11 March, 2024

Weekly Legal Updates ( 3 March to 9 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.

Mining companies oppose state tax on minerals in Supreme Court

SC is hearing a batch of more than 80 appeals dealing with the question whether royalty charged on mining is a tax and whether states have legislative competence to levy taxes.

States cannot impose tax on mineral rights as this relates to mineral development on which any law to be framed is exclusively reserved for the Centre, argued mining companies in Supreme Court.

The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court is deciding the validity of state laws imposing tax related to mineral rights.

Opposing the state laws creating an additional financial burden on private miners, senior advocate Harish Salve appearing for a group of mining companies said, “If taxing mineral rights becomes incompatible with the architecture of law on mineral development, the state’s power to tax stands denuded.”

The bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, which began hearing a batch of over 80 appeals last week, asked Salve, “We then have to make a hypothesis that any power to tax impinges on mineral development.

Salve, who represented Eastern Zone Mining Association, submitted, “Leaving it to each individual state to add yet another layer of economic burden will impinge on mineral development. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 contemplates conservation of minerals.”

Salve supported the Centre which had argued last week that states cannot be allowed to tax on minerals as this was never contemplated under the Constitution as it will unjustly enrich states rich in minerals pushing up prices of minerals, that form core of development of key industries in economy, and further lead to inflation.

This was the fourth day of arguments.

The bench, also comprising justices Hrishikesh Roy, AS Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih, said, “There can be various kinds of exaction on mineral rights. If the royalty on minerals (regulated by Centre under the MMDR Act) is a species of exaction which is taken away from states under Entry 50 of List 2 (State List), can royalty substitute all kinds of exaction.”

Entry 50 deals with (tax on mineral rights) which along with Entry 23 (regulation of mines and mineral development) are subject to any law related to List 1 (Union List) or law made by Parliament.

The Centre claimed that its right over minerals is sourced from Entry 54 of List 1 which deals with “regulation of mines and mineral development”.

It is under this entry, the Parliament enacted the MMDR Act, which governs the field, and this Entry 54 is a limitation on the power of states to demand or impose similar levies or charges.

Accepting this argument, Salve said, “While minerals vest in states, mineral development is entirely with the Union. If Entry 54 makes a declaration that development and regulation of minerals rests with Centre, the state’s power under Entry 23 or any other entry related to minerals stands denuded.”

He further stated, “The mineral rights, under the present legal system in India, in most cases, vest in the state and thus a tax on mineral rights as such cannot be imposed, over and above the exaction by law made by Parliament (MMDR Act) that provide for payment of royalty... The state is, as the sovereign, the owner of mineral rights but may part with these rights under a lease which is in accordance with the MMDR Act. Under the Act, the state acts as a delegate of the Union government.”

Salve will continue his arguments on Wednesday.

The Court is hearing a batch of more than 80 appeals dealing with the question whether royalty charged on mining is a tax and whether states have legislative competence to levy taxes on minerals and mineral-bearing lands in addition to the royalty imposed by Centre.

The issue has larger implications on the state’s revenue-earning capacity and the authority of states on minerals extracted from their land.

The matter was referred to a 9-judge bench in March 2011 as the top court found a conflict between two previous judgments on this issue.

One was a 1989 verdict in India Cements Limited versus State of Tamil Nadu case decided by a 7-judge bench which held royalty is a tax under MMDR Act.

The other decision was a 5-judge bench decision of 2004 in State of West Bengal versus Kesoram Industries which held that in India Cements, the Court had mistakenly written “royalty is a tax” while it meant that “cess on royalty is a tax”.

(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 6 March 2024)

SBI misses Supreme Court deadline for information on electoral bond declaration

State Bank of India (SBI) missed the Supreme Court deadline (March 6) for disclosing information regarding electoral bonds encashed by political parties. SBI had requested an extension until June 30th to reveal details of each electoral bond encashed by political parties, but the apex
court has not yet scheduled a hearing for their plea.

Last month, the Chief Justice-led constitution bench declared the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional and directed SBI to disclose details of each bond encashed by political parties,
including the date and denomination of the bonds. SBI argued that retrieving information from various sources and matching them would be a time-consuming process. The bench also instructed the Election Commission (EC) to publish the information provided by the SBI on its official website by March 13th.

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 7 March 2024)

Educate cops on free speech: Supreme Court quashes FIR on Article 370 protest, greeting Pakistan

Underlining that it is time to sensitise and “educate our police” on freedom of speech and expression and “the extent of reasonable restraint”, the Supreme Court Thursday set aside a Bombay High Court order and quashed an FIR against a Maharashtra college professor booked for his WhatsApp status critical of the abrogation of Article 370 and for wishing Pakistan on its independence day.

The bench of Justices A S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said, “Every citizen of India has a right to be critical of the action of abrogation of Article 370 and the change of status of Jammu and Kashmir.”

It said “describing the day the abrogation happened as a ‘Black Day’ is an expression of protest and anguish. If every criticism or protest of the actions of the State is to be held as an offence under Section 153-A, democracy, which is an essential feature of the Constitution of India, will not survive”.

Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code penalises “promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony”.

The bench’s ruling came on a plea by Javed Ahmad Hajam, who was a professor at a college in Kolhapur. On April 10, 2023, the Bombay High Court had turned down his plea for quashing the FIR.

Between August 13 and August 15, 2022, while being part of a WhatsApp group of parents and teachers, he allegedly posted two messages as status: “August 5-Black Day Jammu & Kashmir” and “14th August Happy Independence Day Pakistan.” This apart, the WhatsApp status included the message: “Article 370 was abrogated, we are not happy.” Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered under IPC Section 153-A by the Hatkanangale police station in Kolhapur.

In its ruling Thursday, the bench of Justices Oka and Bhuyan said, “The right to dissent in a legitimate and lawful manner is an integral part of the rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a). Every individual must respect the right of others to dissent. An opportunity to peacefully protest against the decisions of the Government is an essential part of democracy. The right to dissent in a lawful manner must be treated as a part of the right to lead a dignified and meaningful life guaranteed by Article 21.”

“But the protest or dissent,” it said, “must be within four corners of the modes permissible in a democratic set-up. It is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in accordance with clause (2) of Article 19. In the present case, the appellant has not at all crossed the line”.

Pointing to “the WhatsApp status of the appellant” Hajam, it said, “This is an expression of his individual view and his reaction to the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India” and “does not reflect any intention to do something which is prohibited under Section 153-A. At best, it is a protest, which is a part of his freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a).”

Setting aside the High Court ruling, the bench said “the High Court has held that the possibility of stirring up the emotions of a group of people cannot be ruled out… As held by Vivian Bose, J, the effect of the words used by the appellant on his WhatsApp status will have to be judged from the standards of reasonable women and men. We cannot apply the standards of people with weak and vacillating minds. Our country has been a democratic republic for more than 75 years. The people of our country know the importance of democratic values. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the words will promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious groups.”

“The test to be applied,” it said, is “not the effect of the words on some individuals with weak minds or who see a danger in every hostile point of view. The test is of the general impact of the utterances on reasonable people who are significant in numbers. Merely because a few individuals may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient to attract clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-A of the IPC”.

“As regards the picture containing ‘Chand’ and below that the words ‘14th August-Happy Independence Day Pakistan’, we are of the view that it will not attract clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-A of the IPC… every citizen has the right to extend good wishes to the citizens of the other countries on their respective independence days,” it said.

“If a citizen of India extends good wishes to the citizens of Pakistan on 14th August, which is their Independence Day, there is nothing wrong with it. It’s a gesture of goodwill. In such a case, it cannot be said that such acts will tend to create disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious groups. Motives cannot be attributed to the appellant only because he belongs to a particular religion,” the bench said.

“Now, the time has come to enlighten and educate our police machinery on the concept of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution and the extent of reasonable restraint on their free speech and expression. They must be sensitised about the democratic values enshrined in our Constitution,” it said.

(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 8 March 2024)

No rape on false promise if woman already married: Supreme court

The Supreme Court has held that a rape case on the false pretext to marry cannot be prosecuted by a married woman involved in a consensual relationship without getting a divorce.

A bench headed by justice CT Ravikumar quashed a rape case against the accused, whose identity was not revealed, and set aside an August 1, 2022 Madhya Pradesh high court order that refused to scrap the case registered against him at a Mahila police station in Satna on December 11, 2020.

The decision of the court came in a peculiar set of facts where the accused had a physical relationship with his landlady, who was 10 years older than him, and even solemnised their marriage at a temple in January 2019 under the impression that she had divorced her earlier husband. Though they were in a relationship since 2017, the two began to live together after their informal marriage in the same house where the woman was staying with her parents and a teenage daughter from the first marriage.

