Burden of proving debt of benami companies of the notified person lies on the Custodian

Issues: There were questionable transactions between the appellants and respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, the alleged benami companies of respondent No. 2 (notified party)?

Whether the Special Court committed manifest error in facts as well as in law in holding that the appellants herein were the garnishees of respondent No. 2?

Whether the conclusions and findings passed by the Special Court, that the appellant herein failed to prove the fact that amounts had been repaid to the benami companies of the notified person respondent No.2, can be sustained?

In twin appeals under Section 10 of Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (‘1992 Act’) challenging judgments passed by the Special Court on 11-03-2011, the Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. clarified that the burden of proving debt of benami companies of the notified person lies on the Custodian as per Section 101 of the Evidence Act.

Suman L. Shah v. The Custodian & Ors.

(Civil Appeal No(s). 4577 of 2011)

05 March 2024

[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Suman L. Shah v. The Custodian & Ors. is a case involving questionable transactions between appellants and alleged benami companies of respondent No. 2. The Special Court was directed to pay the respective amounts due to the benami companies, but the appellants failed to prove that the amounts had been repaid. The claim was based on a communication from the Income Tax Department, which was not examined in evidence before the Special Court.

The appellants claimed they had borrowed the amounts from respondent Nos. 6, 7, and 8, but the books of accounts were not available due to lapse of time. It was neither a requirement in law nor could it be expected from them to retain the books of accounts after more than a decade of the alleged suspicious transactions.

The conclusions drawn and findings recorded in the impugned judgments passed by the Special Court that the appellants failed to prove the fact that the amounts had been repaid to the benami companies of the notified person-respondent No.2 do not stand to scrutiny and cannot be sustained as being contrary to facts and law. The case is based on the Special Court's judgment and order dated 11.03.2011, which was constituted under the provisions of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transaction in Securities), Act, 1992.

The Supreme Court has decided on appeals under Section 10 of the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. The Act was established to address large-scale irregularities committed by share brokers in collusion with employees of Banks and Financial Institutions (FIs) in relation to transactions in Government/other securities, leading to the diversion of funds from banks/FIs to individual accounts of certain brokers. The Act provided a mechanism to ensure speedy recovery of illegally diverted funds, punish the guilty, restore public confidence in security transactions, and uphold the integrity and credibility of banks and FIs. The period of transactions in securities under the purview was from 1st April, 1991 to 6th June, 1992. A Special Court headed by a sitting Judge of the High Court was established for speedy trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and disposal of properties attached. The Act also provided for appointment of custodians to attach the property of offenders to prevent diversion.

The case revolves around the benami companies owned by respondent No. 2-Pallav Sheth, who illegally parked tainted money from FFSL. The Custodian notified Sheth of the case and declared him insolvent in 2003. The Custodian sought information from the Income Tax Department about Sheth's assets, which revealed that he was the benami owner of the companies. The Special Court, in a miscellaneous application, observed that the companies were owned by Sheth. The Custodian filed several applications for recovery of the money, with the court directing the appellants to deposit the money with the Custodian within two months. The amounts were then paid to the Custodian, and the appellants would be discharged of their liabilities.

Suman L. Shah and Laxmichand Shah instituted Civil Appeal Nos. 4577 and 4583 of 2011, which were dismissed due to non-compliance with the order dated 13th May, 2011. The IAs seeking restoration of these appeals were accepted, subject to a deposit of Rs. 2.20 crores with the Officer on Special Duty, Special Court. The appeals were taken on board.

The appellants argued that the Special Court erred in holding them as garnishees of respondent No. 2-Pallav Sheth, citing questionable transactions between them and respondents Nos. 6, 7, and 8, the alleged benami companies of respondent No. 2-Pallav Sheth and judgment debtor of FFSL. They argued that the appellants had taken loans from these respondents in 1996-1997, long before respondent No. 2-Pallav Sheth was notified under Section 3(2) of the Act of 1992.

The appellants also argued that the specific assertion made by the appellants in their deposition affidavits that the amounts borrowed were partly by cheque and partly by material supplied to these respondents could not be unsettled by the Custodian in cross-examination. They also argued that the appellants were not cross-examined either by respondent No. 2-Pallav Sheth or on behalf of the benami companies, making it impossible to say with certainty that the amounts borrowed remained unpaid.

The appellants argued that since they were never notified under the Act of 1992, the burden of proof could not have been shifted upon them to disprove the case set up by the Custodian in the applications for recovery. They cited observations made by the Special Court in the impugned order, which stated that respondent No.8 was liable to pay Rs.25 lakh to respondent No.5 and Rs.25 lakh to respondent No.6.

The appellants argued that the impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny as the onus of proof has been shifted on the appellants without any justification and contrary to the principles enshrined in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The counsel for the respondents argued that the appellants' affidavits that the amount borrowed from respondent Nos. 6, 7, and 8 was returned by way of adjustment towards material supplied were discarded by the Special Court due to lack of tangible proof. They argued that the appellants were reputed businessmen and that accounts of business were not maintained to substantiate the plea of repayment. The court ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the miscellaneous applications filed by the respondent-Custodian in 2008 sought to recover Rs.50 lakhs from appellant Suman L. Shah towards the dues of respondent Nos. The respondent-Custodian's assertion that the appellants were garnishees of respondent No. 2-Pallav Sheth through respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 is based on a communication dated 5th May, 1998 purportedly issued by the Income Tax Department. The court found no reference to the outstanding dues of respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 or that the appellants were its debtors. The court also found no witness from the Income Tax Department examined in evidence before the Special Court in miscellaneous applications for recovery.

The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Amendment Act, 1994 (24 of 1994) grants the Special Court jurisdiction, powers, and authority over matters related to property attached under sub-section (3) of section 3 and transactions in securities entered into after April 1, 1991, and June 6, 1992. Any suit, claim, or legal proceeding pending before the commencement of the Special Court shall stand transferred on its commencement, and the Special Court may proceed to deal with it in the same manner as a suit, claim, or legal proceeding.

The Special Court is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but must be guided by natural justice principles. It has the same powers as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit, including summoning and enforcing attendance, requiring document discovery and production, receiving evidence on affidavits, requisitioning public records, issuing commissions for witness examination, reviewing decisions, dismissing cases for default, setting aside orders of dismissal, and any other matter prescribed by the Central Government.

The appellants argued that dues towards respondent Nos. 6, 7, and 8, generated from borrowings made in 1996-1997, stood repaid and closed because the amounts had been repaid by cheques and adjustments towards materials supplied. However, no witness from the Income Tax Department was examined in support of the recovery application, and the appellants' depositions that they had returned borrowed amounts were not supported by proper evidence.

The impugned judgments are quashed and set aside, and appeals are allowed. The amounts deposited by the appellants in furtherance of the order dated March 14, 2014, will be reimbursed to them immediately. Pending applications will be disposed of.

-----------------

After Supreme Court rap, Ramdev files unconditional apology

Facing the daunting prospect of contempt charges, yoga guru and entrepreneur Ramdev has filed a fresh affidavit in the Supreme Court furnishing an “unconditional and unqualified apology” for disobeying court orders that prohibited Patanjali Ayurved from running misleading advertisements on health cures. Ramdev has also promised he will not make any public statement that may undermine the court’s authority or question the efficacy of modern medicine.

Patanjali managing director Acharya Balkrishna, too, submitted a new affidavit tendering “unconditional apology,” with a promise that no statements or advertisements making controversial remarks about other forms of medicine or unscientific claims about Patanjali products will be made in the future.

“I hereby tender my unconditional apology in regard to the issue of advertisements... I sincerely regret this lapse and I wish to assure the hon’ble court that the same will not be repeated. I hereby tender an unconditional and unqualified apology for the breach of the statement recorded in para 3 of the order of this hon’ble court dated 21.11.2023,” stated the affidavits filed separately by Ramdev and Balkrishna on April 6.

