Prolawctor Daily Legal Updates|14 August, 2020

Daily Legal Updates

  • Recovery of fee can wait but neither the death nor the treatment

The National consumer Disputes Redressal Comission on Thursday quoted that “hospital has every right to insist on fee payment, but there is also prime duty to care for emergency patients.” in Vashumati Devi vs. CMC Vellore case awarding the compensation to the deceased patients wife by hospital management.  In 2009, the deceased men aged 58 went to hospital to have a check-up as he is suffering from pain in left arm. He was then examined and admitted in hospital and informed that he need to go under a surgery. But due to the number of patients who need to go under surgery is under waiting he need to wait for few more weeks and meanwhile doctors started to give him HEPARIN without his consent. As the situation of the patient became due to overuse of the medicine he had a stroke and he need immediate brain scan. As there is a due in payment management asked the family to clear it first. It’s high time in treatment and the deceased was dead. The patient’s wife then filed a case against the hospital management to seek justice for her. The hospital management held guilty as the patients demise is caused due to their negligence and compensated an amount of Rs.25 lakh with 8%interest per annum from the death of patient to till now.

  • SC refuses to pass interim order in Rajasthan against the BSP – Congress merger

The SC on Thursday refused to pass interim orders in a petition filed by BJP MLA Dilwara challenging the speaker’s order. Political crisis have been arised in Rajasthan as 6 BSP MLAs merged into congress in the month of September, 2019 after the acceptance of the speaker. Challenging the speaker’s order a case has been filed by the BJP  MLA and the BSP in HC of Rajasthan. The single judge bench issued notice of giving a reply on aug 11. But the all the 6 MLAs attended the meetings on behalf of the Congress party. Then the petitioners approached the SC to seek justice as it is unconstitutional. The matter was heard by bench of  three judges in SC. The bench observed that it is not appropriate to interfere at present stage and refused to pass interim orders against BSP leaders and adjourned the next hearing to August 17.

  • Challenge to 25% domicile reservation at NLSIU : Karnataka HC

In April, 2020 the Karnataka went ahead and enacted the National Law School of India Amendment act, 2020 reserving 25% of seats to kannadians. After ammending the act three petitions have been filed against the NLSIU act, 2020. Advocates of petitioners Raghavan argued that the decision involves future of children and they need quick response before the CLAT, 2020. Advocate generalNavadgi added that they are bound to clear all the allegations against the NLSIU act, 2020. The BCI further argued that passing an act without prior consultation is unconstitutional and illegal. The court adjourned the hearing to August 24.

  • Approach by Bar council of India (BCI) to provide technical help to the needy lawyers to virtual hearings:

Due to the pandemic situation, it is not possible to carry out the direct court proceedings. Hence the Bar Council of India has decided to approach to the Governmental authorities in order of to get assistance and regarding the needs and demands with respect to the conduct of virtual proceedings in Court.
By this approach the Bar council, has the intention to put forward the problems regarding lawyers’ inability to access and utilise virtual hearings, and the need for the resumption of limited physical hearings with adequate safety measures amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
BCI Chairman clearly remarked that BCI will be requesting the government to provide iPads or computers to facilitate the access of needy lawyers to virtual hearings and e-filing in the courts.
It is expected that it will be fruitful to the Indian judiciary system in such a global pandemic situation.

  • Proper guidelines to be issued by the central government for boycotting the uncertified sale of products relating to corona virus:                        

In today’s situation of the pandemic, various products claim to kill the virus and maintain proper sanitation with sterilisation.
Hence in the case of Green Dream Foundation v. Union of India, the central government of India is directed to consider a PIL in order to seek the proper guidelines for the products’ testing and checking which demands to kill the virus. It also claims to prohibit the products that are unlicensed and uncertified.
Therefore, the checking by the central government is necessarily required as such sale or consumption of dangerous products results ill-effects over the people.

  • Serious action should be taken against the forbidden content or porn in case the social media:

Two law students, the petitioners has filed a PIL against the social media accounts which spread unlawful, illegitimate, outlawed content relating to porn, rape or other sexual violence.
This matter clearly highlights the affects and bad influence over the common people, especially the youth of today’s generation.
Hence, the Supreme Court must take serious action to prevent or irradiate the concern matter.

  • Ministry of Home Affairs informs the apex court about the permission granted to conduct final year exams.

In the affidavit, the ministry has cited the reason that the decision to hold the final year exams amidst COVID 19 has been taken considering the academic concerns of “a large number of students”. Further refining the decision, the ministry states that while the educational institutions, such as schools and colleges, remain closed until 31st August, an exemption has been granted to the universities to hold final year exams. Such an exemption has been granted while invoking the Disaster Management Act 2005 which states under Section 10(2)(1) which “lays down guidelines for, or give directions to, the concerned Ministries or Departments of the Government of India, the State Governments and the State Authorities regarding measures to be taken by them in response to any threatening disaster situation or disaster.”