Things took a turn after the accused refused a court marriage, leading to the woman filing a criminal case against him under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This section prescribes punishment for a person who “commits rape repeatedly on the same woman”, and the minimum sentence is 10 years in prison extending up to a life term.

The petition, on behalf of the accused, was filed by lawyer Ashwani Kumar Dubey.

The bench, also comprising justice Rajesh Bindal, noted that contrary to the woman’s claim in the FIR that she got a divorce from her husband on December 10, 2018, the original record proved that the decree of divorce by mutual consent was dated January 13, 2021. This showed that she was in a relationship with the accused even when her earlier marriage was subsisting.

Justice Bindal, writing the judgment for the bench, said, “It is not a case where the complainant (woman) was of an immature age who could not foresee her welfare and take right decision. She was a grown up lady about 10 years elder to the appellant. She was mature and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of the moral and immoral acts for which she consented during subsistence of her earlier marriage.”

The court added: “In fact, it was a case of betraying her husband.”

During arguments, it was established that the accused who was a tenant at the complainant’s property had to shift in 2018 to Maharashtra for his job. He used to come and stay with her family, and the court found evidence to show that they were living as husband and wife. The accused took an insurance policy where he named the complainant as a nominee, and took care of the daughter of the complainant. He also advanced a loan of ₹1 lakh to the complainant that was not returned to him.

“From the contents of the complaint, on the basis of which FIR was got registered and the statement got recorded by the complainant, it is evident that there was no promise to marry initially when the relations between the parties started in the year 2017. In any case, even on the dates when the complainant alleges that the parties had physical relations, she was already married,” the court said.

“For the reasons mentioned above, the order passed by the High Court (on August 1, 2022) is set aside. FIR No 52 dated December 10, 2020, registered under Section 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC at Police Station, Mahila Thana, District Satna (MP) and all subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed,” the judgment held.

Last year, the top court decided a case on a set of similar facts in Naim Ahamed v State of NCT, where rape charges were set aside on identical grounds. In that case, the complainant was a married woman with three children. She alleged rape on false promise of marriage five years after she began to cohabit with the accused, and had a child from this relationship without obtaining a divorce in her earlier marriage. The court held that it could not be said that the woman had given her consent for a sexual relationship under any misconception.

(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 8 March 2024)

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

Weekly Legal Updates ( 25 February to 2 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.

Supreme Court's contempt notice to Patanjali: 'Entire country taken for ride'

The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on Patanjali Ayurved over 'misleading' advertisements and banned the company from advertising any product related to diseases or other medical conditions. The Supreme Court said the "entire country was being taken for a ride" through such misleading advertisements.

This ruling follows a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association against Patanjali Ayurved's alleged dissemination of misleading advertisements.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has served a contempt of court notice to Patanjali Ayurved and Acharya Balakrishnan for their involvement in spreading misleading advertisements across various media platforms. They have been granted a three-week period to respond to the notice.

During the hearing, Justices Hima Kohli and A. Amanullah criticised Patanjali Ayurved for releasing advertisements despite previous court orders issued last year.

In November 2023 as well, the Supreme Court warned Patanjali that it would be fined Rs 1 crore if a false claim is made that its products can "cure" certain diseases.

While referring to their previous warning to Patanjali, the bench said, "Despite our warning you are saying your products are better than chemical-based medicines."

The bench decided to issue notices for contempt of court orders to the two people featured in the advertisements, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balakrishnan. Justice Amanullah said that these individuals must file a reply and explain how they disregarded the court's orders.

Sanghi, representing Patanji Ayurved, defended Baba Ramdev, stating that he is a 'sanyasi' who does not know English. However, Justice Amanullah deemed the document containing the advertisements as contemptuous and in clear violation of the court's orders.

Senior advocate PS Patwalia, representing the Indian Medical Association, highlighted a press conference held by Baba Ramdev following a previous Supreme Court order.

Patwalia said that Patanjali Ayurved had published advertisements in violation of the law, claiming to cure various ailments, including diabetes and asthma. Patwalia also mentioned a defamation case filed by Patanjali Ayurved against the Advertising Council.

On this, the top court remarked that there can’t be any defence of advertisements showing cures for illnesses including diabetes and blood pressure.

"What do you mean by permanent relief to the diseases? It means only two things - either death or cure," the Supreme Court said, asking Patanjali Ayurved to show how they discharged their duties to tackle misleading advertisements.

During the hearing, the bench questioned the actions taken by the Ministry of Ayush in response to the misleading advertisements.

The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) said that data was being collected on complaints and violations by Patanjali Ayurved. However, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with the ministry's response, urging urgent action and self-monitoring regarding such advertisements.

(Courtesy:- India Today, 27 February 2024)

SC to Centre: Take call on standard hospital charges or we may slap CGHS rates

A cataract surgery could cost up to Rs 10,000 per eye in a govt hospital and Rs 30,000-1,40,000 in a private facility. Supreme Court Tuesday took strong exception to this disparity and inability of the Centre to implement a 14-year-old law-Clinical Establishment (Central Government) Rules-mandating notification of a standard rate in consultation with states for treatment and procedures of ailments in metros, cities and towns.

Govt told SC though it had repeatedly written to states on this, they didn't respond. SC said citizens have a fundamental right to healthcare and the Centre can't shirk its responsibility on this ground.

It asked Union health secretary to call a meeting of his state counterparts to ensure notification of a standard rate within a month. "If Union govt fails to find a solution, then we will consider petitioner's plea for implementing CGHS-prescribed standardised rates," SC warned.

A PIL by NGO 'Veterans Forum for Transparency in Public Life' through advocate Danish Zubair Khan had sought a direction to Centre to determine rate of fee chargeable from patients in terms of Rule 9 of Clinical Establishment (Central Govt) Rules, 2012.

Under the Rules, all hospitals and clinical establishments, to keep intact their registration, must "display rates charged for each type of service provided and facilities available for benefit of patients at a conspicuous place in vernacular as well as in English language; and charge rates for each type of procedures and services within range of rates determined and issued by Centre from time to time, in consultation with state govts."

Petitioner told a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta that Centre acted promptly in notifying standardised rates for treatment of patients during Covid and that if states did not cooperate in framing range of rates for treatment of ailments, it could use powers under central laws to unilaterally notify fees to be charged for different procedures.

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 28 February 2024)

Supreme Court Approves Rajasthan Government's Two-Child Rule

People with more than two children will not be eligible for government jobs in Rajasthan -- this 1989 law of the state has now got the Supreme Court's seal of approval.

The rule is non-discriminatory, the judges said, hearing a petition challenging it.

It falls within the purview of policy and there is "no need to interfere with it," said the bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Dutta and KV Vishwanathan, in an order on February 20.

The bench upheld the decision of Rajasthan High Court of October 12, 2022, and dismissed the petition of former soldier Ramji Lal Jat.

After retirement from defence services in January 2017, the soldier had applied for the post of a constable in Rajasthan Police in May 2018.

But his application was rejected under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, as he had more than two children after 1 June 2002.

The court said it had earlier approved similar rules – meant to promote family planning -- for contestants of Panchayat elections.

(Courtesy:- NDTV.com, 28 February 2024)

Persons must appear on ED summons: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that persons summoned under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) must appear before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to cooperate with an ongoing investigation, dismissing the Tamil Nadu government’s attempt to stop the federal agency from questioning some of its district collectors in relation to alleged illegal sand mining in the state.

Suspending a Madras high court order that restrained ED from seeking the personal presence of five district collectors of the state, the top court maintained that the officers are “required to respect and respond to the summons” of the agency and ordered the collectors to appear before the investigators on the date assigned by the agency.

“The impugned summonses have been issued by ED in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 50 of PMLA. From a bare reading of the Act, it clearly transpires that the concerned authority has power to summon any person if it considers their attendance necessary during the course of investigation or proceedings under the Act...district collectors and persons to whom summonses have been issued are obliged to respect and respond to said summonses,” held a bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal.

The court order comes at a time when states headed by political parties other than the Bharatiya Janata Party have accused the Union government of targeting political rivals with the help of federal agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation and ED.

(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 28 February 2024)

CBI to probe Vivek Bindra ‘scam’? Supreme Court issues notice. What's the case?

The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition seeking direction to constitute a special team of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the alleged large-scale, nationwide scam perpetrated and done by motivational speaker Vivek Bindra and his Bada Business Pvt Ltd. A bench of justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti on Monday sought the Centre and others' responses to the petition filed by Shubham Chaudhary and others.

"Issue notice returnable in six weeks," the bench said on the February 26 order, news agency ANI reported.

The petitioners claimed that they had deposited their hard-earned money to the money chain like scheme of the Bada Business Pvt Ltd. Advocates Vikas Singh, Sureshan P Vikas Nagwan and Yogesh Aggarwal appeared for the petitioners.

According to the petitioners, the issue has national ramifications as the complainants hail from different states and have already submitted written complaints to the local police.