“I further undertake and ensure that the said statement shall be complied with in letter and spirit and no such similar advertisements shall be used... I seek pardon for the aforesaid breach of the statement. I undertake to always uphold the majesty of law and majesty of justice,” they added.

The affidavits will be considered by the top court on Wednesday. The new affidavits have come days after Ramdev found himself embroiled in a legal tussle with the Supreme Court, facing the looming threat of contempt charges that the yoga guru seeks to wriggle out of with his new apology affidavit.

On April 2, a bench of justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah rejected Ramdev’s oral apology, calling it a mere “lip service” and commenting the apology affidavits sought to be placed before it by the yoga guru and Balkrishna had to be taken with a “sack full of salt”.

While the two remained physically present before the bench, the court took serious notice of their “absolute defiance” in not adhering to the commitment given before it in the petition filed by the Indian Medical Association, and gave them a final chance to produce fresh affidavits within a week.

“You have to abide by the undertaking given to court...but you have broken every barrier. Consequences will now flow. For you to go like a shot and hold a press conference in the teeth of the undertaking shows you are complicit, and you flouted our orders...You are bound by law like any other common man,” it told Ramdev on April 2.

In a series of hearings on the medical association’s petition complaining against Ramdev’s contentious comments about modern medicine, also popularly known as allopathy in India, and allegedly misleading advertisements about Patanjali products, the Supreme Court expressed grave concern and emphasised the need for responsible discourse, especially during a pandemic like Covid-19.

The court admonished Patanjali for spreading misinformation that could undermine public trust in the health care system and had recorded an undertaking by the company in November 2023 that it would stop running any misleading advertisements and issuing disparaging statements against modern or any other form of medicine.

However, the medical association came back to the bench with a video clip of a press conference held by Ramdev and Patanjali advertisements in national media merely a day after their undertaking in the court on November 21. Additionally, the association produced a series of advertisements branding Patanjali products as cure for several ailments, including hypertension and diabetes.

Irked by the contravention of its order and its own assurance, the court by its subsequent orders of February 27 and March 19 called Ramdev and Balkrishna in person, asking them to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court.

On April 2, the bench pulled up Ramdev for his comments against doctors and modern medicine. “The disparaging comment by the contemnors is most unfortunate,” the bench said. “They are mocking at people (doctors) to whom people look up to.”

Expecting responsible behaviour Ramdev, the court added: “We are taking this seriously as people of your stature command respect in society. You have done a good job for yoga. There is onerous responsibility expected from you than from the common public.”

On that day, the court also hinted that Ramdev will have to further explain for an incorrect fact in his March 30 application for exemption from personal appearance. The plea said that a copy of his overseas trip ticket was annexed, but the court noted that this was not possible because the ticket was issued on March 31.

In his latest affidavit, Ramdev said he had asked his travel agent to issue him the overseas trip ticket on March 30 itself and endorsed the application for exemption from personal appearance on that day itself. However, the ticket was issued only on March 31, and thus, the date of signing the application and the issuance of ticket were different.

“I tender and unconditional and unqualified apology for the aforesaid lapse and assure this hon’ble court to be more vigilant in future,” Ramdev’s affidavit stated.

On April 2, the Centre and the Uttarakhand state licencing authority were also questioned by the court for allegedly turning a blind eye to Patanjali’s violations. The court remarked that they were “complicit” and provided a “long rope” to the company by failing to file criminal charges against it for misrepresenting Coronil as a cure for Covid-19, which it isn’t, and for subsequent advertisements that were released in violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.

The authorities are likely to be questioned on Wednesday when the bench takes up the matter.

(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 10 April 2024)

'Must march with time': SC to govt on permanent stint for women in Coast Guard

 After granting permanent commission to women short service commission officers in Army, Navy and Air Force, Supreme Court on Monday decided to examine similar career opportunity to women short service agreement (SSA) officers in Indian Coast Guard while ordering interim reinstatement of a woman officer who was discharged in Dec 2023 after a 14-year stint.

A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra also ordered transfer of the petition by the woman SSA officer Priyanka Tyagi from Delhi high court, which had declined to grant interim relief to her while agreeing to examine the larger issue of PC for women in ICG, to Supreme Court saying it presented a national issue of gender equality.

In a virtual one-sided hearing of Tyagi's lawyer, senior advocate Archana Pathak Dave, the bench said when different branches of armed forces have granted PC to women short service commission officer, ICG cannot remain an outlier. "The petition needs to be heard given the broader constitutional mandate of Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth)," it said.

When attorney general R Venkataramani and additional solicitor general Vikramjit Banerjee attempted to convey the factual aspects of the denial of permanent commission to Tyagi, the bench said, "Look at the resistance you have for absorbing women in permanent commission in ICG, which must march with time."

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 9 April 2024)

Voters' Right To Know About Candidates' Assets Not Absolute: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today observed that voters do not have an "absolute right" to know about each and every asset of the candidates fighting elections.

"It is not an absolute right for any voter to delve deep into the private life of a candidate and each and every disclosure has to be of such nature which will impact the voting," the bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar said.

The top court said that the candidates have the right to privacy regarding matters which are irrelevant to the candidature for public office.

"It is not necessary that a candidate declare every item of moveable property that he or his dependent family members owns such as clothing, shoes, crockery, stationery, furniture etc., unless the same is of such value as to constitute a sizeable asset in itself or reflect upon his candidature in terms of his lifestyle and require to be disclosed", the top court observed.

The Supreme Court direction came as it upheld the election of Independent MLA Karikho Kri from Tezu in the 2019 Arunachal Pradesh Assembly election, setting aside the Gauhati High Court order that had declared his election as null and void.

The High Court had declared his election null and void while hearing a petition filed by Congress candidate Nuney Tayang, challenging the declaration of the 2019 Assembly election result.

Mr Tayang had alleged that Mr Kri made false declarations in his election nomination paper by not disclosing that he was in occupation of a government accommodation.

The petitioner also claimed that Mr Kri did not submit "No Dues Certificates" from the concerned department for the rent, electricity charges, water charges and telephone charges of the government accommodation.

(Courtesy:- ndtv.com, 9 April 2024)

Chandigarh mayoral poll returning officer tenders apology to Supreme Court

Facing the prospect of being prosecuted for unlawfully invalidating eight AAP votes to rig the elections in favour of BJP candidate in Chandigarh mayor election, the polling officer Anil Masih on Friday tendered "unconditional apology" to the Supreme Court and "surrendered to the court's magnanimity" while requesting for reprieve.

For Masih, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said the person has tendered unconditional apology and is surrendering to the court's magnanimity to seek reprieve from prosecution. But, this was
stoutly opposed by AAP's senior advocate A M Singhvi, who said it is easy to apologise after defiantly breaching the SC order and even justifying the action polluting free and fair elections.

The bench appeared to be in a mood to forgive, but with Singhvi insisting, it simply adjourned the hearing to next week. The SC on February 20 had declared AAP's Kuldeep Kumar elected as mayor of Chandigarh and struck down the election of BJP's Manoj Sonkar. For the unlawful invalidation of eight AAP votes, the SC has initiated prosecution proceedings against Masih. Masih also said he would withdraw the earlier affidavit which stated that he was reeling under depression and anxiety, and wherein he denied allegations of tampering with ballots.

The apex court had earlier issued a notice to Masih to show cause as to why proceedings should not be initiated against him under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for allegedly making false statement before the court.

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 6 April 2024)

SC rejects plea seeking reburial of Pak sufi saint buried in Bangladesh

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea seeking its intervention to transport the mortal remains of a Sufi saint — a Pakistani citizen who died in Bangladesh — for reburial to India where he was born.

