Prolawctor Daily Legal News Update| 30 August 2020


Daily Legal News Update

  • AILET will be held on 26th of September by means of computer based test, to be conducted in over 100 test centres.

NLU Delhi informed that AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) will be a computer based test conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) on the 26th of September. Making sure that all the guidelines are strictly adhered to in the present COVID times, over 100 centre throughout the country will conduct it.

The university has sought the help of centre to ensure the infrastructure and all the required technical support needed are met. The university stated that “The detailed guidelines & instructions along with the activity schedule and downloading of Hall Tickets/Roll Number will be issued by the NTA/NLU Delhi shortly,”. However the pattern remains the same. 150 questions to be framed in a MCQs format carrying one marks and each wrong answer will deduct 1/4th of the marks.

  • SC refuses pre telecast ban on sudarshan tv programme

A plea has been filed in Delhi HC against Sudarshan TV and its chief editor in relation with a programme which is scheduled on August 28 at 8:00 pm to telecast. Meanwhile, a promo has been released by TV channel which claimed to be a big expose on infiltration of Muslims in Cvil Seervices which got viral in social media including a hashtag UPSC jihad.

The Supreme Court Friday refused to impose pre-broadcast ban on Sudarshan TV from telecasting ‘Bindas Bol’ programme. The court issued notice and adjourned the next hearing to September 15.

  • Not possible to lift the prohibition on Muharram processions : Allahabad HC

A number pleas have been filed in High courts of Allahabad and Locknow seeking permission to perform religious rituals on the occasion of Muharram. In august, the court granted permission with limited restrictions which was declined by SC on Thursday to grant permission as the number of cases have been increasing rapidly in our country.

In the plea, they stated that it is discriminatory and arbitrary as the court granted permission for jaganath rath yatra in Odisha and the Paryushan festival in Maharashtra. The clearly stated that the court refused for the gathering of large congregation of people during janmashtami and Ganesh chaturthi so it is not discriminatory. On the basis of number of cases in the state it granted permission with limited conduct for the respective states and it is not arbitrary.  The Allahabad HC dismissed all the pleas filed for the conduct of Muharram processions for this year.

  • JEE & NEET exams ordered to be conducted by SC- Opposition Leaders file a review petition.

On 17th August, the Apex Court led by a three judge bench of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice B R Gavai and Justice Krishna Murari passed an order regarding the conduction of JEE and NEET exams, which is now challenged by the opposition leaders of 6 States asking for the review of order passed by the court.

The petitioners being, Moloy Ghatak (Minister-in-Charge, Government of West Bengal),  Dr. Rameshwar Oraon( Cabinet Minister, Government of Jharkhand), Dr. Raghu Sharma(Cabinet Minister, Government of Rajasthan), Amarjeet Bhagat(Minister, Government of Chhattisgarh), Balbir Singh Sidhu(Cabinet Minister, Government of Punjab), and Uday Ravindra Samant(Minister, Government of Maharashtra); have filed a review petition before the apex court seeking a review of its previous order of 17th August.

The petitioners’ contentions being that, the order passed by the apex court is cryptic and involves complexities, and the ruling government has not taken enough efforts to create a safe environment for students appearing for exams. Over 19 Lakhs students have downloaded the admit cards of the exams. It is mentioned in the petition that they are discharging their public duty.

The plea further states that at the early stage of the pandemic the exams were postponed even though the cases were at a primitive level but today when the cases are multiplying day by day, the order of conduction of exams is passed, the order is seems to be combating risks with the students life. The petitioners therefore pray to postpone the exams.

  • Sudha Bharadwaj bail application rejected by Bombay High Court.

On Friday, a division bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and Justice VG Bisht of Bombay High Court rejected bail application filed by activist lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj on grounds of being allegedly affected by Covid 19 by her co prisoners in Yerwada Jail.