They prayed for directions to the Centre government to constitute a special investigation team of the CBI to probe the alleged scam perpetrated and done by Vivek Bindra and Bada Business Pvt Ltd whereby he has duped and cheated the petitioners and other general public.

According to the petition, despite submitting written complaints by the petitioners and other similarly placed individuals, no action has been taken by the police.

It is submitted that Vivek Bindra is a self-proclaimed motivational speaker and who, along with his marketing team, deceived the petitioners and other thousands of youngsters, who hail from over a dozen different states from all over India.

"The modus operandi adopted by said person and company is that he uses names of well-known personalities on his websites, in banner advertisements and extensively market out the same by falsely representing that the said known personalities are "Professors" in the paid courses run under the banner of Bada Business and Vivek Bindra," the petition said.

The petitioners said the extensive advertisements are being run on various social media platforms with the sole purpose of enrolling the youngsters in a course that misleadingly promised to train the enrolled candidates in the modes and methods of building a successful business through which one could earn anywhere between ₹15,000 and ₹1,00,000 per month, failing which Vivek Bindra promised to refund the entire fee.

(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 29 February 2024)

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

24 February, 2024

कुत्ता चोरी की शिकायत का मसौदा/ड्राफ्ट /Draft of complaint of dog theft

सेवा में,

थानाध्यक्ष महोदय,

[आपका थाना का नाम], [आपका शहर का नाम]

विषय: कुत्ते की चोरी की शिकायत

महोदय,

मैं, [आपका पूरा नाम], पता [आपका पूरा पता] निवासी, यह शिकायत दर्ज कराने के लिए लिख रहा हूं कि मेरा कुत्ता, [कुत्ते का नाम], दिनांक [दिनांक जब आपका कुत्ता चोरी हुआ था] को [स्थान जहां से आपका कुत्ता चोरी हुआ था] से चोरी हो गया है।

कुत्ते का विवरण:

  • नस्ल: [कुत्ते की नस्ल]
  • रंग: [कुत्ते का रंग]
  • लिंग: [कुत्ते का लिंग]
  • विशेष पहचान चिन्ह: [कुत्ते की कोई खास पहचान, जैसे टैटू, माइक्रोचिप, या विशिष्ट निशान]
  • फोटो (यदि उपलब्ध हो): [कुत्ते की एक तस्वीर संलग्न करें]

मैंने अपने कुत्ते को हर जगह ढूंढ लिया है, लेकिन वह नहीं मिला। मुझे संदेह है कि उसे चोरी कर लिया गया है।

मैं आपसे अनुरोध करता हूं कि इस मामले की जांच करें और मेरा खोया हुआ कुत्ता ढूंढने में मेरी मदद करें। मैं जांच में पूरा सहयोग करने के लिए तैयार हूं।

धन्यवाद,

[आपका हस्ताक्षर]

[आपका नाम]

[आपका मोबाइल नंबर]

[आपका ईमेल पता] (यदि उपलब्ध हो)

संलग्न:

  • कुत्ते के टीकाकरण का रिकॉर्ड (यदि उपलब्ध हो)
  • पंजीकरण दस्तावेज (यदि उपलब्ध हो)
  • अन्य प्रासंगिक दस्तावेज

कृपया ध्यान दें:

  • इस शिकायत को अपने स्थानीय पुलिस स्टेशन में व्यक्तिगत रूप से जमा करें।
  • शिकायत में सभी आवश्यक जानकारी भरें।
  • शिकायत के साथ आवश्यक दस्तावेज संलग्न करें।
  • पुलिस जांच में पूरा सहयोग दें।

आशा है कि यह मसौदा आपके लिए उपयोगी होगा। कृपया ध्यान दें कि आपको इस मसौदे को अपने विशिष्ट परिस्थिति के अनुसार बदलना चाहिए।

यह भी महत्वपूर्ण है कि आप सच्चाई से बताएं और केवल उन्हीं विवरणों को शामिल करें जिनके बारे में आपके पास ठोस सबूत हैं। झूठी रिपोर्ट दर्ज करना गंभीर अपराध है।

खोया हुआ मोबाइल फोन की रिपोर्ट का ड्राफ्ट / lost mobile phone report format

सेवा में,

थानाध्यक्ष महोदय,

[आपका थाना का नाम], [आपका शहर का नाम]

विषय: खोया हुआ मोबाइल फोन की रिपोर्ट

महोदय,

मैं, [आपका पूरा नाम], पता [आपका पूरा पता] निवासी, यह रिपोर्ट इस बात की जानकारी देने के लिए लिख रहा हूं कि मेरा मोबाइल फोन दिनांक [दिनांक जब आपने फोन खोया था] को [स्थान जहां आपने फोन खोया था] से खो गया है।

मोबाइल फोन की विवरण:

  • ब्रांड: [मोबाइल का ब्रांड]
  • मॉडल: [मोबाइल का मॉडल]
  • आईएमईआई नंबर: [मोबाइल का आईएमईआई नंबर] (अगर पता हो)
  • रंग: [मोबाइल का रंग]
  • अन्य विशिष्ट पहचान चिन्ह: [मोबाइल पर कोई खास खरोंच, स्टिकर आदि] (अगर हो तो)

मैंने अपने फोन को हर जगह ढूंढ लिया है, लेकिन वह नहीं मिला। मुझे संदेह है कि यह खो गया है या चोरी हो गया है।

मैं आपसे अनुरोध करता हूं कि इस मामले की जांच करें और मेरा खोया हुआ मोबाइल फोन ढूंढने में मेरी मदद करें। मैं जांच में पूरी तरह से सहयोग करने के लिए तैयार हूं।

धन्यवाद,

[आपका हस्ताक्षर]

[आपका नाम]

[आपका मोबाइल नंबर] (अगर कोई अन्य नंबर उपलब्ध हो)

[आपका ईमेल पता] (अगर उपलब्ध हो)

संलग्न:

  • मोबाइल फोन की खरीद का बिल (अगर उपलब्ध हो)
  • मोबाइल फोन की फोटो (अगर उपलब्ध हो)

कृपया ध्यान दें:

  • इस आवेदन को थाने में व्यक्तिगत रूप से जमा कर दें।
  • आवेदन में सभी आवश्यक जानकारी भरें।
  • आवेदन के साथ आवश्यक दस्तावेज संलग्न करें।
  • पुलिस जांच में पूरा सहयोग दें।

Weekly Legal Updates ( 18 February to 24 February 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.

Chandigarh mayoral polls officer 'has to be prosecuted': Supreme Court's rebuke

The Supreme Court has ordered the production of the ballot papers and video of the counting of votes in Chandigarh mayoral polls by 2 pm on Tuesday. The court also rapped the Returning Officer who presided over the polls, saying that he must be prosecuted for "defacing ballot papers".

Hearing a petition alleging foul play in the mayoral election, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also asked the deputy commissioner to appoint a new returning officer who was not associated with any political party.

"We are pained by the horse-trading which has happened in Chandigarh assembly," the bench said.

"This business of horse-trading should be stopped and that is why we want to see the ballot papers tomorrow itself," it added.

The BJP swept the January 30 Chandigarh mayoral polls, retaining all three posts, and defeating the Congress-AAP alliance. The AAP then moved the Supreme Court demanding fresh polls, accusing Returning Officer Anil Masih of “fraud and forgery” in the election process.

A video also went viral showing Anil Masih ticking the ballot papers while glancing at the CCTV, raising concerns about the fairness of the elections.

The Supreme Court had summoned Anil Masih to physically appear before the bench during the hearing. On Monday, the bench asked him about the video and why he was looking into the CCTV.

To this, the Masih replied that all the ballot papers were defaced and he was just marking them. "There were so many cameras that I was just looking at them," he said.

The bench then asked him why he marked the ballot papers, Anil Masih said he did it so that ballot papers did not get mixed.

"That means you marked it. He has to be prosecuted. In an electoral democracy, this cannot be allowed," the bench remarked.

(Courtesy:- India Today, 19 February 2024)

'You speak of Nari Shakti...': Supreme Court raps Centre over woman officer's plea

The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up the central government over denying consideration of a Permanent Commission (PC) to a woman officer serving in the Indian Coast Guard. The top court criticised the government's "patriarchal attitude" and questioned its vision and advocacy of 'Nari Shakti'.

A division bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stressed that the Coast Guard could not be ruled out on the criterion when the Navy and Army have fallen in line with granting Permanent Commissions to women officers.

"You speak of 'Nari Shakti Nari Shakti,' now show it here. You are at the deep end of the sea here. I don't think the Coast Guard can say they can fall out of line when the Army and Navy have done it all. You all have not read the Babita Punia judgment so far," the bench remarked.

In the Babita Punia judgement, the top court had held that women Short Service Commission officers are entitled to a Permanent Commission on par with their male counterparts.