A three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said there was no constitutionally enforceable right to demand that the remains of a foreign citizen be brought to a country of which he or she is not a citizen, for the purpose of reburial.

“There are difficulties which lie in the path of entertaining a petition under Article 32 of this nature. He was admittedly a Pakistani citizen. There is no enforceable constitutional right which the petitioners can claim for the transport of the mortal remains from Dhaka, where he is buried, to India. Apart from the practical difficulties and issues such as exhumation, we are of the view that as a matter of first principle, it would not be either appropriate or lawful for this court to direct that the body of a person who admittedly was a citizen of a foreign state be brought for… ceremonies to India,” the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said in its order..

The counsel appearing for the petitioners told the bench that Hazrat Shah Muhammad Abdul Muqtadir Shah Masood Ahmad was born in Prayagraj, but migrated to Pakistan in 1992 and was conferred with Pakistani citizenship. He was elected Sajjada Nasheen of the Dargah Hazrat Mulla Syed Mohammad Shah in Prayagraj in February 2008. He executed a will on March 8, 2021 expressing A desire to be buried at the shrine. He died on January 21, 2022 during a visit to Dhaka and was buried there. The counsel added that the grave of the saint in Dhaka is not tended to.

She contended that if the Pakistan government is not raising any objection and if the government of Bangladesh allows the exhumation, the question is whether the Central government would permit the transportation of the body to India for the purpose of reburial.

The counsel said she had been writing to the government of India for two years but had not received any response and urged the SC to direct the authorities to furnish a reply to the representation.

“But there is no substance in it. How can anybody who is not a citizen of India either his family or followers of the group say that we want him to be buried here? That person is a foreign citizen,” the CJI reiterated adding the court would have still understood it if the deceased was an NRI.

(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 6 April 2024)

Police tutoring witnesses shocking, says Supreme Court, asks Tamil Nadu DGP to take action against erring cops

Terming “teaching” of witnesses in a criminal case inside a police station as “shocking”, the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Tamil Nadu police chief to conduct an enquiry and initiate action against the erring officials.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, which set aside the order of conviction and life sentence to two accused in a murder case, said it is surprising that both the trial court and the high court overlooked the critical aspect of tutoring of the witnesses in the case.

“One can reasonably imagine the effect of ‘teaching’ the witnesses inside a police station. This is a blatant act by the police to tutor the material prosecution witnesses. All of them were interested witnesses.

“Their evidence will have to be discarded as there is a distinct possibility that the said witnesses were tutored by the police on the earlier day. This kind of interference by the police with the judicial process, to say the least, is shocking,” the bench said in an order.

It added police cannot be allowed to tutor prosecution witnesses as it amounts to gross misuse of power by the police machinery.

“The Director General of Police of the state of Tamil Nadu shall cause an enquiry to be made into the conduct of the police officials of tutoring PW-1 to PW-5 (prosecution witnesses) at the concerned police station. Needless to add, appropriate action shall be initiated against the erring officials in accordance with the law,” the bench ordered.

It added the conduct of police officials became more serious as other eyewitnesses in the case, though available, were withheld.

“We are surprised that both the courts overlooked this critical aspect. It is pertinent to note that the defence of the accused, as can be seen from the line of cross-examination, was that they were not present at the place of the incident at the time of the incident,” it noted.

The bench said a prosecution witness has admitted that one of the two accused was working in another village called Tirrupur, and although independent witnesses in the case were available, they were not examined by the prosecution.

“Therefore, adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution. Hence, there is a serious doubt created about the genuineness of the prosecution case. The benefit of this substantial doubt must be given to the appellants,” it said.

The bench noted that before the appellants were enlarged on bail by the top court, they had undergone incarceration for more than 10 years.

The two accused, Manikandan and Sivakumar, were alleged to have killed a person named Balamurugan on October 4, 2007.

Balamurugan was killed after a scuffle which arose over the delivery of idlis at his home by Manikandan.

(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 5 April 2024)

Supreme Court stays order cancelling MBBS admission of panipuri seller’s son

In an interim relief, the Supreme Court Friday temporarily stayed an order that cancelled the admission of a panipuri seller’s son at a medical college following a dispute over his caste certificate. With the stay, the MBBS student can be readmitted to the course and can continue with his studies for the time being.

A division bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra granted interim relief to MBBS student Alpeshkumar Rathod and issued notice to the state and college authorities.

On March 26, a division bench of the Gujarat High Court had cast aspersions on the validity of the student’s Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC) category certificate and had upheld the cancellation of admission by the Admission Committee for Professional Medical Educational Courses and the Government Medical College at Vadodara. The HC had then observed that an exception cannot be made out for a student and rule of law has to prevail.

Rathod, an Uttar Pradesh native but now with domicile status of Gujarat, was granted provisional admission subject to verification of documents. Claiming to be from ‘Teli’ sub-caste, which is classified as an SEBC category in Gujarat, the student had submitted a caste certificate dated August 20, 2018. However, following a scrutiny, the admission committee had cancelled the caste certificate terming it to be “incorrect” as he did not belong to the Teli caste of SEBC community in Gujarat, but rather to Teli — an OBC category in Uttar Pradesh. The cancellation was not challenged by Rathod.

With the caste certificate cancelled, his admission, too, was discontinued by the Government Medical College at Vadodara, affiliated to MSU, in September 2023.

The student then moved the High Court seeking his admission be reinstated by shifting his category from SEBC to general category as he had secured a good rank in the open category of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Undergraduate) and hence, was eligible to be admitted to a medical college.

A single judge order of the High Court had permitted the same by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, on grounds of equity. The single judge’s order was then challenged by the admission committee of the college before a division bench of the HC. The High Court overturned the single judge’s order and upheld the cancellation.

(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 5 April 2024)

Supreme Court grants bail to activist Shoma Kanti Sen in Elgar Parishad case

 Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to Nagpur University's former professor Shoma Sen in Elgar-Parishad case. A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih ordered her release on bail, subject to conditions deemed appropriate by the special court.

The top court allowed bail on certain conditions including she shall not leave state of Maharashtra without permission of the special court, surrender her passport, inform NIA about her residence, inform NIA officer about her mobile number and maintain that number remains active and charged.

The court mandated that the GPS on her mobile must remain active and her phone must be paired with that of the NIA officer to ascertain her location. "During this period, that is the period during which she remains on bail, the appellant shall keep the location status, that is GPS of her mobile phone, active 24 hours a day and her phone shall be paired with that of the investigating officer of the NIA to enable him at any given time to identify the appellant's exact location," the bench said.

Sen, a professor of English literature and a prominent advocate for women's rights, was detained in connection with a case concerning alleged inflammatory speeches delivered during the Elgar Parishad gathering at Shaniwarwada in Pune on December 31, 2017.

The police asserted that these speeches incited violence near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial on the outskirts of the city the following day. The investigation into the matter, which has named over a dozen activists and scholars as suspects, was later transferred to the National Investigation Agency.

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 5 April 2024)

Supreme Court stays Allahabad high court's decision to scrap UP Madrassa law

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed Allahabad high court's order striking down UP Board of Madrassa Education Act. The top court said the high court's judgement would affect the 17
lakh students, and it is of the view that the direction of relocation of students to other schools was not warranted.

The three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud issued notices to the Centre, Uttar Pradesh government and others on the pleas against the high court order. A bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud said though the state has a legitimate interest in ensuring quality education for students to enable them earn a degree for dignified pursuit of profession, adding that the high court was prima facie wrong in striking down a legislation which was only regulatory in nature.

"The object and purpose of Madrassa board is regulatory in nature and Allahabad high court is not prima facie correct that establishment of board will breach secularism. It (High Court judgement) conflates Madrassa education with the regulatory powers entrusted with the Board… The impugned judgment shall remain stayed," the top court said.