Advocate Sudha Bharadwaj, was involved in the Bhima Koregaon case and since 2018 she is sentenced to prison, the court in her case rejected bail application filed by her stating that her medical expenses would be borne by the state and that she would not be granted bail in these alleged condition of spread of coronavirus. The court therefore, rejected her bail application.

  • Judgement of the Prashant Bhushan’s case regarding the contempt over two tweets will be delivered on 31st August by the Supreme court of India:

Prashant Bhusan, Activists lawyer of the supreme court of India tweets against the chief justice of India, Sharad Arvind Bobde and against the supreme court of India and he also refused to offer the apology to the supreme court of India regarding his two tweets.

Prasant Bhushan is convicted of contempt over two of his tweets against the CJI and the SC by the three jugde bench which was led by the Justice Arun Mishra.

On 25th of August (Tuesday) Justice Arun Mishra gave a judgement and asked that what is wrong by the use of the word “apology” in this case and what is the wrong in seeking the apology.

Due to the refusal to apologise, Prasant Bhushan case will be taken by the three judges bench which consists of-

•Justice Arun Mishra

•Justice Krishna Murari

•Justice B.R. Gavai

The judgement will be delivered by Justice Arun Mishra.

The supreme court of India has declared to deliver the judgement of the case on this Monday, 31 August, 2020 against the contempt case of the Activist Lawyer,Prashant Bhusan.

Earlier it was decided that the punishment of the contempt of this case will be decided on 20th August by the Supreme Court of India. But time was given to him to make the apologize, which he refused to make. K K Venugopal has requested the bench to give warning to prasant Bhushan rather than giving the punishment.

  • Launching of an e- committee website by Justice DY Chandrachud:

On 20th August,2020, The Seven judge committe consisting of Justice NV Ramana, Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice UU Lalit, Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Nageshwara Rao asked the official of the court for the physical hearing and proceedings.

They had asked for the preparation of the three courtrooms to be ready within this coming week.

They also communicated that the matters should be listed in the courts 10 days after the courtroom will get ready for the operation of the hearing.

Again it is also stated that all the matters from the Monday to Friday including all the simple or complicated would be continued though the virtual process via video conferencing.

So 12.69 lakhs cases during the lockdown situation through the video- conference.

On 29th August, Justice DY Chandrachud launched a new website where over 50 thousand lawyers will be able to access the service of the Supreme court of India during the lockdown.

  • The high court of Orissa emphasises upon the need to file a chargesheet within the stipulated time of 180 Days.

The high court of Orissa while hearing the a bail plea dealing with a FIR filed in U/s 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the N.D.P.S., Act accusing the person of in possession of  ganja (270kg 200gms).

The case was directed to be heard before the court on 15th April 2019, which was followed with investigation that assigned 04.10.2019 as the date for the court to assign the receipt of chargesheet. On the aforementioned day the IO sought to further extend the time which has been stipulated to submit the chargesheet by 60 days by citing the reason that despite the substantial part of investigation been completed there still remain ambiguities pertaining to ownership of the seized vehicle.

This led to extension of the due day by 60 days following the lapse of 180 days (12.10.2019) which is the statutory requirement. However, the session judge heard the submissions without notifying the accused and consequently went ahead with granting the “ex- parte” an extension. Thereby the extension of 30 days was granted which would take effect from 13.10.2019.

After deliberating upon the matter the High Court bench stated that “The most poignant aspect of the case, however, is the non-issuance of notice to the accused at the stage of hearing the application for extension of time”.

The single bench led by Justice Panigrahi, question the decision of the lower court by passing a remark that “It is felt that the law on the subject needs to be crystallized for better appreciation by the courts below”.

He stated that, if the investigation is not completed in the statutory provisions (180 days) Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 section 167 (2) read along with the NDPS Act’s Section 36-A (4) empowers to extend it by a year however it is mandatory that all the important factors are adhered to, which did not happen in the present case.

Therefore the bench concluded that “In case there is violation of any of the above, an indefeasible right to bail will be accrued to the accused”.

Leave a Reply

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