Prolawctor Daily Legal Update | 6 August, 2020

Daily Legal Update

  1. CLAT Postponed Again: New Date yet to be announced.
    The law entrance examination Common Law Admission Test (CLAT 2020), has been further been declared to be further postponed, yet again. This examination has already been postponed once due to the global pandemic. The postponed date following the first postponement of CLAT 2020 was August 22nd. The mode of examination decided was online.

  2. Gujrat Government receives Notice from the Supreme Court
    Following the National lockdown which was announced by Prime Minister Modi on 24th March, in the second half of April the State Government of Gujrat issued a notification which exempted the factories in the State of Gujrat from certain provision under the Factories Act. The exempted provisions majorly dealt with payment of overtime wages, intervals for labour and working hours. The Supreme Court, has now send a notice to the State regarding the argument raised. The plea has been filed in the Apex Court.

  3. As the Supreme Court reserves the order in the contempt case of Prashant Bhushan. Dave argues that that nobody can assert infallibility, even judges.
    Today the Supreme Court reserved its order in the suo motu contempt case instituted against Advocate Prashant Bhushan for allegedly causing disrepute through two of his tweets to the institution. Before reserving its decision, the Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai, and Krishna Murari have heard the matter at length.

  4. Judge Constitution Bench to decide   EWS Reservation”.
    The Supreme Court passed an order by a three judge bench of Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde, Justice Subhash Reddy and Justice B.R. Gavai to refer the writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of 103rd Amendment Act, 2019 of EWS (Economically Weaker Sections) Reservation to a five judge constitution bench, on Wednesday.

  5. Madras High Court questions the government of Tamil Nadu about their opposition to the parole application for the convicts under the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
    A bench constituting of Justices N. Kirubakaran and V.M. Velumani, asserted that despite being suggested a “release in toto” by the cabinet members, the application for parole stands opposed. Questioning the intentions behind such opposition the bench warns the public prosecutor by stating “do not oppose for the sake of opposing,”. The court further instructs the petitioner and government to file an affidavit on the current status of the “Multi-Disciplinary Monitoring Agency” which is currently investigating the collusion that motivated the act of Rajiv Gandhi assassination.

  6. The students who have been gravely injured in the Jamia violence pleads the High Court of Delhi to command payment of damages as compensation.
    The students who have been allegedly blinded and brutally beaten up by the police on the campus of Jamia Milia Islamia while protesting against Citizenship Amendment Act 2019, approached the court urging to get exemplary compensation for the injuries incurred. The testimony given by the students stated that “Police were dragging students out of the toilets in order to beat them”.

  7. Seeking a plea to quash summoning order in zee media defamation case by a Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra in High court of Delhi.
    A defamation case has been filed by zee media against Mahua Moitra calling the prominent news channel chor and paid news. The case is being heard by single judge bench of Justice Vibhu Bhakru. The court on Dec 17, 2019 granted her a bail with personal bond of rs.20000 after she appeared to summons issued against her. Prior to that, Moitra had filed a defamation case against the editor of zee news sudhir Chaudhary in connection with a show from one of her parliamentary speeches. She asked a plea of discharging the summoning orders.

  8. Supreme Court held : No Dispensation With The Requirement To Establish A Prima Facie Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt in the  Stringent Provisions Of NDPS Act.
    In the case of Gangadhar  alias Gangaram vs. State of  Madhya Pradesh, The supreme court held that- “The stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, such as Section 37, the minimum sentence of 10 years, absence of any provision for remission do not dispense with the requirements of prosecution to establish a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt after investigation, only where after which the burden of proof shall shift to the accused.”

  9. Teacher suspended for posting comment in Facebook against the education minister:
    A teacher named Jigneshkumar Gangarambhai Patel, of a primary school posted a criticising comment in Facebook against the ministry of education. Although, he apologised for it, Gujarat high court ordered for his suspension.

For more……

Leave a Reply

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