On March 22, the Allahabad high court had ruled that the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrassa Education Act, 2004, is "unconstitutional" and infringes upon the principle of secularism. The court directed the state government to integrate current students into the formal education system.

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 5 April 2024)

Supreme Court upholds Amravati MP Navneet Rana's caste certificate, sets aside Bombay HC verdict

 The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the caste certificate of BJP MP from Amravati, Navneet Rana, setting aside the previous verdict passed by the Bombay High Court.

The top court set aside the verdict of the Bombay High Court, which cancelled the caste certificate of Amravati MP and BJP leader Navneet Kaur Rana.

Allowing the plea of Rana, a bench comprising justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol said the high court should not have interfered with the report of the scrutiny committee on the issue of caste certificate of Rana.

Rana was accused of fabricating documents to obtain scheduled caste certificate to fight the 2019 Lok Sabha elections as an independent from reserved constituency of Amravati.

On June 8, 2021, the high court had said the 'mochi' caste certificate was obtained fraudulently using fabricated documents by Rana. It had also imposed a fine of ₹2 lakh on the Amravati MP, saying the records indicated that she belonged to the 'Sikh-Chamar' caste.

Previously, the Bombay High Court ruled that the terms ‘Chamar’ and ‘Sikh Chamar’ were not synonymous.

The High Court said in 2021, "In our view, the terms 'Chamar' and 'Sikh Chamar' are not synonymous. The terms 'Sikh Chamar' is also not synonymous with the term 'Mochi' prescribed under entry 11 to the Schedule II to the Constitution of India (Scheduled Caste), Order 1950."

Navneet Rana won from the reserved Amravati constituency in Maharashtra in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, and recently joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). She will be contesting from the Amravati seat once again, and expressed confidence for the upcoming polls before filing her nomination.

Rana told ANI, “I have been working for the people of my region for many years. This is a big day for me and my constituency. This is the first time that voters in Amravati are getting a chance to vote for the nation-building, development and benefit of the nation.”

“The people of my constituency are happier than me. They are happy that for the first time, the lotus symbol will appear on the ballot box. The people will directly support and vote for Prime Minister Narendra Modi,” she added.

(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 4 April 2024)

Delhi HC Declares Haldiram As Well Known Trademark

The Delhi High Court recently declared Haldirams as a well known trademark.

Bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh heard a suit which sought protection of its mark ‘Haldiram’, and a declaration that the said mark, along with its variations such as ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ is ‘well-known’ in terms of Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The instant suit also sought decree of permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants, from selling products under the impugned mark ‘HALDIRAM’/ ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIWALA’ or any other marks that are deceptively similar.

The plaintiff averred to not only have multiple registrations for ‘Haldiram's’ and its label in different classes within India, as detailed in part of their documents, but also boasts over 100 trade mark registrations internationally.

The Court held that the various registrations and a demonstrable long usage of the mark ‘Haldiram’, as also the goodwill vesting in the said mark, entitles the Plaintiff to a permanent injunction.

"Thus, the Defendants, and all others acting for and on their behalf are restrained from, in any manner, using the impugned marks ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ and/or ‘HALDIRAM’s’ or any other marks that are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s marks," the Court said.

The Court further stated that There is no doubt that the Haldiram's brand, with its origins deeply rooted in India's rich culinary tradition, has not only established a presence within the national market but has also extended its influence globally, transcending geographical, cultural, and national boundaries. 

"As evidenced by the documents placed on record, Plaintiff’s global footprint is indicative of the brand's robust spill-over reputation, where the authenticity of 'HALDIRAM'S' products resonate with a diverse audience, including in those regions where the brand does not have legal presence," the Court noted.

The Court granted decree of declaration declaring the mark 'HALDIRAM', as well as the Ovalshaped mark, as a ‘well-known’ mark in respect of food items as well as in respect of restaurants and eateries.

(Courtesy:- https://bwlegalworld.businessworld.in/, 3 April 2024)

Borrowing powers: No interim relief for Kerala govt in suit against Centre; SC refers case to Constitution bench

The Kerala Government on Monday failed to get any interim relief in its suit against the Centre over the limits on its borrowing powers, with a two-judge bench saying that it was prima facie “inclined to accept the Centre’s argument that where there is over utilisation of the borrowing limit in the previous year, to the extent of over borrowing, reductions are permissible in the subsequent year…”.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and K V Viswanathan said the suit raises several important questions that require consideration by a five-judge Constitution bench, and directed that it be placed before the Chief Justice of India for this.

The state government had approached the Supreme Court against the Centre imposing a ceiling on the amount it can borrow, saying this had “brought the operation of” its “budget…to a grave crisis” and was violative of the principles of fiscal federalism.

The bench noted that since Article 293 of the Constitution (which deals with borrowing by the states) “has not so far been subjected to any authoritative interpretation by this court”, therefore the questions raised in the suit “are referred for answering by a five judge bench”.

The court said that for the purpose of interim relief, it had considered the triple test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Declining interim relief, the bench also said that the balance of convenience at this stage lies in favour of the Union of India.

The court said it cannot be oblivious to the fact that in view of the contention of the plaintiff state regarding pending financial dues, the defendant Union has already made an offer to allow additional borrowing.

The bench said that even if it assumes that the financial hardship of the state is partly a result of the Centre’s regulations, during the course of hearing the interim application, the consent has been given by the Centre to some extent so as to bailout the state from the current crisis and the state has secured substantial relief during the pendency of the interim application.

After the state government approached the Supreme Court against the borrowing ceiling, the Centre in its response blamed Kerala’s financial woes on its “poor public financial management”. It told the apex court that it had been allotted substantial resources from central taxes and duties, the highest share of post-devolution Revenue Deficit Grant, financial support over and above the recommendations of the Finance Commission, and substantial transfer of resources under centrally sponsored schemes.

(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 2 April 2024)

AAP’s Sanjay Singh gets bail, ED tells Supreme Court it has no objection

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Sanjay Singh, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) last October in an alleged money laundering case linked to the now-scrapped Delhi liquor policy scam, was on Tuesday granted bail by the Supreme Court.

The court, however, said the "bail can't be treated as precedent" as it heard the Rajya Sabha MP's pleas seeking bail in the money laundering case, and also his arrest and subsequent ED remand.

The probe agency noted that it did not object to granting bail to the AAP leader during the pendency of proceedings arising out of an investigation report under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

His bail terms will be set by a trial court.

During the hearing today, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and PB Varalesaid that Sanjay Singh can also "continue with his political activities" during the bail period.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing on behalf of the ED, told the court that he has an "arguable case, but we can give a concession".

"Without going into merits, I will make a concession in the bail matter...," he added.

The bail order came hours after the court sought a reply from the probe agency after hearing arguments by senior lawyer, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared on behalf of Sanjay Singh. It noted that there were exculpatory statements by accused-turned-approver Dinesh Arora and no money had been recovered.

The bench observed that "nothing has been recovered, there is no trace" against Sanjay Singh in the money laundering case.

Sanjay Singh's bail order came a day after Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was also arrested by the ED on Monday in connection to the same money laundering case linked to the now-scrapped liquor policy, was sent to 14-day custody until April 15 and is currently being held in Tihar Jail.

Kejriwal has been allotted Jail No. 2 in Tihar, where Sanjay Singh was earlier lodged following his arrest on October 4, 2023 after Dinesh Arora, the ED's star witness, named the Delhi MP in his statement.

The other two AAP leaders currently in Tihar are former Delhi Ministers Manish Sisodia and Satyendar Jain.

In February, the Delhi High Court had refused to grant bail to Sanjay Singh, observing that there were no grounds for bail at that stage.

