Prolawctor Daily Legal News | 09 August, 2020

0

Daily Legal News

  •  A three judge bench has been assembled by the Pakistan court to hear the Kulbhushan Jadhav Case

A bench consisting of Chief Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Amir Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Auranzgeb will hear the petition filed by the government of India to provide legal representative to Kulbhushan Jadhav, who is retired Indian Navy officer currently on a death-row prisoner in Pakistan. This was in furtherance of the direction given by the ICJ in 2019 instructing Pakistan to “effectively review and reconsider” the death sentence accorded in the Kulbhushan Jadhav Case and immediately grant “consular access” to India.

  • A plea filed by Akhil Gogoi in the case of Anti-CAA Protests has been rejected by the National Investigation Agency.

NIA on Friday rejected a plea for bail filed by the peasant leader, Akhil Gogoi who has been incarcerated under the charges of sedition during “spearheading” or leading the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests that took place in Assam.

  • Cases quashed against 9 foreigners in Tablighi jamaat case says Karnataka HC.

The Karnataka HC has quashed cases against 9 foreigners who took part in Tablighi congregation and has set aside criminal prosecutions against them and ordered them to leave the country immediately and not to revisit India in coming 10 years. A bench headed by justice Krishna S Dixit granted petitions filed by the foreign nationals who came to India on the basis of e – tourists’ visa and took part in preaching of religious principles were arrested as they prohibited the visa rules under foreigners act, 1946. The court after hearing the arguments, prescribed the conditions which are passed by the Madras HC in the similar case filed against 31 foreigners to leave India immediately.

  • “Independence of Judiciary at stake – Madras Bar Association Files PIL in Supreme Court.”

On Saturday, The Madras Bar Association filed a PIL petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, expressing their concern about the independence of judiciary being at risk due to the new Tribunal Rules, 2020. The bar association in their petition has challenged the new tribunal rules and stated that these rules are in violation to the Articles 14, 21 & 50 of the Indian constitution, also the petitioners have mentioned that the new Tribunal rules are in contravention to the previous decision delivered by this Hon’ble court in Roger Mathew case. The plea requests Supreme Court to strike down the new Tribunal Rules, 2020 as they are arbitrary and unreasonable.

  • Open book exams begin on Monday, DU gets High Court nod.

On Friday, the Delhi High Court cleared the way for DU to conduct an online Open-Book exam (OBE) for graduate and postgraduate students, and passed a slew of directions to streamline the procedure. Exams are due from 10-31 August. Justice Pratibha Singh, who passed the judgment on a plea challenging the decision of the varsity to keep OBE online pursuant to UGC guidelines, observed: “It is a matter of record that hundreds of students have faced technological difficulties while using DU’s online portal … In the present case, hearings over the last one month have shown multiple lacunae in the OBE process online.However, repeatedly, DU has taken the stand that it is fully prepared to conduct the examinations.”

The court directed that regular students “… will be given complete three hours for answering question paper and one more hour for scanning answer sheets and uploading the same. Thus, regular students would have a total of four hours to complete the exam, scan and upload/email the answer sheets”. Advocate Akash Sinha, Petitioners’ counsel, argued that the OBE, in its present form, was discriminatory qua students who had no cyber infrastructure/resources or were trapped in quarantine or flooded areas of COVID-19. There was also reference to other universities like NLU Delhi and JNU which gave their students more than 24 hours to write the exam. Advocate Shivankar Sharma, counsel for the Intervenor students, submitted that the decision to conduct OBE was arbitrary, with no application of mind, and infringed the students’ data privacy.

DU submitted that since very senior academics and experts took the decision to conduct OBE as a rule of prudence the court should not interfere in the academic sphere. The Court was told that the procedure included protections, including the provision of Specific Service Centers for students with no cyber infrastructure, grievance committee, and helplines, and that students will always have the option of sitting for physical examination in September 2020. On Wednesday the Court reserved order in the challenge. The Court noted that the availability of CSCs was also under a cloud, and there was no reduction in the marks for which students need to be assessed. It also took judicial notice that Internet connectivity was not always stable. Thus the Court issued a slew of directions to Delhi University to ensure smooth conduct of OBE. DU shall send, within four weeks, a detailed report on the conduct of exams at the conclusion of the OBE exams.

  • Kerala High Court held that no bar on the Anticipatory bail applications:

In the case of  Nahas vs. State of Kerala, Kerala High Court held that Anticipatory Bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not barred in a case in which an offence under the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 is alleged. The court said that there is no bar in the filing of any anticipatory bail application in the Triple Talaq cases. However it needs to plead reasons for not approaching to magistrate.

  • Parents body wish for the JEE, NEET-UG examination to be counducted as per the schedule.

Advocate Alakh Alok had now filled a plea for postponement of JEE (Main), NEET Examination which are scheduled to take place on September. The exams were initially supposed to take place in April but due to the pandemic there were postponed. However, 11 students from 11 different states of India have approached the Apex court with the help of Advocate Alakh to express the threat of the global pandemic and demand a further postponement of their examination.

The plea filled stated that;

“Conducting the aforesaid examination across India at such perilous time, is nothing else but putting lives of lakhs of young students (including petitioners herein) at utmost risk and danger of disease and death. The best recourse at this stage can be to wait for some more time, let COVID-19 crisis subside and then only conduct these exams, in order to save lives of the students and their parents,”

Following this a body of student’s parents have directly approached the Supreme Court, to ensure that examinations as decided take place in September. This has been filled in a plea under Article 32 by has been drafted by Advocated Jaikriti S Jadeja, and will be further argued by Advocate Mitul K Shelat.

  • Right to property remains a constitutional right, even though not a fundamental right.

The recent proceedings of the case Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra and others was heard by the bench of Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Indria Banerjee. The bench has made it clear in their judgment that even though the “right to property” is not considered as a “fundamental right”, it still remains a right protected by the Indian Constitution, and hence shall be classified as a constitution right.

The judgement stated that;

“The right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A and a human right as observed by this Court in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel and Others. In view of the mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of his property save by the authority of law.”

Leave a Reply

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