Prolawctor Daily Legal News Update| 6 September 2020

Prolawctor Daily Legal News Update| 6 
 September 2020- Prolawctor

Daily Legal News Update

NLSIU mentions reasons for NLAT before Karnataka HC.

The National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore has filed an affidavit before the Karnataka HC, wherein it has mentioned the reasons due to which it wishes to conduct a new entrance test instead of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT).

The reasons mentioned in the affidavit highlight the points like postponement of conduction of CLAT since last four occasions due to the on-going pandemic. The university also states that because there is repeated delay in conduction of CLAT the university has sought to an alternate option wherein it will conduct its own online entrance test and the students who wish to seek admission in NLSIU for BA LLB & LLM Programmes for academic year 2020-2021, must appear for this entrance test known as National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT) and also CLAT marks will not be taken into consideration for admissions of the academic year 2020-2021.

The university has filed this affidavit just after few days where the HC has reserved its order in case of 25% Domicile Reservations which is currently introduced by it this year.

The university in its affidavit has also highlighted a major reason behind its decision to conduct its own test which is, it is the university that follows trimester instead of semester pattern which is followed by majority of the law schools; and it has three terms of 90 days each and must contain 60 hrs for each subject, if the admissions are not completed by the end of September then the university will have ‘Zero year’ that is there would be no admissions

Due to this reason the university has taken a step in this regard and decided to introduce its own online entrance test which is scheduled to be held on 12th September and the online applications for which have begun from 3rd September till 10th September.

Final Arguments in M.J. Akbar Defamation case began today.

Former Union Minister M.J. Akbar had filed a case of criminal defamation under Section 499 of IPC against journalist Priya Ramani alleging that she had defamed him in an article written by her, “Harvey Weinstiens’ of the World, We’ll Get You” against him in case of sexual harassment following #MeeToo Movement. The matter was heard by Judge Vishal Pahuja of the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi.

Today final arguments on behalf of Priya Ramani were initiated by Advocate Rebecca John wherein she has mentioned to the court that Priya Ramani has written an article in the well-known Vouge Magazine and that she stays by her article, M.J.Akbar in this matter had filed a criminal defamation suit against the journalist and to this the defense counsel argued that even though the article is written by her client following the #MeeToo Movement but only the starting 4 paragraphs of the article are related to him and that is also because many female journalists have complained of sexual harassment from the petitioner and this is the reason why she has written the article in sexual harassment.

Counsel also submits that the rest of the article is written against all the male bosses who follow the practice of sexual harassment with their female colleagues or other female workers and as mentioned before the article was written following a movement which was initiated in the USA against Harvey Weinstein who was alleged by many females as a sexual assaulter, and the same was pointed by many female journalists that they had also fallen a prey for Akbar.

It is also submitted by the counsel that the article written by journalist cannot be termed as defamation as it is bona fide and written in public interest. After hearing all the submissions made by Advocate John the court adjourned the matter till 8th September.

Bombay HC refuses to stay MUHS Under-Graduate medical exams.

A division bench of Justice A.A.Sayed and Justice S.P.Tavde of the Bombay HC was hearing a petition filed by 9 under-graduate medical students of the Maharashtra University of Health Science, Nashik, (MUHS) who requested the court to grant an ad-interim stay on the conduction of physical exams of the medical students of final year which are scheduled to be held on 8th September in the state. The court today rejected their plea.

The bench was approached by medical students seeking stay on conduction of physical exams on the grounds of withdrawal of the 21st August circular stating the conduction of exams. The bench has rejected their plea by referring to the Supreme Court’s order dated 17th August in case of non-postponement of conduction of JEE & NEET Exams amid Covid-19. The court while rejecting the plea also mentioned that the petitioners have approached the court at the Eleventh Hour as there is a gap of only one working day from 5th September to 8th September, and hence the court is not inclined to grant any ad-interim relief staying examination. The matter is further adjourned till 17th September.

Petition by a female doctor to quash FIR, rejected by Allahabad HC.

A petition was filed by a Unani Dr. Imrana Khan before the Allahabad HC in relation to quash FIR lodged against her under Sections 124, 153A &153B of IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act. The division bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Samit Gopal rejected her petition to withdraw the FIR lodged against her on the grounds of freedom of speech.

FIR was lodged against a Unani lady doctor on criminal grounds based on the posts made by her on the social media namely Facebook which were charged with sedition and alleged to spread hatred between the communities. The posts so made were against the Prime Minister Shri. Narendra Modi and Chief Minister, Yogi Adityanath of Uttar Pradesh somewhere between the period of 2014-2017 and not since then.

The Advocate of petitioner submitted that the charges under FIR should be quashed on the grounds of freedom of speech; to this the court replied that the freedom of speech should not be extended to such extent that it becomes prejudicial to the National Interest.