About a week later, the AAP leader moved the Supreme Court challenging the High Court order.

At the time of Sanjay Singh's arrest, the Enforcement Directorate claimed that he was a key conspirator in the Delhi liquor policy scam and received Rs 2 crore proceeds of crime. The probe agency also said that he was closely associated with a number of accused or suspects in this case, including Dinesh Arora.

(Courtesy:- India Today, 2 April 2024)

Supreme Court blasts yoga guru Ramdev over apology affidavit: 'Lip service'

The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on Baba Ramdev for violating its directives on misleading advertisements of Patanjali's medicinal products even as the yoga guru, who was present in court, tendered an unconditional apology.

Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved managing director Acharya Balkrishna were directed to appear in person in the Supreme Court in the contempt proceedings related to the misleading advertisements case.

"We are tendering an unconditional apology. He (Baba Ramdev) is here personally present to apologise," the advocate representing Patanjali told the court.

The court, however, called it "lip service" and said that Patanjali "owes an apology to the whole nation" for their false claims about the efficacy of its products like Coronil and denigrating allopathy during the Covid pandemic. "You have broken every barrier... Now you say that you are sorry," the court said.

The Supreme Court also pulled up the Centre. "Wondering why the Union chose to keep its eyes shut when Patanjali was going to town saying there was no remedies for Covid in allopathy," the court said.

The Supreme Court granted a "last opportunity" to Baba Ramdev and Balkrishna, asking them to file fresh affidavits within a week.

The court also warned Ramdev and Balkrishna of perjury charges while noting that the documents submitted with the affidavit by Patanjali were created later on. "This is a clear case of perjury. We are not closing the doors on you, but we are telling you all that we have noted," the court further said.

In the last hearing, the Supreme Court had pulled up Patanjali for failure in filing replies to the court's notices on why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for prima facie violating the undertaking given to the court.

The Supreme Court had expressed its anger over Patanjali continuing to publish "false and misleading" advertisements on medicinal cures despite an undertaking that it would halt doing so.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had also issued a notice to Ramdev to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.

The top court had also directed Patanjali to stop all advertisements of its products that it claimed to treat ailments and disorders specified in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.

"How can you be in teeth of our orders?... We had our hands tied earlier but not now (with initiation of contempt proceedings)," the court had told senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Patanjali Ayurved.

The top court made the remarks while hearing a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) seeking action against Baba Ramdev for criticising modern medicine.

After the Supreme Court rap, Patanjali Ayurved, in an affidavit, tendered an unconditional apology, stating that Patanjali's intention was only to exhort the citizens of this country to lead a healthier life by using its products.

In November 2023, the Supreme Court asked Patanjali Ayurved to stop misleading claims and advertisements against the modern system of medicine. Patanjali had assured the court that it would not make any statements or unsubstantiated claims.

(Courtesy:- India Today, 2 April 2024)

Types of Research

The basic types of research are as follows:

(i) Descriptive vs. Analytical:

Descriptive research includes surveys and fact-finding enquiries of different kinds. The major purpose of descriptive research is description of the state of affairs as it exists at present. In social science and business research we quite often use the term Ex post facto research for descriptive research studies. The main characteristic of this method is that the researcher has no control over the variables; he can only report what has happened or what is happening.

 Most ex post facto research projects are used for descriptive studies in which the researcher seeks to measure such items as, for example, frequency of shopping, preferences of people, or similar data. Ex post facto studies also include attempts by researchers to discover causes even when they cannot control the variables.

The methods of research utilized in descriptive research are survey methods of all kinds, including comparative and correlational methods. In analytical research, on the other hand, the researcher has to use facts or information already available, and analyze these to make a critical evaluation of the material.

(ii) Applied vs. Fundamental:

Research can either be applied (or action) research or fundamental (to basic or pure) research. Applied research aims at finding a solution for an immediate problem facing a society or an industrial/business organisation, whereas fundamental research is mainly concerned with generalisations and with the formulation of a theory. “Gathering knowledge for knowledge’s sake is termed ‘pure’ or ‘basic’ research.”Research concerning some natural phenomenon or relating to pure mathematics are examples of fundamental research.

Similarly, research studies, concerning human behaviour carried on with a view to make generalisations about human behaviour, are also examples of fundamental research, but research aimed at certain conclusions (say, a solution) facing a concrete social or business problem is an example of applied research. Research to identify social, economic or political trends that may affect a particular institution or the copy research (research to find out whether certain communications will be read and understood) or the marketing research or evaluation research are examples of applied research.

Thus, the central aim of applied research is to discover a solution for some pressing practical problem, whereas basic research is directed towards finding information that has a broad base of applications and thus, adds to the already existing organized body of scientific knowledge.

(iii) Quantitative vs. Qualitative:

Quantitative research is based on the measurement of quantity or amount. It is applicable to phenomena that can be expressed in terms of quantity. Qualitative research, on the other hand, is concerned with qualitative phenomenon, i.e., phenomena relating to or involving quality or kind. For instance, when we are interested in investigating the reasons for human behaviour (i.e., why people think or do certain things), we quite often talk of ‘Motivation Research’, an important type of qualitative research. This type of research aims at discovering the underlying motives and desires, using in depth interviews for the purpose.

Other techniques of such research are word association tests, sentence completion tests, story completion tests and similar other projective techniques. Attitude or opinion research i.e., research designed to find out how people feel or what they think about a particular subject or institution is also qualitative research.

Qualitative research is specially important in the behavioural sciences where the aim is to discover the underlying motives of human behaviour. Through such research we can analyse the various factors which motivate people to behave in a particular manner or which make people like or dislike a particular thing. It may be stated, however, that to apply qualitative research in practice is relatively a difficult job and therefore, while doing such research, one should seek guidance from experimental psychologists.

(iv) Conceptual vs. Empirical:

Conceptual research is that related to some abstract idea(s) or theory. It is generally used by philosophers and thinkers to develop new concepts or to reinterpret existing ones. On the other hand, empirical research relies on experience or observation alone, often without due regard for system and theory. It is data-based research, coming up with conclusions which are capable of being verified by observation or experiment.

We can also call it as experimental type of research. In such a research it is necessary to get at facts firsthand, at their source, and actively to go about doing certain things to stimulate the production of desired information. In such a research, the researcher must first provide himself with a working hypothesis or guess as to the probable results. He then works to get enough facts (data) to prove or disprove his hypothesis. He then sets up experimental designs which he thinks will manipulate the persons or the materials concerned so as to bring forth the desired information. Such research is thus characterised by the experimenter’s control over the variables under study and his deliberate manipulation of one of them to study its effects.

Empirical research is appropriate when proof is sought that certain variables affect other variables in some way. Evidence gathered through experiments or empirical studies is today considered to be the most powerful support possible for a given hypothesis.

(v) Some Other Types of Research:

All other types of research are variations of one or more of the above stated approaches, based on either the purpose of research, or the time required to accomplish research, on the environment in which research is done, or on the basis of some other similar factor. Form the point of view of time, we can think of research either as one-time research or longitudinal research. In the former case the research is confined to a single time-period, whereas in the latter case the research is carried on over several time-periods.

Research can be field-setting research or laboratory research or simulation research, depending upon the environment in which it is to be carried out. Research can as well be understood as clinical or diagnostic research. Such research follow case-study methods or indepth approaches to reach the basic causal relations. Such studies usually go deep into the causes of things or events that interest us, using very small samples and very deep probing data gathering devices. The research may be exploratory or it may be formalized.

The objective of exploratory research is the development of hypotheses rather than their testing, whereas formalized research studies are those with substantial structure and with specific hypotheses to be tested.

Historical research is that which utilizes historical sources like documents, remains, etc. to study events or ideas of the past, including the philosophy of persons and groups at any remote point of time.

