea has been filed in SC by advocate Khaja seeking directions for the reconstruction of religious structure which were thrown down during the demolition of Telangana secretariat. He also mentioned that he is not against the demolition of the secretariat but only wants to rebuild the structures from where they were removed. The plea was heard by justices Ashok Bhushan and R Subash Reddy in SC. They refused the plea and stated that it does not fit under article 32. The bench wants to dismiss the plea but on the request of the petitioner the bench asked to withdraw the plea.
- AG declines to consent against Swara Bhaskar contempt proceedings.
A plea has been filed by Usha Shetty highlighting the statements passed by Swara Bhaskar in an event hosted by the Mumbai collective. In the event, Bhaskar commented on the judgement of Ayodhya kand dispute by the SC. In the petition, the petitioner states that the allegations passed by Bhaskar were scandalizing or lowering the court and having lack of confidence on the judiciary and further asked to proceed through criminal contempt of court proceedings. Attorney General for India k. k Venugopal declined to grant consent for the plea stating that the statements passed by the actress in the event are her perceptions but doesn’t resemble to scandalize the court. The petitioner then further approached the solicitor general Tushar Mehta on the same issue to grant permission.
- Media Regulations cannot be framed by Court- Kerela HC
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly of Kerela High court while dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) on Friday, Filed by an activist lawyer ordered that Court cannot frame Regulations for Media.
The Bench stated that Press is a form of freedom of speech and freedom of expression guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution (though press is not itself a fundamental right); and that court cannot restrict Media in performing their roles. It was mentioned in the PIL by the petitioner that sometimes media over performs its duty and scandalizes the case for their own benefits and also creates a doubt in minds of people and the petitioner also stated that media be given restrictions in relation to the disclosure of names, religion, caste or political affiliation of persons involved in criminal cases.
To this Court pointed out that Supreme Court in its order in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and others v. Securities and Exchange Board of India case, has mentioned that courts cannot restrict media and certainly cannot impose regulations on them for performing their rights, though court can regulate the interference of media but only on case to case basis and not by generally framing regulations.
Justifying all the points made by Hon’ble Court and not finding any kind of strong averments on behalf of the petitioner, the bench dismissed the PIL.
- Additional Judges to be appointed as Permanent Judges of Calcutta HC – SC Collegium.
SC Collegium in its official notification has decided to appoint 5 Additional Judges as Permanent Judges of Calcutta High Court.
- Justice Rajasekhar Mantha
- Jistice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
- Justice Mrs.Moushumi Bhattacharya
- Justice Shekhar Bobby Saraf
- Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj
Also Justice Protik Prakash Banerjee is ordered to act as the Additional Judge for a period of 6 months in order that the collegium can review his work and decide if further he would be appointed as permanent judge.
- The apex court will be hearing cases pertaining to payment of AGR dues by the Telcos.
The bench constituting of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice MR Shah, and Justice S Abdul Nazeer, will be hearing the cases related to the non-payment of AGR (Adjusted Gross Revenue) by the telecom companies. Currently, the court will be addressing the questions pertaining to the sale of spectrum under IBC. Kapil Sibal, a Senior Advocate, stated on behalf of Airtel that Airtel has paid all the dues that are relevant in the trades spectrum. The bench demanded the exact details regarding the “spectrum allocated since 1999 to RCom and Aircel” along with the information concerning to the spectrum sharing.
The bench consequently raised the question that “Will Aircel sell Spectrum under its IBC proceedings?”. Answering the questions raised by the court regarding the resolution applicants, the senior advocate stated that “Resolution plan of UVARC has been approved”. Consequently, the bench stated if the telecos express their unwillingness to pay, the court will direct “cancellation of spectrum allocation”.
Alternatively, Harish Salve who was representing Reliance Jio argued that such a cancellation would eventually bring in losses to the government and the banks to which the court replied by saying that subjecting the spectrum to a resolution process will eventually wipe out the government dues. All dues ought to be cleared before any spectrum trading takes place. Furthermore, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) can plan to recover the pending dues either by severally or jointly from the sellers and the buyers. The DoT further stated that there shall be a twofold process which will be adhered to while making a payment by telcos, firstly, some amount has to be paid while participating in the auction while the rest has to be paid over the due course of 15 years in instalments.
- A few Foreign Nationals who have been accused of Tablighi Jamaat incident have been discharged by the Delhi Court.
The court has discharged certain foreign nationals involved in the religious congregation of Tablighi Jamaat of the offences which have been leveled against them under Foreigners Act, Disaster Management Act, and the Indian Penal Code. Gurmohina Kaur, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate observed that there is no apparent link that draws a connection between the accused in terms of the material produced and the allegations cited in the charge sheet. The advocate representing the accused stated that there is an absence of concrete proof that highlights the fact that the accused person was loitering, thereby, violating the regulations imposed during the lock down. Observing various arguments submitted before the court, the accused was discharged due to lack of prima facie evidence.
- Refusal of supreme court for setting up the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test ( NEET) Examination centre abroad:
The supreme court of India have decided to conduct the exam of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test ( NEET) on 13th September, 2020.
However due to the corona pandemic, it is difficult for the students residing overseas to give the NEET exam. So a prayer was made in the Supreme Court for setting up the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) Examination centre abroad. But Supreme court of India refused it and a bench of judge consisting Justices in L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra has directed to the candidates are allowed or permitted to return India in the Vande Bharat Mission flights.
- Refusal of Activist lawyer apologise Prashant Bhusan to offer the apology for his tweets:
Prashant Bhusan, Activists lawyer of the supreme court of India tweets against the chief justice of India,Sharad Arvind Bobde And against the supreme court of India. And he also refused to offer an apology to the Supreme Court for this two tweets. Prasant Bhushan is convicted of contempt over two of his tweets against the CJI and the SC by the three judge bench which was led by the Justice Arun Mishra.