During a brief hearing on Monday, the three-judge bench headed by the CJI also said, "What is this patriarchal attitude of the Coast Guard here? Why do you not want women in the Coast Guard? Women can guard the borders; they can guard the coast too."

The bench's observations were made after Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee, who was appearing for the Centre, told the bench that the Coast Guard have a different stream of operations compared to other defence forces.

The bench mentioned the presence of a Permanent Commission of women in the Navy and questioned why the Coast Guard should be made an exception.

"Why be so patriarchal that you do not want to see women in the Coast Guard segment? You have women in the navy; what is so special about the Coast Guard?" questioned the CJI, adding, "We will open up the whole canvas; times are gone when we say women cannot be in the Coast Guard; women can guard the borders; women can guard the coasts as well," the bench further said.

The court's observation came while hearing a plea filed by Priyanka Tyagi, a short service appointment officer, who had been denied the opportunity to be considered for the Permanent Commission even after serving 14 years with an impeccable record.

In her plea, the woman officer said, "As of the present date, the Petitioner has the highest flying hours as per her seniority in all the forces, including male and female, i.e., 4500 hours on the Dornier Aircraft and has heroically saved more than 300 lives at sea."

Her plea further detailed how the board, which was to decide on granting a Permanent Commission to the SSA women officers in the Indian Coast Guard, was cancelled. 

(Courtesy:-India Today, 19 February 2024)

No permission for zoo, safari in forests without Court nod: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court examining the validity of amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act on Monday held that its prior permission will be necessary for setting up any zoo or safari in a forest, and directed all states and union territories to submit information about the total forest land, as determined under a 1996 top court decision to the Centre, latest by March 31 this year.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud passed the interim order while adjourning the petitions challenging the validity of the 2023 amendments to July. The order became necessary as the petitioners before the Court expressed apprehensions that the amendments, if allowed to operate, will result in de-classification of over 1.97 lakh square kilometres of forest, protected under the definition of “forest” by a top court order of December 12, 1996 in the landmark TN Godavarman case.

“We issue an interim order to the effect that any proposal for setting up a zoo or safari referred to in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, owned by government or any authority in forest area other than protected areas, shall not be finally approved save and except the final approval of this Court,” held the bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

The bench further directed the Centre to issue a circular to all states and union territories directing them to comply with the 1996 ruling and require them to submit reports on identified forest land as per the Godavarman ruling within two weeks. The states and UTs were directed to do the needful before March 31. Once the reports are received, the Centre was further directed to digitise the records and publish it on the website of the ministry of environment, forests, climate change (MoEFCC) not later than April 15.

Under the amended Forest Conservation Act, the Court exempted zoo and safari from the long list of non-forestry activities, paving the way for such activities to be organised inside forests. Already, a proposal for setting up tiger safari at Jim Corbet tiger reserve in Uttarakhand has been reserved for judgment by the top court. Another proposal is in the pipeline to have an animal safari at Haryana’s Aravalli forest range against which an application has been moved in the top court.

The Court said, “Where any proposal (for zoo or safari) is sought to be implemented, the Union government or the competent authority shall move this Court.”

The order was passed in a batch of petitions filed by a group of retired Indian Forest Service officials and former bureaucrats and NGO Vanashakti, which objected to these amendments allowing wholesale abuse of forest land.

The petitioners led by senior advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen and advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the amendment constricted the definition of forests from what was laid down in the 1996 Godavarman ruling.

They referred to the India State of Forests Report of the Forest Survey of India (FSI) and said that out of the total of 7.13 lakh sq km of forests in the country, an area of 1.97,159 sq km having tree cover (not forming part of declared forests in government records) would stand excluded from the recorded forest areas (RFA) as the amendment recognised only declared forest land while excluding the Godavarman interpretation of treating forests as per its dictionary meaning and all lands treated as forests under any law or government records.

Sen argued that when the amendments were discussed by the joint committee of Parliament, this apprehension was raised on whether the amendments would fall foul of the Court’s decision. He pointed out that the Centre made a solemn assurance to the Committee that the amendments are in compliance with Court’s directions. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating. As per the 1996 decision, all states and UTs were directed to constitute an expert committee to identify forests based on the Court’s ruling. We have applied under Right to Infromation Act to get access to these reports and we have not been supplied with any,” Sen submitted.

Additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati appearing for Centre informed the Court that some states have given their state expert committee (SEC) reports as directed by the Court. “The Centre will require hand-holding from the Court to get this information from states as ultimately the Centre wants to digitise this information,” Bhati added.

The Court said, “The report of SEC is crucial for maintenance of contemporaneous record of forest land. The Union of India through MoEFCC, within a period of two weeks shall require all states and UTs to provide comprehensive record of all lands identified as forests, in pursuance of directions given in TN Godavarman ruling.” It further held, “These records shall be maintained by MoEFCC and duly digitised and made available in electronic format and be made available on its website not later than April 15, 2024.”

Under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam 2023 which provides for an explanation on what forests are to be included as per government record, ASG said that states and UTs are required to prepare consolidated record of such lands, including forest like areas as identified by the expert committees, unclassed forest lands or community forest lands on which the Adhiniyam will be applicable.

The Court’s order said, “We clarify pending the completion of exercise by states and UTs under the Adhiniyam Rule 16, the principles which are elucidated by this Court in TN Godavarman case must continue to be observed....The MoEFCC shall, in pursuance of this interim order, issue a circular to all states and UTs to act strictly in accordance with the directions given by this Court.”

Last month, the MoEFCC had filed a detailed response defending the amendments The Godavarman decision held that ‘forest land’ as defined in Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 would include not only forests as understood in the dictionary sense but any area recorded as forest in the Government records.

The affidavit said, “All forests, including unclassed forests, recorded in record of government, forest department, local bodies, or authorities will also attract provisions of the Act...It is emphasised that the provisions of the Amended Act, in no way, will dilute the directions contained in the order of December 12, 1996 passed by Supreme Court. On the contrary, it will consolidate and codify the law relating to forests in the country.”

The petitions also questioned the inclusion of zoos and safaris under non-forestry activities and other exemptions such as setting up of security infrastructure and projects of strategic importance near border areas from forest land.

On the above issues, the Centre’s affidavit said, “Such zoos and safaris are generally created in the proximity of habitation to ensure minimum disturbance to the pristine forest ecosystem. Such activities will not only sensitise and generate awareness about the importance of protection and conservation of forest land and wildlife, but will also add to the livelihood sources of local community, thereby providing them opportunities to connect with mainstream of development.”

The Centre defended exemptions under the Act for setting up security infrastructure by pointing out that security-related infrastructure, linear strategic projects along border and left-wing extremist districts are not “blanket exemptions” and will include specific projects of strategic importance or national security as “identified by Central government”.

The first petition challenging the amended Act filed by a group of 13 retired bureaucrats was entertained by the Court in October last year. They argued that permitting commercial activity in forests with the creation of permanent structures, access roads, power transmission lines and other supporting infrastructure for zoos and safaris will “sound the death knell of forests in India.” The petition further said, “Each diversion of land, without any cumulative ceiling being prescribed across the country, will pockmark our forests with cancerously growing deforested islands and fragment them, causing enormous ecological loss.”

The Forest Act amendments received Presidential assent on August 4 last year.

(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 19 February 2024)

Supreme Court orders govt to pay Rs 60 lakh to military officer sacked after marriage

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has directed the Centre to pay Rs 60 lakh to Lt. Selina John, a former permanent commissioned officer from the Military Nursing Service (MNS), who was relieved of her duties in 1988 due to her marriage. The court emphasized that any law or regulation that considers marriage and domestic responsibilities as grounds for termination is unconstitutional, a TOI report stated.

The apex court's decision came during the hearing of an appeal filed by the Centre challenging an order from the Armed Forces Tribunal, which had called for Lt. Selina John's reinstatement.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta concluded the 26-year legal battle of Lt. Selina John by directing the Centre to pay her Rs 60 lakh as a full and final settlement. Her dismissal from service in 1988 was based on Army Instruction No. 61 of 1977, which was later withdrawn in 1995.

Rejecting the patriarchal notion behind such rules, the court stated, "Acceptance of such a patriarchal rule undermines human dignity and right to non-discrimination."

Furthermore, the court highlighted the discriminatory nature of rules that consider marital status as a disqualifying factor for women employees. It reiterated that laws based on gender bias are constitutionally impermissible.

Lt. Selina John's journey in the MNS began in 1982 when she was selected according to the service's rules. She was commissioned as a Lieutenant in 1985 and served at the Military Hospital in Secunderabad until her release in 1988 following her marriage to an Army officer.

Upon her termination, Lt. Selina John pursued legal recourse, starting with a petition in the Allahabad High Court, which directed her to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal. In 2016, the AFT, Lucknow, ruled in her favor, ordering the Centre to reinstate her. However, the government appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to the recent judgment.