Research can also be classified as conclusion-oriented and decision-oriented. While doing conclusion oriented research, a researcher is free to pick up a problem, redesign the enquiry as he proceeds and is prepared to conceptualize as he wishes. Decision-oriented research is always for the need of a decision maker and the researcher in this case is not free to embark upon research according to his own inclination. Operations research is an example of decision oriented research since it is a scientific method of providing executive departments with a quantitative basis for decisions regarding operations under their control.

Trade Mark Case: Wow! Momo gets relief in trademark case versus restaurant Wow Punjabi

The Delhi High Court has temporarily halted the multi-cuisine restaurant chain Wow Punjabi from using a mark closely resembling that of the fast food giant Wow! Momo, according to a report by Bar and Bench.

Justice Anish Dayal, presiding over the case, found merit in the arguments put forth by Wow! Momo, granting a prima facie injunction until the next hearing date.

“Balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff and plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted,” read the court order dated March 22.

The court session revolved around a petition filed by Wow! Momo, seeking a permanent injunction against Wow Punjabi, citing trademark infringement, passing off, unfair trade practices, and damages.

Wow! Momo emphasised its claim of originating and adopting the trademark ‘Wow’/’Wow! Momo’ as early as 2008, establishing itself as a prominent player in the food industry.

The plaintiff further highlighted its extensive presence, boasting over 600 outlets spread across more than 30 cities, with a brand valuation of approximately ₹1,225 crore in 2021. Notably, the company witnessed a growth rate exceeding 60% in 2022.

Additionally, Wow! Momo presented evidence of its registered trademarks utilising the ‘Wow’ mark, including its acquisition of the domain name ‘www.wowmomo.com’ back in 2013.

The court took cognisance of Wow Punjabi’s failure to respond to both a cease and desist notice and a subsequent legal notice issued by the petitioner.

Following a thorough examination of the trademarks in question, the court concurred that Wow! Momo had established a prima facie case warranting intervention.

Consequently, the court issued a notice to Wow Punjabi, restraining it from using, advertising, or engaging in any activities related to goods or services under its trademark until further orders.

Wow! Momo was represented by Ankur Sangal, Partner at Khaitan & Co, along with Ankit Arvind, Senior Associate, and Shashwat Rakshit, Associate.

(Courtesy:- https://www.cnbctv18.com/, 28 March 2024)

Delhi HC Grants Interim Injunction To Eveready Industries Against Use Of The Trademark “EveryDay”

Delhi High Court recently granted an interim injunction to Eveready Industries against the use of the trade mark “EveryDay” for kitchen appliances.

Eveready Industries filed a trade mark and copyright infringement suit before the Delhi High Court against an entity KSC Industries to restrain it from using the trade mark “EveryDay” for kitchen appliances including kitchen lighters.

Eveready Industries was founded in the year 1905 and is engaged in the business of batteries, flashlights, and various other lighting products under the trade mark “EVEREADY”.  Eveready argued that the adoption of the trade mark “EveryDay” by the Defendants is completely with the mala fide intent to deceive the consumer and pass off its goods as of Eveready. Eveready also argued that the trade dress adopted by the Defendant is also completely similar to Eveready’s trade dress.  

The Hon’ble Court after hearing the submissions on the matter restrained the Defendant from using the trade mark “EveryDay” and its trade dress or any other identical to or deceptively mark.

Eveready was represented by Mr Ankur Sangal, Partner, Khaitan & Co with the assistance of Ms Sucheta Roy, Principal Associate and Ms Nidhi Pathak, Associate. 

(Courtesy:- BWLegal World, 27 March 2024)

 

Weekly Legal Updates ( 17 March to 23 March 2024)

 Weekly Legal Updates main objective is to update the legal knowledge of law students, lawyers, academicians and other professionals. If we do not update our legal knowledge regularly, our knowledge become redundant.

Don’t be selective, disclose full bond details: Supreme Court to SBI

Supreme Court on Monday directed chairman of State Bank of India to disclose to Election Commission by Thursday 5pm all the information in its possession relating to issuance and redemption of electoral bonds (EBS), from April 12, 2019 to Feb 15, 2024, their unique alphanumeric numbers and serial numbers included. It asked EC to “forthwith upload the data” on receipt from SBI.

“In order to fully effectuate the court’s Feb 15 judgment and March 11 order, and to avoid any controversy in future, SBI chairman shall file an affidavit on or before 5pm on Thursday indicating that SBI has disclosed all details of the EBs which were in its possession and custody and that no details have been withheld from disclosure,” SC said.

Declining to entertain objections from top industry associations Assocham, FICCI and CII which apprehended that disclosure of invisible alphanumeric numbers embossed on the EBs could be misused by activist lawyers to file motivated PILs to hound industries and industrialists, a bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra upbraided SBI for belying the trust SC had put in the top public sector bank for a complete disclosure on EBs in compliance with its Feb 15 judgment and March 11 directions.

On March 11, SC had squarely rejected SBI’s plea for a nearly four-month extension of the March 6 deadline set in the Feb 15 judgment, to furnish all EB details to EC and had given it 30 hours to do so. “We banked on SBI to be candid and fair to the court. Why has SBI not disclosed all the details? SBI’s attitude appears to be, ‘you tell us to disclose a particular detail and we'll disclose it’. That’s not fair process,” the bench said.

“This is an SC judgment. As chairman of SBI, you are duty-bound to comply with the judgment and disclose every part of the information in the bank's custody as directed by SC. There cannot be any confusion as SBI has access to the best legal advice,” the bench said and put sharp questions to senior advocate Harish Salve as he sought to explain why a misunderstanding occurred.

The criticism came with a tongue-in-cheek “hope you are not arguing for the political parties” remark. However, Salve, the bank’s counsel, managed to salvage matters by explaining that the delay on SBI’s part was due to a genuine confusion. He stated categorically that SBI was ready to make a clean breast of the entire gamut of EBrelated information in its custody.

Salve said, “In the judgment, SC dealt with diverse aspects and felt some degree of confidentiality to be maintained as is inbuilt in electoral trusts. Whatever was directed in the order was furnished by SBI to EC, including date of purchase of EBs, donors’ identities, and denominations as well as recipient political parties, dates of redemptions and the denominations. If the numbers are to be given, we will give, there is no problem.”

For petitioner NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, advocate Prashant Bhushan said while smaller parties have disclosed the names of EB donors, all major political parties have blanked the information out. He said the court should direct them to furnish this data to EC forthwith.

Bhushan also said SBI has given data only from April 19, 2019, onwards about purchase and redemption of EBs by donors and political parties, respectively, whereas the bonds had been in place prior to that and information about the bonds purchased and redeemed before April 19 also needed to be disclosed.

SC rejected both pleas and said the five-judge bench, while delivering the judgment on Feb 15, had consciously taken a decision to fix the cut-off date as April 19, 2019, as on that day, SC had passed the first interim order directing political parties to make disclosure about donations received through EBs. “Changing the cut-off date, after the pronouncement of judgment, would be akin to reviewing our own decision, which we will not do in these proceedings,” the bench said.

On request of SBI counsel Sanjay Kapur, the bench dispensed with the presence of SBI’s chief general manager and deputy general manager, who were in the court fearing initiation of contempt proceedings by the court.

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 19 March 2024)

Supreme Court agrees to list PIL against practice of parties promising freebies during polls

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on Thursday challenging the practice of political parties promising freebies during elections.

This development comes just ahead of the upcoming general elections starting on April 19. The PIL calls for Election Commission to use its authority to freeze election symbols and cancel

registration of parties engaged in such practices.

The bench, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, acknowledged the importance of the matter and scheduled it for discussion on Thursday.