  • The High Court enquires whether VTU can explore sources to conduct “Special Chance Exams” Online

Due to suggestions submitted by VTU, the high court on Thursday refrained from authorizing the universities in Karnataka from conducting final year exams. VTU informed the court that they lacked both manpower and resources to hold exams online. The bench as an alternative, suggested VTU to look and explore for modes and infrastructure to conduct “special chance exams” for the students who could not turn up or take the final exams held online. The plea was filed after the UGC directed the universities to hold the examination for the students in the final year. The court asked the universities to file an affidavit, considering all the grievances filed or submitted by the students, by 25th September. The universities are directed to appoint a Grievance Redressal Officer to address the same.

  • The university grants commission questions the Maharashtra and Delhi government’s stance by asking them “How can new academic sessions start but no exams?”

In the reply filed, UGC asserts that “Needless to say, those alleged circumstances should then prevent even the commencement of the next academic session. That apart, the State Govt. avers that the next academic session must begin in the interest of students, while, at the same time, contending that the final examinations should be cancelled and degrees can be awarded without such examinations even though such a step would irreparably damage the future of students. Such contentions by the State Govt. are clearly therefore meritless”. The regulatory body concludes by stating that there is an ample amount of time and extensive guidelines available to help universities adhere to the protocols laid down to safely conduct the final exams by the end of September this year. Additionally, the reply also highlights the protocols laid down to conduct a “special chance” examination for the students who due to certain reasons could not take the examination.

  • Urgency of Insurance – Delhi HC instructs Delhi Government to issue insurance policies for the Chief Minister’s Advocates Welfare Scheme as soon as possible.

On Thursday, a single judge bench led by Justice Pratibha Singh, of Delhi HC has appointed a committee which is a Technical Evaluation Committee, to look into the matter of issuance of insurance to the Advocates of Delhi which come under the CM’s Advocate Welfare Scheme.

The HC has directed the Delhi govt. to deal with the matter as soon as possible considering the on-going pandemic. It was stated that few insurance companies would be allowed to bid for the group mediclaim policy for all the lawyers registered with the Bar Council of Delhi up till the age of 74 years, also Life Insurance Corporation of India would give its opinion and help to conclude the terms of policies.

On this the Delhi government informed the Court that 3 companies viz. The New India Assurance, Oriental Insurance and National Insurance came forward with the tender but the bid so provided by them was not up to the qualifications of the notice which was issued by this Hon’ble Court.

To this the Court directs the Technical Evaluation Committee to take proper actions and conduct proper negotiations and approve the tender so proposed by the companies from which the committee can choose any one company or divide the group mediclaim policy amongst two or more companies. And to place it before the Cabinet and once approved by the Cabinet, the report must be produced before HC. Thus the Court directs the government to deal with the matter expeditiously.

  • Kerela High Court opposes Police officials’ actions of revealing investigation details to media.

A division bench of Justice A . Hariprasad and Justice N. Anil Kumar of Kerela HC has strongly questioned the actions of police personnel of revealing investigation details to media. In murder case of a diamond merchant Harihara Varma in 2012, the appeal filled by the accused was heard by this Hon’ble court wherein the accused claimed to be prejudiced by the police officials in a press conference held by the police officials, though the court held that the accused were not prejudiced but also expected the police to not rush to media and share details of an on-going investigation.
The Court in its Judgement stated that, “We have serious reservations about police officers conducting press meetings in respect of criminal investigations, which they and the media consider to be sensational. In our view, on many occasions holding press meetings would spoil the quality of evidence collected during the investigation. It is our considered opinion, no police officer conducting investigation into a crime shall be authorised to divulge the facts ascertained during investigation through the media. They should remember that a criminal case has to be finally decided in a court of law. Police officers should refrain from airing their personal views in respect of a case under investigation. They are not expected to reveal before the media the facts ascertained in the course of investigation by questioning material witnesses or confession made by the accused. It is common knowledge that recently the practice of police officers rushing to the media with speculative information about ongoing investigations is on the increase”.

  • Contempt proceedings stayed by Supreme Court- EIA draft 2020 failed to be published in Regional Languages.

Supreme Court three- judge bench of Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde, Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice V. Ramasubramanian, on Thursday stayed contempt proceedings filed against the Centre for failing to publish the draft of Environment Impact Assessment 2020 in all the 22 regional languages.
A plea was filed before Delhi HC by an environmental activist Vikrant Tongad for contempt proceedings against the centre on grounds of willful disobedience of the order passed by the Hon’ble court which ordered the centre to publish the EIA draft of 2020 in all 22 regional languages which it had earlier published only in English and Hindi. This order was passed on 30th June and the centre was given 10 days time to publish in all regional languages which it failed and so the contempt proceedings were initiated against centre.
The centre filed Special Leave petition against the order of Delhi HC which was then withdrawn and the supreme court asked the centre to file a review petition before delhi HC  and stayed the contempt proceedings. Supreme Court in its order stated, “Needless to state that in case the petitioner fails before the High Court, it is permitted to approach this Court once again challenging the main order as well as the order passed in the review petition.”


Leave a Reply

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