(Courtesy:- The Economic Times, 21 February 2024)

Your lost iPhone is your responsibility, not Apple’s, rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that Apple India is not obligated to track stolen iPhones using their unique identity numbers. According to a report by Live Law, this decision overturns an earlier directive by the Odisha State Consumer Commission, which had placed this responsibility on Apple.
As per the report, a consumer in Odisha had purchased an iPhone with theft insurance and reported it stolen to both the police and Apple India. The consumer expected Apple to take action and track the device but Apple wasn’t obligated to do that. The consumer filed a complaint, leading to a District Consumer Forum ruling in their favour. However, the District Consumer Forum’s decision was appealed by Apple.
In its ruling, the Consumer Forum said that, as the manufacturer, Apple was obligated to use the phone's unique identifier to track its location. However, Apple argued against being forced to act as a law enforcement agency and appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, acknowledging Apple's compensation to the consumer, ultimately sided with the company. The court stated that requiring them to track stolen phones was an “unwarranted observation” and not a part of their responsibility. The apex court ordered the removal of the contentious paragraph from the State Commission's order, clarifying the limits of corporations' obligations in such situations.

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 22 February 2024)

States must work with ED in its probe: SC to Tamil Nadu

Supreme Court on Friday said state govt officials should cooperate with Enforcement Directorate in its probe in money laundering cases and questioned the Madras high court order staying ED’s summonses to five district collectors of Tamil Nadu in illegal sand mining cases.The observation could have implications for cases being probed by the agency in opposition-governed states.

At the outset of hearing, a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said, “How can the state file this writ petition? Under which law... You satisfy us on how the state is interested and how it can file this writ petition against Enforcement Directorate. How is the state aggrieved?” ED filed a petition against TN in SC, the other side pointed out.

Tamil Nadu government was bound to protect its officials from “illegal“ Enforcement Directorate (ED) probe, the state told Supreme Court on Friday as the court said the state must cooperate with the agency in its probe into money laundering.

ED summoned Vellore, Tiruchirappalli, Karur, Thanjavur and Ariyalur district collectors on Nov 17, but Tamil Nadu govt, along with the aggrieved bureaucrats, filed writ petitions in Madras high court (HC) alleging violation of their fundamental rights by ED. HC had stayed the summonses.
ED moved SC against the HC order that held that the agency was venturing “into a fishing expedition to find out whether information and evidence collected from the district administration can be processed further from other sources to find out commission of scheduled offence” so that it may then identify the proceeds of crime that will help them proceed under PMLA. Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Amit Anand Tiwari, appearing for the state and the officers, said while petitions filed by the officers were maintainable as they were the aggrieved party, the state was also bound to protect its officials from “illegal” probe.

The SC bench was about to stay the HC order, but it deferred the hearing for Feb 26 after Rohatgi pleaded for time to clear the preliminary objection raised by the bench by placing before it details of writ petitions filed by ED against the state. He also said there was no predicate offence in the case for ED to start probe and HC was right in staying the summonses.

Additional solicitor general S V Raju, appearing for ED, told SC that the district collectors were not among the accused in the case and were summoned only as witnesses.

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 24 February 2023)

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

17 February, 2024

Weekly Legal Updates ( 11 February to 17 February 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.

Stop addressing trial courts as ‘lower courts’: Supreme Court

In the recent past, Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and other judges of the Supreme Court have categorically expressed their displeasure over addressing trial courts as lower courts or subordinate courts.

The Supreme Court has asked its registry to stop referring to trial courts as “lower courts”. “It will be appropriate if the Registry of this court stops referring to the Trial Courts as ‘Lower Courts’. Even the record of the trial court should not be referred to as Lower Court Record (LCR). Instead, it should be referred as the Trial Court Record (TCR),” a bench of justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said in an order passed on February 8.

The Court was hearing an appeal by two murder convicts challenging an order of the Allahabad high court passed in October 2018 upholding their conviction and life sentence for an incident in 1981. Posting the matter for hearing in August, the court asked the Registrar (Judicial) to take note of this order for future compliance. The bench further directed the registry to supply soft copies of the trial court record to the lawyers appearing for the convict and the state of Uttar Pradesh.

This is perhaps the first time by a judicial order the registry has been asked to stop the practice of referring to trial courts as “lower courts”. In the recent past, Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and other judges of the Supreme Court have categorically expressed their displeasure over addressing trial courts as lower courts or subordinate courts and trying to dispel the impression that district court judges are somewhat inferior to judges of high courts or Supreme Court.

Last month, justice Oka, one of the judges who passed this order, while giving a memorial lecture, expressed his angst over disrespect shown to trial courts. Speaking on the topic “Access to Justice in the context of 75 years of Indian Constitution”, justice Oka said that the judiciary has failed to meet the expectations of common man over the past seven decades.

“One reason for not fulfilling expectation of common man is that we neglected our trial and district courts which are the primary court in our system,” he said, adding, “For years together we used to describe these courts as lower courts or subordinate courts. There can’t be a lower court. Every court is a court.”

He further stated that the real place where common man gets justice is the district courts. “For a common man who cannot afford to have multiple litigation for social, economic reasons, perhaps, these are the courts which are the final courts,” the judge remarked.

Soon after taking over as CJI in November 2022, CJI Chandrachud said, “We should move towards a modern and an equal judiciary,” seeking to inculcate a sense of self-worth in the district judiciary. CJI said, “We have fostered a culture of subordination....A great deal has to be done not only in terms of infrastructure of our district judiciary which is extremely important for which we have to lay the foundation stones today. But we must have to also change our mindset as superior court judges of SC and high courts of how we look at our district judiciary and how we perceive of them.”

(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 11 February 2024)

Supreme Court asks Centre to respond to plea by Coast Guard’s woman officer

The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Centre’s response to a petition by a woman short service appointment (SSA) officer of the Indian Coast Guard (ICG) seeking parity with male officers for permanent absorption, denied to women officers under the existing rules.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud issued notice on the petition filed by Commandant (junior grade) Priyanka Tyagi whose 14-year tenure as SSA officer ended on December 30 and was released from service after she was denied any interim relief by the Delhi high court on December 21, 2023.

“We will issue notice. Let us see what they (Centre and Indian Coast Guard) have to say,” said the bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. Since the petitioner’s plea for permanent absorption has been pending with the Delhi high court since August last year, the bench also considered the option of expediting the high court proceeding.

Senior advocate Archana Pathak Dave, who appeared for Tyagi, argued that the high court should have relied on the top court’s previous decisions and stayed the release of the petitioner, the only woman in her batch to seek permanent absorption.

“I want to continue in service but they released me in December causing me great prejudice. So far no woman SSA officer has been granted permanent absorption as Coast Guard Rules do not permit woman SSAs to change to permanent entry scheme,” Dave said.

In the petition filed through advocate Siddhant Sharma, the officer who joined the Coast Guard as assistant commandant in December 2009, said there was no discrimination between women and male SSAs till November 2009.

On November 13, 2009, the government notified the Assistant Commandant Woman (General Duty) Short Service Recruitment Rules which said that “women officers shall not have the option to change over to permanent entry scheme.”

The petition relied on Supreme Court rulings that paved the way for equal opportunity for women short-service commission officers in the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force to be considered for permanent commission on par with their male counterparts and asked why the same rule did not extend to Coast Guard, an armed force since 1978.

During the 14 years that she was in the Coast Guard, Tyagi said she rose from an assistant commandant to deputy commandant and recently, commandant (JG). She was permitted to write the mid-career professional examination for promotion as commandant, and two of her superiors recommended her permanent absorption in 2021 when she completed 12 years. The move was, however, blocked by the defence ministry which said permanent absorption for women SSAs did not apply to the Coast Guard.

Tyagi said she made several attempts to persuade the government but received the final communication on May 26, 2023, informing her that she would be released from service on December 30. Tyagi approached the Delhi high court in August last year.

Her petition said the case was taken up by the high court but the Centre kept buying time claiming that a committee had been formed to study the feasibility of permanent induction of women SSAs. In November, the Centre cited the rules to turn down her request, leading the high court to decline her interim relief.

Tyagi said the government did not change the rules to allow women though the Coast Guard was short of officers and was recruiting retired short-service commission naval officers

as permanent duty officers in the Coast Guard. “It clearly displays discrimination against serving SSA officers of Coast Guard and depriving them of serving the force,” the petition said.

Tyagi, who was posted at the Daman airport air station prior to her release, said she was part of the first-ever all-women crew on Dornier aircraft deployed in 2016 in the Eastern Region for maritime patrolling as captain of the aircraft. She completed 13 months of flying training to qualify as a navigator.

“The petitioner has 4500 flying hours on Dornier aircraft, the highest flying hours as per her seniority in all the forces, including male and female, and has heroically saved over 300 lives at sea,” the petition said.