The PIL, filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay and represented by senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, stresses the need for a complete ban on populist tactics aimed at influencing voters. It argues that such practices violate the Constitution and disrupt the fairness of the electoral process. The plea urges the court to recognise that offering irrational freebies funded by the public before elections can unduly sway voters and undermine the integrity of democracy.

The petitioner highlights the concerning trend of using freebies as a means to garner electoral support, equating it to bribing voters at the expense of public funds. The plea emphasises the necessity of curbing this unethical practice to uphold democratic principles and maintain the sanctity of elections. It calls on the Election Commission to introduce a new condition in the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968, prohibiting parties from promising or distributing irrational freebies prior to elections.

The PIL asserts that the distribution of private goods or services using public funds before elections violates various articles of the Constitution, including Article 14. Currently, there are eight national political parties and 56 state-level recognized parties, with approximately 2,800 unregistered political parties in the country. The upcoming general elections for the 18th Lok Sabha will commence on April 19 and conclude on June 1, with vote counting scheduled for June 4.

The nomination process for the initial phase, covering 102 parliamentary constituencies across 21 states and Union territories, began on Wednesday with the issuance of notifications. The PIL's plea reflects growing concerns over the influence of freebies on the electoral process and seeks judicial intervention to safeguard the integrity of democratic values during elections.

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 20 March 2024)

No stay on CAA Rules, Supreme Court tells Govt to respond to pleas

WHILE IT refused to stay the implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act Rules notified earlier this month, the Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre, asking it to respond to petitions challenging the Rules.

A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud also issued notices to the Centre on petitions challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.

“Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submits that four weeks time may be granted to file response to the applications for stay at this stage. The request of four weeks time is opposed on the ground that in the meantime, if citizenship were to be granted, that process would become irreversible. Bearing in mind all the facts and circumstances, we direct that the proceedings be listed on April 9,” the bench, which included Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said.

The bench asked the Centre to file its reply by April 2, after which the petitioners would have to respond by April 8.

Appearing for the Centre, Mehta said there were 236 petitions challenging the Act, and 20 applications challenging the Rules. He urged the court to grant him time to reply.

Mehta also sought to clarify that the CAA “does not take away the citizenship of any person”. “No new person is also being given (citizenship) and only those (who) entered before 2014 are being considered,” he said.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who appeared for a petitioner, urged the court to issue directions barring grant of citizenship until final adjudication of the matter, or to specify in the order that any citizenship granted under the Rules would be subject to the outcome of the petitions. “The point is citizenship once granted cannot be terminated under the law. Under orders of the court, it’s a different matter,” she said.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), also a petitioner, echoed the request.

“This notification has been issued after four years and three months. The Rules were not notified earlier. Under the law, notification has to be issued within six months. They have to go back to Parliament every three months. Since 2020, they have been going to Parliament every three months… Now, the problem is if any process for citizenship starts and somebody gets citizenship, it will be impossible to reverse it for several reasons. And these petitions will become infructuous. Therefore, that process should not start. If they have waited… till now, they can wait till the court hears it. Hear the matter… but why should the process start because, both under international law and otherwise, once you grant citizenship, you cannot take it back,” said Sibal, adding that there was no urgency.

“We have got several challenges that are pending in these petitions… there are serious issues of constitutional law,” he said.

The court, however, declined to pass any order on their request. “They don’t even have the infrastructure in place — the district empowered committee, the central empowered committee, nothing is in place,” the CJI said.

“But we can’t go on that,” said Jaising, and repeated her plea.

Sibal, however, said they would approach the court again if there was any development. “Yes, we are there,” the court responded.

Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, representing the Balochistan Hindu Panchayat, said if citizenship was granted to a persecuted Hindu from Balochistan who entered India before December 2014, “how would it affect anybody else’s rights?”

“They will get the right to vote. That’s how it affects,” countered Jaising. Sibal, however, did not seem to favour the argument.

Sticking to her stand, Jaising said the SG should make a statement that in the meantime, no citizenship would be granted under the new Rules.

Declining the request, Mehta said: “I’m not making any statement”.

Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, raised the issue of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), and said the applications of non-Muslims excluded by the NRC would now be processed under the CAA. “That’s the prejudice caused,” Pasha said.

Mehta, however, sought to delink the two issues. “This attempt was made outside the court a few years back — misleading people that this is NRC, you are going to be ousted etc. NRC is not an issue before your Lordships. Only grant of citizenship under CAA is,” he asserted.

The court said it would take a prima facie view only after hearing all sides.

Some of the petitioners also referred to the court’s earlier direction to segregate matters pertaining to Assam and other Northeast states from the other petitions. The bench agreed to do this.

The Centre paved the way for implementation of the CAA with the notification of the relevant rules on March 11 this year, four years after the contentious law was passed by Parliament, easing the process of granting citizenship to non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who came to India before December 31, 2014.

(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 20 March 2024)

Supreme Court puts on hold Centre's notification on setting up 'fact-check unit'

The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed government's notification on "Fact Checking Unit" till a third

judge of Bombay high court gives verdict after hearing the legality of rules activating the FCU. The third judge is hearing the case after a division bench of the high court delivered a split verdict on validity of FCU.

The Centre had on Wednesday notified the fact check unit under the Press Information Bureau as the authorised unit for the Union government. It was notified under the recently amended

Information and Technology Rules of 2021.

A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud set aside the March 11 order of the Bombay high court which had refused to grant interim stay on setting up the FCU under the amended IT Rules to identify fake and false content on social media about the Union government.

"We are of the considered view that questions before the HC deal with core questions on Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution," the bench said.

"We are of the view that notification dated March 20, 2024, after rejection of application of interim relief, needs to be stayed. The challenge to the validity of 3(1)(b)(5) involves serious constitutional question and the impact of the rule on free speech and expression would need to be analysed by the high court," the bench, also comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said.

The ministry of electronics and information technology had notified the Press Information Bureau's Fact Check Unit as the designated body to flag misinformation about Central government departments to social media platforms.

Under the IT Rules of 2021, social media platforms could lose the legal liability protections they enjoy for content posted by users, if they choose to keep notified misinformation available online.

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 21 March 2024)

SC denies bail to BRS leader K Kavitha in Delhi excise scam case

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to grant bail to BRS leader K Kavitha, who has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Delhi excise policy scam case. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, MM Sundresh, and Bela M Trivedi directed Kavitha to approach the trial court.

Supreme Court said that it has to follow a uniform policy for all and it cannot allow people to approach the apex court directly for bail just because they are political persons or can afford to move the Supreme Court directly.

SC, however, directed that a bail plea if filed must be decided expeditiously by the trial court.

Regarding Kavitha's challenge to the Prevention of money laundering act (Pmla) provisions, the court served notice to the ED for a response within six weeks.

"The petition challenging the provisions will come up with the pending matters," the bench told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Kavitha.

Further, Sibal said that people are being arrested on the basis of an approver's statement. In response, the apex court said it is not going into the merit of the case at the moment.

Kavitha, a Telangana legislative council member and daughter of former CM K Chandrashekar Rao, was arrested on March 15 and remanded to the ED's custody till March 23 in the case.

Courtesy:- The Times of India, 22 March 2024)

Patanjali tenders unconditional apology for ad after Supreme Court issues notice

Patanjali Ayurved has tendered an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court in response to a notice asking it to show cause why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated for allegedly flouting an undertaking given to the top court on November 21, 2023.

Hearing a plea by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) accusing the company of allegedly violating provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, and making statements critical of allopathy, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had on March 19 sought the personal presence of company Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev before it.

The court was upset about an advertisement issued by the company on December 4, 2023, after it had assured the court on November 21, 2023, that it would not make any “casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine”.

