Daily Legal News Update
NLSIU asked to reconsider its decision regarding NLAT by the NLU Consortium.
On Friday the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore passed a notification wherein the university has decided to admit student of BA LLB & LLM programmes for the academic year 2020-21 on the basis of new entrance test which would be conducted by the university on 12th September, and whose online applications will commence from 3rd September till 10th September. The new test is called as the National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT) which will be conducted in place of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT).
After the circular was out, an emergency meeting in this regard was called by the Consortium of National Law universities which was held under the chairmanship of Prof. V. Vijaykumar, Vice-Chancellor of NLIU Bhopal; wherein it was stated that the decision of NLSIU Bangalore is in violation with the Consortium’s by-laws. The conduction of new entrance test NLAT is against the Rule of 15.3.3 of the by-laws. The consortium has therefore unanimously held that the decision is against the by-laws and NLSIU has been granted time to reconsider its decision in this regard.
The university in this regard has mentioned that was under a tremendous pressure while deciding NLAT instead of CLAT as it states that it is the only university with trimester and if they don’t finish admissions by the end of September then they would have Zero admissions and hence they had to decide this.
The Consortium after hearing this has decided that if NLSIU, Bangalore decides to conduct NLAT instead of CLAT then they would not be associated with CLAT 2020 at all in any manner and all the financial and administrative decisions will be taken by Prof. Balraj Chauhan CLAT-2020 Convener and Secretariat of Consortium may be shifted out of NLSIU. The Consortium has also given a statement wherein they have expressed concern for students and their health issues which would be faced by them due to conduction of 2 Entrance Exams during Covid-19 scenario.
JEE NEET postponement review plea dismissed by the Apex Court.
A review petition in regard to the order of the Supreme Court passed on 17th August was filed by six Ministers from West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Punjab and Maharashtra; wherein the petitioners challenged the order of permitting conduction of JEE & NEET Exams during this Covid-19 pandemic.
The petitioners showed their concern towards students and filed petition stating that the Supreme Court’s order against the non-postponement of the Exams was cryptic. The petition also mentioned that the ruling government has failed to comply with the strict guidelines issued in relation to the conduction of exams, has also ignored the teething logistical difficulties in the conduction of exam; the petition also mentions that quote ‘Life Must Go On’ used by the Apex court is not good in practical terms as it sounds in philosophical terms.
Today the review petition plea was heard by a three judge bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice B.R.Gavai and Justice Krishan Murari, the plea was held in chambers and the bench did not find any merit in the petition and thus rejected the plea of the petitioners stating that even though there is a pandemic situation going around the country but then students future cannot be placed at stake and a whole academic year cannot be wasted merely due to pandemic. The bench after explaining the importance of the exams dismissed the plea.
Disciplinary proceedings in a Sexual Harassment case against Madhya Pradesh District Judge stayed by Supreme Court.
A three judge bench of Chief Justice of India S.A.Bobde, Justice A.S.Bopanna and Justice V. Ramasubramanium of Supreme Court today issued a stay in the disciplinary proceedings held against the District Judge of Madhya Pradesh in an alleged case of sexual harassment filed against him by a female judicial officer.
This plea is filed by the District Judge seeking dismissal of charges against him on account of Sexual harassment which are filed against him with the Gender Sensitization Internal Complaint Committee (GSICC) in the year 2018. Since then Judge is been subjected to various enquiries against him and now the fifth enquiry in respect of his disciplinary proceedings; all the enquiries are still in the process the motive behind which is to cause harm to the reputation of the Judge especially during this time when he is supposed to be considered for elevation.
The plea mentioned that the Judge had an ‘unblemished’ service for 32 years and now he was supposed to be considered for elevation to the High Court. The petitioner also pleads that he is supposed to retire this year and charges like this are extremely embarrassing for him at this stage of his life.
The Apex Court bench today issued a notice along with staying the disciplinary proceedings terming it as “This has become a trend now” meaning of which goes like whenever a Judge is supposed to be considered for elevation something of this sort comes up which ruins his whole life reputation.
The bench also stated that the case was filed in the year 2018 and till date it has been disposed off just no. of enquiries keep on increasing and the Judge has to be embarrassed at such time when is retirement and elevation process is close by; pointing out such points the bench has stayed the disciplinary proceedings against the District Judge of Madhya Pradesh.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s Tweets and his Criminal Contempt Judgement ordered by BCI to be studied thoroughly by the BCD.