(Courtesy:-Hindustan Times, 12 February 2024)

Appointment Of Deputy Chief Minister Not Unconstitutional: Supreme Court

The appointment of a Deputy Chief Minister in a state is not unconstitutional, the Supreme Court said on Monday while rejecting a petition.

The practice of appointing a Deputy Chief Minister is adopted in many states to give slightly more importance to senior leaders in the party or coalition of parties in power, said a bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.

"Even if you call someone Deputy Chief Minister, it is still a reference to a minister. A Deputy Chief Minister is the first and most important minister in the state government. It does not violate the Constitution," Chief Justice Chandrachud said during the hearing.

The petitioner had claimed that the Constitution prescribes no post for a Deputy Chief Minister and that it violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution. This sets a wrong example, the petition alleged, questioning the basis to make such an appointment.

Deputy Chief Ministers are often appointed to assist the Chief Minister of a state and to accommodate senior coalition leaders in the cabinet. Some states have more than one Deputy Chief Minister while some have none. Andhra Pradesh has five - the most in an Indian state.

The post of a Deputy Chief Minister is held as equivalent to that of a cabinet minister and enjoys similar pay and perks.

(Courtesy:- NDTV.com, 12 February 2024)

Supreme Court raps AAP for building party office on land allotted to Delhi High Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed shock and displeasure that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is encroaching on the land originally allotted to the Delhi High Court for its expansion for infrastructure purposes.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said, "How can a political party sit tight on that land? What will the High Court use it for? Only for the public and citizens. Why was the land allotted to the High Court then?"

During a brief hearing on the issue of the judicial infrastructure of courts across the country, advocate K Parameshwar told the bench that Delhi High Court officials, who had gone to take possession of the land, were stopped by AAP officials as they have their office there.

Law Secretary to the Government of Delhi, Bharat Parashar, also told the Supreme Court that the said land has been with the AAP since 2016. He said that the Land and Development Officer had already been informed about this and the process to allot another land to the political party is under process.

"It was a bungalow which was occupied by a minister and was later occupied by the political party," the Law Secretary told the bench.

The court then asked counsel appearing for the Delhi government and Centre to tell the bench as to how the possession of land be given back to the High Court.

At this, the bench said the land must be returned to the Delhi High Court. The court also directed the Chief Secretary of the Delhi government, the Secretary to the Delhi Public Works Department and the Finance Secretary to convene a meeting with the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court to ensure the execution of the directions immediately.

The court has now slated the hearing for February 19.

Earlier also, the Supreme Court came down heavily on the Delhi government over the inordinate delay in giving funds for infrastructure projects in the Delhi High Court.

(Courtesy:- India Today, 13 February 2024)

SC Collegium recommends appointment of 13 additional HC judges as permanent judges

The Supreme Court Collegium headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud on Tuesday recommended appointment of 13 additional judges of three high courts as permanent judges.

The Collegium, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and B R Gavai, in a meeting held today recommended the names of Justices Boppana Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Chakravarthi and Tallapragada Mallikarjuna Rao for appointment as permanent judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court against two existing vacancies.

Additional Judge Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana’s name has been recommended as a permanent judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court against one existing vacancy.

“On February 24, 2023, the collegium of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh unanimously recommended that the three Additional Judges whose names are set out above be appointed as permanent Judges of that High Court. The Chief Minister and the Governor of Andhra Pradesh concurred with the above recommendation.

“A Committee of two judges of the Supreme Court constituted by the Chief Justice of India in terms of the Resolution dated October 26, 2017 of the Supreme Court collegium has assessed the judgments of the above Additional Judges. The Committee has rated the quality of their judgments as ‘good’,” the collegium said.

In another decision, the collegium has recommended the appointment of 10 additional judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as permanent Judges.

The judges whose names have been recommended are — Justices Kuldeep Tiwari, Gurbir Singh, Deepak Gupta, Amarjot Bhatti, Ritu Tagore, Manisha Batra, Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, Sukhvinder Kaur, Sanjiv Berry, and Vikram Aggarwal.

“On October 6, 2023, the Collegium of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana unanimously recommended for appointment of the Additional Judges whose names are set out above as permanent Judges of that High Court. The Chief Ministers and the Governors for the States of Punjab and Haryana have not conveyed their views on the above recommendation…

“In terms of the Memorandum of Procedure, the Judges of the Supreme Court conversant with the affairs of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana were consulted with a view to ascertain the suitability of the above Additional Judges for being appointed as permanent Judges. They have concurrently opined that all the Additional Judges are fit and suitable for confirmation as permanent Judges,” the collegium said.

(Courtesy:- Indian Express, 13 February 2023)

Defamation complaint against Tejashwi Yadav quashed by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed the defamation complaint against RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav over his alleged "only Gujaratis can be thugs" remark. A bench of Justices A S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan granted the relief to Yadav after noting that he has withdrawn his statement. "We have quashed the complaint," the bench said.

The top court on January 29 had directed Yadav to file a "proper statement" withdrawing his alleged remark that "only Gujaratis can be thugs". Yadav on January 19 filed an affidavit in the apex court
withdrawing his alleged "Gujarati thugs" remark.

The top court, while hearing the RJD leader's plea, had earlier stayed the proceedings in the criminal defamation complaint and issued notice to the Gujarat resident who had filed it in an Ahmedabad court.
The Gujarat court had in August conducted a preliminary inquiry against Yadav under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and found sufficient grounds to summon him on the complaint filed by Haresh Mehta, a local businessman and activist.

According to the complaint, Yadav, while talking to the media in Patna in March 2023, had said, "Only Gujaratis can be thugs in the present situation, and their fraud will be forgiven."

Mehta claimed Yadav's comments defamed all Gujaratis.

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 13 February 2024)

Appointment of CEC, ECs: Supreme Court refuses to stay new law again

The Supreme Court on Tuesday again refused to grant any interim stay on the law that provides for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) by a panel not comprising the Chief Justice of India.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta issued a notice to the Centre on a plea filed by NGO Association for Democratic Reforms and tagged it with two similar pending petitions by Congress leaders Jaya Thakur and Sanjay Narayanrao Meshram.

The pleas have challenged the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which was passed by Parliament during the Winter Session in December last.

Tuesday, appearing for the NGO, Advocate Prashant Bhushan urged the court to stay Section 7 of the Act, contending that it violates Article 14 (equality before law) and the basic features of the Constitution.

Section 7 of the Act says that the CEC and ECs shall be appointed by the President on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.

Bhushan also told the court that the provision was contrary to a Constitution Bench judgment, which had on March 2 last year, months before the law came into being, ruled that the CJI be there on the panel.

“Sorry, we cannot grant you interim relief in the matter… constitutional validity matters never become infructuous. We know our parameters for granting interim relief,” Justice Datta told Bhushan, when he submitted that the prayer may become infructuous in view of the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. The court also declined the prayer for listing the matter next week, saying it will take time. “We have to now examine in terms of the judicial review powers…we have to go into all those aspects,” the court said. The SC had on January 12 refused to stay the law while taking up the pleas by Thakur and Meshram. All three petitions will now be heard together in April.

(Courtesy:- Indian Express, 14 February 2024)

Bilkis Bano Case: Why Gujarat Govt Wants Supreme Court To Delete Remarks From Judgment

The Gujarat government has moved the Supreme Court against the January 8 judgment that quashed remission granted to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case. The Gujarat government wants the top court to delete "adverse remarks" made by the Supreme Court against it in the verdict that sent the 11 convicts back to jail. The Supreme Court had said that the Gujarat government usurped power not vested in it and aided the convicts.

What Were The "Adverse Remarks"?

The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan concluded that the apex court in the May 2022 judgment was misled by suppression of facts by the convict. It ruled that the use of power by Gujarat to grant relief to the convicts after the May 2022 ruling amounted to usurpation of power of the Maharashtra government.

The judgment said that the Gujarat government has acted in tandem with the convicts in misleading the Supreme Court.

"This is exactly what this court had apprehended at the previous stages of this case and had intervened on three earlier occasions in the interest of truth and justice by transferring the investigation to CBI and the trial to Special Court in Mumbai. Exercise of discretion by the State of Gujarat is nothing but an instance of usurpation of jurisdiction and an instance of abuse of discretion." The January 8 verdict by the top court read.

The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna while passing the verdict said that if really the State of Gujarat had in mind the provisions of law and the judgments of this court, and had adhered to the rule of law, it would have filed a review petition before this court by contending that it was not the appropriate Government to grant remission.

In its review petition, the state government has said that the observation by the top court that the State of Gujarat “acted in tandem and was complicit with the accused" has caused great prejudice to the State.

The petition filed by the state government seeks deletion of these remarks saying that the observation that the state acted in tandem and was complicit with convicts who misled the court is highly unwarranted and against the record of the case.

