Prolawctor Daily Legal News Update|22 August 2020

Daily Legal News

• The Centre confirms that JEE main and NEET examination will not postpone any further.

 The union ministry of Human Resource Development has recently delivered a confirmation that NEET and JEE main examination will not get further postponed despite the various petitions moved by the students and parents. The ministry has cited the decision of the Supreme Court which stated that the careers of the students cannot be jeopardised and postponing these exams might put an entire academic career at stake. In the present scenario, JEE would be held between 1st to 6th September and NEET would be held on 13th September.

• The apex court has delivered a revised order altering the earlier one which omitted the appearance of KK Venugopal.

 Issuing a revised order rectifying the earlier omission of mentioning the appearance of Attorney General KK Venugopal in the suo motto case of contempt which was filed against Prashant Bhushan, the apex court held Bhushan guilty, however, the court is yet to ascertain the sentence to him. The decision was to take place on the 20th of August, however, the court has to postpone the hearing of the matter until the 25th of August. The court has further given Prashant Bhushan another opportunity to issue an “unconditional apology”. However, Prashant Bhushan has filed a review plea challenging the earlier verdict. Consequently, the court stated that it will fix a hearing next week provided that Bhushan takes into account publishing of an “unconditional apology.”

• Supreme Court permits 3 Jain Derasars (Temple) of Mumbai to be opened on 22nd and 23rd August for offering prayers during Paryushan.

Amid the current Covid scenario, the Apex Court on Friday allowed the plea filed by Shri Parshwatilak Shwetamber Murtipujak Tapagacch Jain Trust to open Jain Derasars for 2 days of the eight-day Paryushan, Jain festival. A three judge bench led by CJI S.A. Bobde allowed the opening of 3 Jain Temples in Mumbai in surrounding areas of Dadar, Byculla and Chembur for 2 days i.e. on 22nd and 23rd August for the devotees to offer prayers during Paryushan.

Various questions were raised before the apex court regarding its decision to which the court replied that there shouldn’t be a problem if the Covid19 SOPs are followed, the court also remarked that the government is ready to open public places, economic needs being the reason behind it but when it comes to religious matters Covid19 is given as reason. While giving example of Jagannath Puri Rath Yatra the court reasoned that if the Rath Yatra could take place with strict restrictions then why the Derasars can’t be opened for 2 days.

On being questioned about the upcoming Ganesh Chaturthi festival the court stated that it should be followed case to case after consulting the Maharashtra State Disaster Management Authority. Also the apex court in this matter stated that permitting 3 Jain Temples for 2 days doesn’t mean that there should be any kind of religious Congregation in other Temples.

• Supreme Court Bar Association faced with a question of acceptability of Supreme Court retired Judge as a Mediator.

A single Judge bench of Justice Mukta Gupta was hearing a matter of Ashok Arora wherein Delhi High Court has questioned the Supreme Court Bar Association and Ashok Arora that if they could consult a retired Supreme Court Judge for mediation in their case, to which Ashok Arora stated that it would be acceptable if both the parties agree and someone decides in few days as his tenure would come to an end in few months.

This case is filed by Ashok Arora on the grounds of his removal from his post of Secretary of SCBA; he has also stated that all the rules of natural justice are violated in his case and he would like to point that out to the court. Today after hearing the matter on behalf of Ashok Arora, the court passed an interim stay on his removal and has adjourned the hearing on 7th September.

• An IA (Intervention application) has been filed in the Supreme Court requesting to do video recording and live telecast of the Prashant Bhushan case.

Today in the Supreme Court an Interventional Application has filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking to record the video of the proceedings of the case. The petition further requested to broadcast the proceedings of the case live in the Prashant Bhushan contempt proceeding.

• Interim order of Allahabad HC, Virtual Hearing to be continued.

The current pandemic has disturbed the functions of all the three organs of the state and also diminished the economic growth of our nation. The courts even in this pandemic situation hearing the cases through virtual mode. The HC of Allahabad passed has passed an order on Wednesday by extending this interim orders to conduct hearing through virtual mode till October 31 including the subordinate courts as the state was worst hit with COVID cases. And also excluded the lockdown period from caveat period of 90 days.

• Making of Appointments in the Appellate tribunal:

In the case of Nipun Praveen Singhvi v. State of Gujarat, a Public interest litigation (PIL) was filed for the declaration of the composition or constitution of the Appellate Tribunal. Section 45 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016(RERA) the Appellate Tribunal shall consist of- a chairperson, not less than two whole time members of which one shall be a Judicial member and other shall be a Technical or Administrative Member, to be appointed by the appropriate Government.

The disposal of plea was made by chief justice Vikram Nath and Justice JB Pardiwala, they ordered to make the appointments at the earliest.

• Disapproval of Jammu and Kashmir High Court over the taxpayer- funded security:

The High court of Jammu and Kashmir has called for the information and also expressed its disapproval regarding the provision of giving the security cover  to the private or  the public persons and retired employees. The court held that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir had not filed any protest or any objection regarding this in the past three years. Court also said that this case is not a case in isolation where the matters are not listed after interim order are passed.