In a meeting held on 3rd September by the Bar Council of India (BCI) it was of the opinion that the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) should carefully examine Prashant Bhushan’s tweets which landed him in a sou motto criminal contempt proceeding by the Supreme Court of India in the Light of Sections 24A and 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Activist Advocate Prashant Bhushan had made tweets on twitter wherein he had made statements on the CJI and the functioning of the Judiciary of India which attracted a suo motto criminal contempt proceeding against him by the Supreme Court. On August 14 a three judge bench held him guilty of criminal contempt, on 20th August he was granted time by the court to reconsider his statements and file an unconditional apology, and finally on August 31st when he refused to file apology the court ordered him to pay a fine of one Rupee.
Following this Judgement the BCI has issued a press notice to BCD to study the tweets made by Bhushan and also to study the order passed by the court in this regard under section 244A which is for Disqualification for enrolment and Section 35 for punishment for misconducts on part of advocate of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Accused in 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots bail application rejected by the Apex Court.
A three judge bench of Chief Justice of India S.A.Bobde, Justice A.S.Bopanna and Justice V. Ramasubramanium of Supreme Court today rejected bail application of Sajjan Kumar an accused in the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Case.
Sajjan Kumar is an ex-Congress leader who was held guilty by the trial and high court on the grounds of leading a mob in the Anti-Sikh Riots case and was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Delhi High Court and is currently serving his sentence in Tihar jail. He had filed an interim bail application on medical grounds which the bench refused to grant stating that is ‘it is not a small case’ and bail therefore cannot be granted.
The Advocate on behalf of the petitioner argued that the witness have reversed their statements and the decision of the Delhi HC is faulty to which the Apex Court stated that the hearing in this matter would only begin when the court commences physical hearing.
In regard to the medical grounds it was mentioned by the advocate that accused has loss 20 kgs weight and is currently ill to which the court after consultation with the Senior Counsel Advocate HS Phoolka state that he is being taken care off in the Jail. On all the above grounds the court held that the matter cannot be heard on merits and that since it is not a small case therefore bail will not be granted.
SC permitted transfer of Tablighi Jammat cases to specified Courts of UP
A three judge bench of Justice A.M.Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Snajiv Khanna of the Supreme Court on Friday allowed the consolidation of the FIRs and transfer of cases which are being heard against the foreign nationals in relation with their involvement in the Tablighi Jamaat activities.The Supreme Court was approached that it may allow consolidation of all the FIRs in relation to the matter and transfer of cases to the specified courts also with a request to deal with the matter expeditiously.
The bench today ordered that the state government to reach out to the Principal Bench of Allahabad High Court along with an application to decide the no. of courts and the names of the courts across all the zones of UP which would be considered to hear the matters. The bench has granted one weeks’ time to decide the how many and which courts would be appointed and has also emphasised to deal with the matters expeditiously and dispose off the matters within a period of 8 weeks.
Supreme Court orders Madras HC to obey its order.
The Supreme Court has ordered that the Madras Bench has to obey the order so given to it by the apex court. This is in relation to a writ petition which was filed by M.G. Saravanan before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court wherein the petitioner had plead before the court regarding the distance between the Petroleum Outlet Station and a school was of mere 100 meters which is considered as the prohibited area, the court in this matter earlier granted a status quo but later withdrew it after hearing the respondents.
When a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court in this matter the court ordered the Madurai bench to dispose of the matter within period of two weeks. Later when the matter was before the Madras Court it was observed that the matter was being shuttled between Madurai and Madras bench of High Courts. A division bench in this matter further ordered Madras court that the court should obey the order issued to it by the Supreme Court in letter and in spirit, also directing the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court to take up the matter on prior basis and dispose it off within 2 weeks’ time.
Karnataka HC considers online exams – “it is not unreasonable or against the interest of Students”
Karnataka HC has dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the online mode of examinations which will be conducted by the University of Agricultural Sciences stating that is not in the interest of students. The university in this matter has shown the court that during the current pandemic situation this is the only possible way to conduct exams and avoid congregation of students in the university.
Arguments were made on behalf of the petitioners that if any student fails to attend the exam due to issue with the electric supply or lack of technology available with him/her or on medical grounds or any such reasons. The respondent –university has mentioned before the court that it has taken all necessary provisions in such matters wherein if the student cannot appear due to any above mentioned reason then there would physical exams for them in those cases even if a student who wishes to appear for physical exam after appearing through online mode he would be allowed if that is the case where he wishes to improve his grades.
Hearing all the arguments on behalf of the petitioners and respondents the court passed order that conduction of online exam cannot be termed as ‘unreasonable’ or ‘against the interests of students’ ass this would avoid congregation and is beneficial in the times of pandemic. The court has also ordered that students who will not be able to attend online exams can approach the university in that matter and the university is bound to take proper actions, also students who could not attend online exams would be allowed to attend classes for the next semester.