In May 2022, another Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath held that the Gujarat government had the jurisdiction to decide the remission as the offence took place there. This judgment was found to be "bad in law" in the January 8 judgement as it ignored precedents set by previous judgments and the statutory mandate. The bench of Justice Nagarathna held that the Supreme Court was misled by convict no. 3 Radheshyam Shah to pass the judgment's that paved the way for the release of 11 convicts.

Radheshyam Shah, one of the convicts, moved the top court seeking directions to the Gujarat government to consider remission for the 11 convicts. The Supreme Court in the January 8 judgment found that Shah suppressed material facts including the Gujarat High Court order that had disposed of his petition twice and asked him to approach the Maharashtra government. He also suppressed the opinion of the Gujarat judge and made misleading statements.

Shah invoked the apex court's jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, it was found that he did not mention his application before the Maharashtra government. He also concealed adverse opinions by the CBI and the district judge's opinion.

The apex court held that the May 2022 judgment was passed as Shah misled the Supreme Court that there was a divergence of opinion between the Bombay High Court and the Gujarat High Court and found that Gujarat government was complicit and worked in tandem with him to mislead the Supreme Court.

A divergence of opinion between the two high courts lays the ground for a writ petition to be accepted in the Supreme Court.

The bench headed by Justice Nagarathna held that the earlier ruling of May 2022 was invalid in law.

The Gujarat government has now filed a petition against the judgment saying it acted only as per the mandamus issued by the Supreme Court in the May 2022 judgment.

The Gujarat government has also submitted that the May judgment by the top court shows that it had told the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court that it was the Maharashtra government that had power to decide on remission pleas since the trial happened in Maharashtra.

(Courtesy:- ABP Live, 14 February 2024)

Supreme Court introduces new ground rules to seek adjournments

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a circular tightening provisions relating to circumstances under which lawyers may seek adjournment of cases and imposed a bar on seeking two consecutive adjournments.

The new guidelines also require lawyers to get the consent of the opposing side before circulating a request for an adjournment, prohibit two consecutive adjournments in a case and mandate that the party seeking an adjournment will not only have to list a specific reason for making the request but also indicate the total number of adjournments already sought in the case.

The radical changes sought to be introduced by the new guidelines come two weeks after Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud spoke about the challenges presented by the “adjournment culture” in his foundation day lecture on the Supreme Court’s 75th year of establishment on January 28.

Wednesday’s circular started with a quick list of circumstances when the court will not entertain a request for an adjournment.

“Circulating letters for adjournment in fresh and regular hearing matters is not permitted.” In matters where notice has been issued, the top court’s instruction said, “No letters for adjournment shall be entertained in cases relating to bail/anticipatory bail, where an exemption from surrendering has been granted, where interim order is operating in favour of the party who seeks adjournment, and where suspension of sentence has been sought for.” In all other cases, the letter of adjournment will be entertained a day before the case list’s publication.

The new rules also stipulate that “letters (for adjournment) can be circulated by one party/counsel to the case only once.”

The circular makes it mandatory to obtain consent/no objection of advocates/parties appearing on the opposite side before moving a letter of adjournment. “Two consecutive adjournments, irrespective of which party is seeking an adjournment, shall not be permitted without the matter being listed before the Court.”

When a matter does get adjourned, it will have to be listed before the court within the following four weeks and no request to mention the matter to seek to advance the given date will be permitted, the circular said.

The circular also introduced a form that will need to be filled out to standardise the information that will need to be shared.

In his January 28 address, CJI Chandrachud deprecated the adjournment culture in courts.

“Our ability to remain relevant as an institution requires us to recognise challenges and begin difficult conversations. First, we must emerge out of the adjournment culture to a culture of professionalism and second, we have to ensure that the length of oral arguments does not interminably delay judicial outcomes.”

He further said, “The 75th year since the founding provides an opportunity to meet these challenges and step into the future with an honest assessment of our progress.”

(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 14 February 2024)

SC collegium recommends transfer of 3 HC judges

The Supreme Court collegium headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud has recommended to the Centre the transfer of three high court judges on their request. In a meeting held on Tuesday, the collegium, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, accepted the request of Calcutta HC judge Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya seeking a transfer to any other high court.
"By a communication dated February 12, 2024, Ms Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya has sought a transfer from the High Court at Calcutta to any other High Court for personal reasons. The Collegium accedes to the request and resolves to recommend that Ms Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya be transferred, in the interests of the better administration of justice, to the High Court for the State of Telangana," the collegium said.
It also accepted the request of Justice Anu Sivaraman who has sought a transfer out of the State of Kerala.
"The collegium accedes to the request and resolves to recommend that Ms. Justice Anu Sivaraman be transferred, in the interests of the better administration of justice, to the Karnataka High Court," it said.

In another decision, the collegium said that it received a communication dated February 12, 2024, from Justice Sujoy Paul seeking a transfer on the ground that his son is practising in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
"The Collegium accedes to the request and resolves to recommend that Mr Justice Sujoy Paul be transferred, in the interests of the better administration of justice, to the High Court for the State of Telangana," the collegium said in a resolution uploaded on the apex court website.

(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 14 February 2024)

Electoral bonds scheme 'unconstitutional’: Supreme Court strikes down poll funding system

The Supreme Court holds that anonymous electoral bonds scheme is violative of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a).

In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday said the electoral bonds scheme has to be struck down as “unconstitutional”. It has delivered a unanimous verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the legal validity of the central government’s electoral bond scheme which allowed for anonymous funding to political parties.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud held that the anonymous electoral bonds scheme is violative of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a). The bench had on November 2 last year reserved its verdict in the matter.

The Supreme Court said political parties are relevant units in the electoral process and information about funding of political parties is essential for electoral choices. The court also directed the State Bank of India or SBI to not issue any more of these bonds.

The decision is seen as a setback for the Bharatiya Janata Party, which has been the largest beneficiary of the system it introduced in 2017. The SBI shall submit details of electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019, to date to the Election Commission, the Supreme Court said.

"In a very significant judgment which will have a long-term effect on our electoral democracy, the Supreme Court has struck down the electoral bonds scheme and all the provisions that were made to bring it into effect in the income tax act, in the companies act, etc. everything has been struck down. They have held that this violates the fundamental right to information of citizens to know about who is contributing this much money to political parties," advocate Prashant Bhushan told reporters on the Supreme Court's verdict.

The scheme, which was notified by the government on January 2, 2018, was pitched as an alternative to cash donations made to political parties as part of efforts to bring in transparency in political funding.

According to the provisions of the scheme, electoral bonds could be purchased by any citizen of India or entity incorporated or established in the country. An individual can buy electoral bonds, either singly or jointly with other individuals.

Only the political parties registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and which secured not less than 1 per cent of the votes polled in the last elections to the Lok Sabha or a state legislative assembly were eligible to receive electoral bonds.

According to the notification, electoral bonds shall be encashed by an eligible political party only through an account with an authorised bank.

In April 2019, the apex court had declined to stay the electoral bonds scheme and made it clear that it would accord an in-depth hearing on the pleas as the Centre and the Election Commission had raised "weighty issues" that had "tremendous bearing on the sanctity of the electoral process in the country".

The Constitution bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, had on October 31 last year commenced hearing arguments on the four petitions, including those filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).

During the hearing in the matter, the apex court had underscored the need for reducing the cash component in the electoral process.

(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 15 February 2024)

If doctors can be sued over poor service, why not lawyers, asks SC

There are at least 1.3 million lawyers, according to statistics with Bar Council of India, apex body to regulate legal education and profession in India.

Why can’t lawyers be sued for poor service if doctors can be brought before consumer courts for negligence? The Supreme Court raised this question on Wednesday as it began hearing a clutch of petitions about whether legal representation for a fee can be classified as a “service” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

“You (lawyer) have to also employ your skills and knowledge in the facts of that case... like a doctor does with a patient. How is it any different from a doctor?” asked a bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, as it started to consider several petitions that questioned the views taken by the national consumer commission in 2007.

In its 2007 judgment, the commission held that advocates do come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and can be dragged to a consumer court by their clients for deficiency in service. The judgment declared that the legal services rendered by lawyers would come within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the 1986 Act that defines “service”, making them liable under the law.

“Undisputedly, lawyers are rendering service. They are charging fees. It is not a contract of personal service. Therefore, there is no reason to hold that they are not covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,1986,” the consumer commission held in its 2007 judgment that was stayed by the top court in April 2009.

Commencing the arguments on behalf of the appellants that comprised several lawyer bodies, senior counsel Narender Hooda objected to the rationale of the 2007 judgment, arguing lawyers stand on a completely different footing from any other professionals, including doctors.