In the affidavit filed in response to the notice, Acharya Balkrishna said he “regrets that the advertisement in question which was meant to contain only general statements inadvertently included the offending sentences”.

“The same was bona-fide and added in routine course by the media department of the…Company”, he said adding “the personnel of the media department of the…Company were not cognizant of the order dated 21.11.2023.”

“The Deponent on behalf of Respondent No. 5 (Patanjali Ayurved) submits an unqualified apology before this Hon’ble Court for the breach of the statement recorded in Para 3 of the order dated 21.11.2023,” the affidavit said. Balkrishna also sought to assure the court that he “will ensure that such advertisements are not issued in the future”.

The affidavit added, “By way of clarification, not as a defense, the Deponent begs to submit that its intention is only to exhort the citizens of this country to lead a healthier life by consuming products of the Respondent No. 5 including products for lifestyle ailments through the use age old literature and materials supplementing and backed by ayurvedic research.”

Notably, the affidavit also said that “the Schedule J of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 read with Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1955 is in an archaic state and the last changes were introduced in 1996…” by the Centre.

It said that the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, “was passed when scientific evidence in Ayurveda research were lacking. Respondent No. 5 Company now possess evidence-based scientific data with clinical research conducted in Ayurveda, which would demonstrate the advances made through scientific research in the context of diseases mentioned in the said schedule”.

Acharya Balkrishna said his “only quest is for a better and healthier life for each and every citizen and to reduce the burden on the countries healthcare infrastructure by providing holistic, evidence based solutions for lifestyle related medical complications through the usage of age old traditional approach of Ayurveda and Yoga”.

“In fact, the idea was to promote the ayurvedic products which are based on age old literature/material backed by scientific research,” the affidavit added.

(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 22 March 2024)

Supreme Court reverses trial court order against Bloomberg in Zee defamation case

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside a trial court's order directing international media group Bloomberg to take down an allegedly defamatory news article against Zee Entertainment.

The top court was hearing a plea filed by Bloomberg against the March 14 order of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed its appeal against the trail court order.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said the error committed by the trial judge had been perpetuated by the high court.

"The error committed by the trial judge had been perpetuated by the high court. Merely recording that a prima-facie case exists for a grant of injunction, the balance of convenience lies in Zee's favour and that an irreparable injury would be caused would not amount to application of mind in the case," the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said while granting liberty to Zee to approach the trial court afresh with its prayer seeking injunction.

Reacting on the apex court order, Bloomberg News spokesperson said, "We are very encouraged by today's decision from the Supreme Court of India, and we continue to stand by this story."

Justice Shalinder Kaur of the high court had said there was no ground to interfere with the ex-parte interim order passed by the Additional District Judge (ADJ) on the lawsuit by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited over the article published on February 21, and ordered Bloomberg to comply with the direction in three days.

On March 1, the ADJ had directed Bloomberg to take down the allegedly defamatory article within a week, saying Zee had established a "prima facie case for passing ad-interim ex-parte orders of injunction".

The ADJ had said the balance of convenience is in Zee's favour and irreparable loss and injury might be caused to the company if the injunction was not granted.

The appellant contended before the high court that the lawsuit was intended to intimidate and silence their right to free and fair speech.

It was also claimed that the ADJ did not give the portal an opportunity to place before it several other articles published prior in time and was denied a right to establish their case.

(Courtesy:- The Hindustan Times, 22 March 2024)

ED is required to furnish grounds of arrest in writing: SC

The Supreme Court dismissed the Centre’s plea seeking review of its October 3, 2023 judgment directing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to furnish grounds of arrest in writing to the accused at the time of arrest.

“We have carefully gone through the review petitions and the connected papers. We do not find any error, much less apparent, in the order impugned, warranting its reconsideration. The review petitions are dismissed accordingly,” a bench of Justices A S Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar said in its March 20, 2024 order.

In its October 2023 judgment, the bench, while stating that ED is “not expected to be vindictive in its conduct” and has to act fairly and in a transparent manner, had ordered “it will be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception”.

The judgment came on a plea by Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal, Directors of M3M real estate group, who had challenged an order of the Punjab and Haryana HC which declined to set aside their arrest by the ED under the PMLA.

The money laundering case in which Basant and Pankaj Bansal were arrested pertained to an FIR filed by the anti-corruption bureau of the Haryana Police in April last year.

Noting that grounds of arrest were only read to the accused and had not been given to them in writing, the bench said it “reeks of arbitrariness”. Expressing its disapproval, the bench said the “chronology of events speaks volumes and reflects rather poorly, if not negatively, on the ED’s style of functioning”.

Holding their arrest illegal, the bench said the investigating officer reading out the reasons for arrest to the accused does not fulfill the mandate of Article 22 (1) of Constitution and Section 19 (1) of the PMLA.

The bench said, “Being a premier investigating agency… every action of the ED in the course of such exercise is expected to be transparent, above board and conforming to the pristine standards of fair play in action. The ED, mantled with far-reaching powers under the stringent Act of 2002, is not expected to be vindictive in its conduct and must be seen to be acting with utmost probity and with the highest degree of dispassion and fairness.”

(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 23 March 2024)

Supreme Court: No green nod exemption for infrastructure projects' digging

Giving primacy to the environment over expansion of road networks and other linear projects like laying down pipelines, the Supreme Court has quashed a four-year-old central notification exempting digging or sourcing of earth for such infrastructural schemes from prior mandatory environment clearance (EC).In an elaborate 32-page judgment, Justices A S Oka and Sanjay Karol quashed a Covid-time notification, issued with the object of speeding up road infrastructure to provide sustenance to daily wagers who had lost livelihood due to the pandemic. It said since all projects had come to a grinding halt at that time, there was no hurry for govt to dispense with an

important environment protection norm.

As a result of the judgment, any digging for extracting earth and soil for laying roads, pipelines or similar activities for infrastructure projects would require publication of notice inviting objections from the public to the digging, followed by a public hearing and a decision by the competent authority that is liable to be challenged before a jurisdictional green tribunal.

Writing the judgment, Justice Oka said there was no need for dispensing with such a vital component for protection of the environment. “Article 21 guarantees a right to live in a pollution-free environment. The citizens have a fundamental duty to protect and improve the environment. Therefore, the participation of the citizens is very important, and it is taken care of by allowing them to raise objections to the proposed notification. After all, citizens are major stakeholders

in environmental matters. Their participation cannot be prevented.

Faulting issuance of the notification exempting linear projects from EC requirement without inviting objections from the public, the bench said, “We fail to understand the undue haste shown by central govt in issuing the impugned notification during the nationwide lockdown. Therefore, the inclusion of item 6 of the substituted Appendix-IX (exempting ‘extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for the linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc’) will have to be held illegal.”

It said the object of an earlier notification mandating EC certificate for projects was to minimise the damage to the environment and when an exception is sought to be carved out, it must be specific. The bench said in the notification exempting ‘extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for linear projects, such as roads, pipelines, etc’ has no specification about the quantum of ordinary earth, which can be extracted based on the exemption.

“There is no specification of the area which can be used to extract ordinary earth. It is also not provided what quantity of ordinary earth, which is required to implement the linear projects, is exempted. Importantly, ‘linear projects’ have not been defined. Without the definition, it is difficult to imagine which projects will be termed linear projects. The term is very vague. The process to be adopted for excavation has not been set out. Thus, the exemption is completely unguided and blanket, which is, per se, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,” it said.

“There is no provision for setting up an authority which will decide whether a particular linear project is covered by the notification… we have no hesitation in striking down item 6 of the substituted Appendix-IX forming part of the impugned notification dated March 28, 2020 and item 6 of the amended impugned notification dated August 30, 2023,” the bench said.

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 23 March 2024)

*Disclaimer: – Always check with the original copy of judgment from the Court website.