The petitioner further mentioned that the posts were made in between 2014-2017 and not since then, it was also submitted that the content of the posts was not causing any kind of disharmony or hatred amongst communities, petitioner also argued that why has the FIR lodged in this matter after 3 years from the last post and why the action was not taken at that very moment; the court not convinced by any of the submissions made by the petitioner refused to quash the plea on the grounds that it was against the national interest.

To read the order, click here.

Allahabad HC dismisses PIL  petition stating it is been filed as ‘Cheap Publicity Stunt’

A petition is filed before a division bench of Justice S.K.Gupta and Justice Shamim Ahmed of Allahabad HC in relation to revoke the citizenship of Kanhaiya Kumar on the basis of sedition charges filed against him in 2016. The division bench has rejected the plea and termed it as a mere ‘cheap publicity stunt’ and has also penalised the petitioner on the grounds that he has no thorough knowledge of the Indian Constitution or the Citizenship Act.

Kanhiya Kumar was a former president of the students’ union of JNU and in 2016, he was charged on the grounds of sedition because the slogans made by him were anti-national and he was alleged to be supporting the freedom struggles of terrorists who were alleged to be connected to Pakistan this were the contentions of the petitioner, and in his plea he has requested the court to revoke his citizenship on the basis of section 10 of the Indian Citizenship Act.

The court was highly disappointed with the contentions of the petitioner and sated that public interest litigation is filed for the purpose of invoking public interest and not just for selfish motives. The bench further stated that the petitioners arguments were baseless and were an of pulling Cheap Publicity Stunts and for which he is ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 in favour of the Registrar General, High Court of Allahabad within a period of 30 days and also issued that the petitioner has no thorough knowledge of either Indian Constitution or Section 10 of the Indian Citizenship Act, and hence dismissed the petition.

SC quashed plea in case of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act – “No Violation if information can be traced by Barcode.”

A three judge bench of Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Indira Banerjee of Supreme Court was faced with an appeal wherein the prosecution had mentioned that the accused director of the Indian Company had imported a foreign brand Juice named as ‘Snapple Juice Drink’.

The contentions of the prosecution were that the product failed to have information on it which was in violation of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which states that the product should bear a batch no. which shall contain the information of the product. In this particular case the accused had submitted the barcode on the product contains information about the product which can be traced by scanning the barcode via barcode scanner. This submission was accepted by the trial court as well as the high court but discharge on it was refused.

When the matter has heard before the SC, the bench was of the opinion that the submissions of accused are valid and if the information can be generated by scanning the barcode through the barcode scanner then there is no violation of Rule 32. And the bench opined that if the present prosecution is allowed it will be an abuse of process of law and unnecessary harassment to the appellant and will cause sheer waste of time and on these grounds the petition of the prosecution was quashed.

MP HC grants bail to a rape accused on grounds to marry complainant.

A single Judge bench of Justice S.K. Awasthi of Madhya Pradesh HC granted a 2 month bail to an accused in case of rape charges filed against him. The bail is granted for 2 month period so that the accused can marry the complainant in the case and has to surrender him before the court after the expiry of the period.

A case was filed against a man by the complainant on the grounds that the accused is charged with section 376 2(N) which is a rape case wherein the complainant alleged that the accused was having physical relations with the complainant who was a married woman and promised to marry her if she would divorce her husband, later the complainant on instance of the accused divorced her husband and the accused refused to marry the complainant and so the complainant on this ground filed a rape case against him that the accused tried to influence the complainant into having physical relations with her with a promise to marry her and later backed away from his words.

The application filed the accused for want of bail is only on the grounds that he is now ready to solemnize marriage with the complainant. And only on these grounds the accused is granted bail by the MPHC for a period of 2 months in pursuance of a personal bond in sim of Rs. 50,000 with a solvent surety.

NLSIU issues technical requirements for NLAT

A notice is issued by the National Law School of India University, Bangalore (NLSIU) in regards to the technical requirements which would be necessary for students appearing for National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT) 2020 for the process of admissions for academic year 2020-2021 for BA LLB & LLM Programmes.

Following are the technical requirements issued by NLSIU:

  • 1 MPBS should be the minimum internet bandwidth.
  • Only Desktops/Laptops, there should be no Ipads or Mobile Phones.
  • Windows should be the only operating system no Macs would be allowed and windows version should be above 7; 10 is recommended.
  • There should be Java script enabled and google chrome is mandatory.
  • Antivirus must be disabled.
  • Integrated Webcam and integrated Microphone is Mandatory.
  • Wired or wireless headphones are not permitted.
  • Safe Assessment Browser Tool (SAB) must be installed.

Leave a Reply

error: Content is protected !!
%d bloggers like this: