Prolawctor Daily Legal News Update | 26 August 2020

Daily Legal News Update

  • No more than a paper apology : Gujarat HC

A suo motu case has been filed against the Gujarat HC Advocates President Yatin Oza in Gujarat HC. In one of his live conferences in Facebook he allegedly stated the corruption activities against the court and its registry. Then HC removed him from his senior designation. Then he moved to SC where the bench stated to write an apology to the HC of Gujarat and discharge him from the proceedings when he stated that the statements passed by him were unintentional and not to scandalize the court. He then filed an affidavit quoting the apology to reconsider him. The Full court of Gujarat did not accepted the apology as if it has been accepted it would showing the lack of confidence in judiciary and is a malafide.

  • SC pulls up centre for hiding behind RBI

The SC on Wednesday pulled up centre for not having a clear stand on term loans during moratorium period in this COVID pandemic. Affidavits have been filed by RBI, SBI in SC in this issue. But neither focused on the current pandemic and centre powers under disaster management act. As already announced by RBI, extension of the moratorium period till August 31 advocate Kapil Sibal filed a plea to further extend the moratorium period. The court also asked about the repayment of the loans. RBI circulated an order of only repayment of moratorium instalments but not the interests. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appearing on behalf of the centre said that they would file an affidavit within a week to seek out the issues on the two aspects one is related to disaster management act and the other is waiver of interest. The court adjourned the next hearing on September 1.

  •  The apex court inquiries  from the Haryana government regarding the report which talks about flattening of the hills of Aravalli.

Upon considering a report which has been published on 25th August in Times of India, a bench led by Justice Arun Mishra inquiries from the AAG of Haryana in order to seek a report from the government, henceforth, directing the state authorities to take all the necessary precautions immediately. The report by the newspaper points out the flattening or levelling of the hills is with the motive to construct a road which would offer connectivity to the farmhouses built in Bandhwari. Considering the issues raised, the court ordered that “appropriate action be taken and a report be submitted to this Court forthwith. We direct the District Magistrate and police authorities to take appropriate action forthwith, as assured by Mr. Anil Grover, AAG.”

  • The high court of Kerala stated on behalf of the Airport Authority of India, that passengers who are opting for domestic flights are not mandated to download the Aarogya Setu.

The bench which has been presided over by the justice Anu Sivaraman, was hearing a writ petition contending the Standard Operating Procedure which have been laid down in order to safely commence the domestic flights. These procedures makes it a pre-requisite for all the passengers who are above fourteen years of age to mandatorily register on the Aarogya Setu app. The court after hearing the issues raised in the petition which states that “The Aarogya Setu , in its present form -both in terms of the absence of an anchoring legislation, the privacy policies adopted and its mandatory imposition – constitutes a disproportionate invasion of constitutional rights”, submitted that “passengers are expected to certify the status of their health through the Aarogya Setu App or a self-declaration form” thereby eliminating the mandatory requirement to enrol on the Aarogya Setu App.

  • Orissa HC allowed Writ petition stating the Maxim “Love knows no bound has expanded its bounds to include same-sex relationships.”

Orissa HC on Monday allowed a writ petition filed by the petitioner in relation to same-sex live- in relationship before court, wherein the petitioner’s partner a woman had been separated by her mother and uncle while she was staying with her partner i.e. petitioner in a live-in relationship.

The petitioner is a 24 year old transgender whose contentions are that his live-in relationship partner has been forcibly dragged out of their house by her mother and uncle. The Court on this point has mentioned that same sex live in relationship are now allowed along with rights of self-determination and personal autonomy and passed its order in favour of the petitioner. A division bench of Justice S.K.Mishra and Justice Savitri Ratho while citing case of Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, Nalsa Case and Navtej Singh Johar. Case states that the Supreme Court has decriminalised section 377 and has ruled in favour of same- sex relationships and the Hon’ble Court would also follow the footsteps of the apex court and allow the live-in relationship between the petitioner and the partner. Thus the court ruled in petitioners favour. [pdf here]

  • Calcutta HC initiates sou motto Contempt Case against a Lawyer for sharing screenshot of a virtual hearing.

A single Judge bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha of Calcutta HC has initiated a suo motto Contempt Case against an advocate wherein the Advocate had posted the screenshot of a virtual hearing held on June 5 on a social media app known as ‘Linked In’.

The court on this point has raised several objections stating that taking a screenshot of a virtual hearing is equivalent to clicking a photograph of a normal hearing of court which amounts to Contempt, also the court pointed out that using ‘managed’ as the a word while obtaining an injunction is reflected to be of a ‘bad taste’. judge further expressing his displeasure stated that he would not continue to hear their matter to which the plaintiff and the counsel for defendant convinced the judge not to do so as all costs were initiated and would result in huge loses, the judge was later convinced.

The court also order the Advocate to submit an unconditional apology before the court, and the court dropped his contempt case with a warning to not repeat the mistake.

  • Publication of the names of accused is against their Right to privacy

On the date of 11th August, 2020 a riot took place in Bangalore. The clashes between the police and the people started around the residence of the legislator named Akhanda Srinivas Murthy and spread to the police stations of KG Halli and DJ Halli. The incident resulted in the imposition of a Curfew in the affected areas of Bangalore, the death of 3 people in police firing and injuries to 30–80 policemen as well as several journalists, inflicted by armed assailants. The property of the legislator was also torched during the period of violence.  So the advocate of the petitioner requested before the court for the publication of the name of the accused. However court refused it and said that it will be against the right to privacy of the accused.

  • Pre-screening of the Netflix documentary named- ‘Bad boy billionaires

Mehul Choksi went to the Delhi High court against the documentary named ‘Bad boy billionaires’ of the Netflix. He filed a petition against it by mentioning that this documentary mainly concern towards the fraudulent activities of the big business man in India. He requested for the postponement of this documentary of Netflix

Leave a Reply

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