“The first duty of a lawyer is towards the court since he has to act as an officer of the court. There is no one-to-one relationship that a lawyer has with his clients. Further, success in a case does not depend only on the skills of a lawyer but it will depend on courts,” argued Hooda.

Disagreeing, the bench replied: “If a lawyer does not remain present in the court and an ex parte decree is passed against his client. The lawyer does not even tell his client why the case was dismissed. Who will be responsible for this? For this kind of negligence, the court doesn’t come in the picture at all.”

While Hooda said that there is already a mechanism under the Advocates Act to conduct an inquiry against lawyers for misconduct, the bench retorted: “Negligence and misconduct are two different concepts. How do you differentiate your profession from doctors? They also have their own regulations under the Medical Council of India Act and still they come under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.”

Responding, Hooda said that attributing negligence or deficiency to lawyers will expose them to two different actions – one, under the Advocates Act, and second, under the consumer law.

The bench, however, replied: “In that case, a court can always decide whether it’s professional misconduct or negligence. There’s a difference between professional misconduct and professional negligence and the court can adjudicate that depending on the facts of a case.”

To this, Hooda contended: “It’s different from doctors. When a doctor operates on a patient inside an operating theatre, nobody is watching. But a lawyer conducts his operation, it is in full public glare...Every unhappy client will then pursue a case before the consumer court.”

But the bench commented: “Every argument you are making is true for doctors too. But they (doctors) are made to face cases before consumer courts...and then you cannot prevent anyone from filing a frivolous or false case. That’s true for all professions and professionals.”

Adjourning the case to Thursday for hearing it further, the court told Hooda that he would have to explicate how lawyers are different from doctors in providing services. Senior counsel V Giri, who assists the court as amicus curiae, will also present his views on Thursday.

There are at least 1.3 million lawyers in India, according to statistics with the Bar Council of India, the apex body to regulate legal education and profession in the country.

The 2007 judgment by the national consumer commission said that a lawyer may not be responsible for the favourable outcome of a case because the result does not depend upon only a lawyer’s work. The commission also held that a lawyer and a client have a bilateral contract. “On receipt of fees, a lawyer would appear and represent the matter on behalf of his client. To hold that contract is unilateral is to ignore the fact that even after discussion, the client may not engage the advocate or the advocate may refuse to accept the brief. Hence, such a contract can never be said to be unilateral,” stated the commission.

(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 15 February 2024)

PIL filed in Supreme Court for CBI investigation into Sandeshkhali violence

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court, requesting a court-monitored investigation by the CBI or SIT into the recent violence in Sandeshkhali village, West Bengal. The PIL, filed by lawyer Alakh Alok Srivastava, also demands compensation for the victims and action against the West Bengal Police officials for their alleged negligence.

The plea further seeks the transfer of the investigation and subsequent trial outside the state. Additionally, it calls for a three-judge committee to conduct an inquiry, similar to the one conducted in the Manipur violence case.

Sandeshkhali is a village located in the North 24 Parganas district, has been witnessing protests following allegations of sexual abuse by a local TMC leader. Several women in the area have accused Shajahan Sheikh, the Trinamool Congress strongman, and his supporters of land-grabbing and coercive sexual assault.

Shajahan has been absconding after a mob, allegedly affiliated to him, attacked Enforcement Directorate officials who has gone to search his premises in connection with a corruption case.

(Courtesy: The Times of India, 16 February 2024)

Class-IV employee cannot be sacked merely for sending representations directly to top authorities: SC

A class-IV government employee cannot be sacked merely because he sent representations directly to superior authorities bypassing the proper channel, the Supreme Court has held.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and P K Mishra made the observation while setting aside the termination of an employee of district judiciary.

Chhatrapal was dismissed for sending direct representations to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court and other officials of the Uttar Pradesh government, including the chief minister.

“A Class-IV employee, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to superiors but that by itself cannot amount to major misconduct for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed,” the bench said.
It said even otherwise, the appellant has cited examples of other employees of the Bareilly district court who sent representations directly to senior authorities but no action was taken against them.

The top court ordered Chhatrapal’s reinstatement after setting aside the order of the Allahabad High Court.

The high court had in 2019 dismissed his writ petition challenging the dismissal, saying it was devoid of merit.
Chhatrapal was appointed on a permanent basis as an orderly, a class IV post, in the Bareilly district court.

He was later transferred and posted as process server in the Nazarat of an outlying court of Bareilly. Though he joined the Nazarat Branch, he was being paid the remuneration of an orderly. Nazarat Branch, is the process serving agency responsible for delivery and execution of various processes like summons, notices, warrants etc. issued by courts.

After he made several direct representations to senior authorities, he was placed under suspension in June 2003 and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him.

(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 17 February 2024)

Homemaker’s work no less than salary-earning spouse’s: Supreme Court

According to the bench, the worth of a woman looking after the household is of a “high order” and her contributions are hard to quantify in monetary terms.

The value of a woman’s work at home is no less than that of someone who brings a salary from office, the Supreme Court held on Friday, terming the contribution of a “homemaker” invaluable.

According to a bench of justices Suryan Kant and KV Viswanathan, the worth of a woman looking after the household is of a “high order” and her contributions are hard to quantify in monetary terms. At the same time, the top court added, tribunals and courts ought to calculate the notional income of “homemakers” based on their work, labour and sacrifices in cases of motor accident claims.

“The role of a homemaker is as important as that of a family member whose income is tangible. If the activities performed by a homemaker are computed one by one, there cannot be any doubt that the contribution is of a high order and is invaluable. In fact, it is difficult to compute her contributions only in monetary terms,” stated the bench in its order on Friday.

The court was hearing a motor accident case arising out the unfortunate death of a woman from Uttarakhand in a road accident in 2006. As the vehicle in which she was travelling was not insured, the liability fell on the owner of the vehicle to pay her family the compensation. A motor accident claims tribunal awarded her family— her husband and minor son — damages of ₹2.5 lakh. The family appealed in the Uttarakhand high court for higher compensation, but their plea was dismissed in 2017.

In its order, the high court noted that she was a “homemaker” and therefore, the compensation had to be fixed based on her life expectancy and a bare minimum notional income. The high court found no infirmities in the tribunal’s order that treated the woman’s notional income as less than that of a daily labourer.

But on Friday, the Supreme Court disapproved of this stance, while hearing the appeal against the high court order. It berated the high court for adopting an outdated approach. “How can a homemaker’s income be treated as less than that of a daily wager? We don’t accept such an approach,” the bench said.

The bench highlighted the amount of time and efforts that is dedicated to household work by individuals. The top court further criticised the high court for a spree of factual errors in its judgment – the high court got the type of vehicle wrong; the age of the deceased woman wrong and called her minor son an adult person.

The bench then proceeded to enhance the compensation to ₹6 lakh, directing it to be paid to the family of the deceased woman within six weeks. “One should never underestimate the value of a homemaker,” it further remarked.

The Supreme Court order on Friday takes forward the jurisprudential leap that seeks to acknowledge the value of women engaged in household work without a salary and, when appropriate, monetise them. According to the 2011 Census, nearly 159.85 million women stated that “household work” was their main occupation, as compared to only 5.79 million men.

(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 17 February 2024)

NEET MDS 2024: Supreme Court issues notice on exam postponement plea

The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice in response to a writ petition requesting the rescheduling of NEET MDS 2024 examination, scheduled for March 18, 2024. The petition also seeks to direct the extension of the eligibility cut-off by revising the internship completion dates.
A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard the case. The All India Students' Union (AISU) sent a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Health Minister Mansukh Mandaviya, and the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), requesting the rescheduling of the NEET MDS exam.

NMC had announced the internship cut-off date for the National Eligibility Entrance Test - Postgraduate (NEET PG) to be August 15, whereas the last date for NEET MDS is March 31. The NEET MDS 2024 registration deadline is February 19.

In 2023, the Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking the rescheduling of NEET MDS 2023, noting, "Before parting with the case we also make it clear from the next academic year the respondent shall take steps to see that all the candidates who have completed MBBS/BDS course across the country a uniform cut off date be fixed and enough care is taken to ensure that sufficient time is granted to all the students to prepare for NEET."

Many candidates have expressed dissatisfaction with the decision to postpone the NEET PG 2024 exam from March 3 to July 7, considering it discriminatory, especially when compared to the NEET MDS exam. Appealing for parity, candidates argue that in past NEET MDS exams have been held simultaneously with NEET PG, prompting a plea for alignment with the NEET PG schedule to ensure an adequate preparation period.

A group of aspirants have filed a petition in the apex court seeking the postponement of the NEET MDS 2024 exam to July. They seek alignment with the NEET PG schedule to allow for adequate preparation time. The Supreme Court has provisionally scheduled the case regarding the postponement for February 16.

Taking cognizance of the matter, the Supreme Court bench agreed to issue a notice; however, it showed reluctance to provide interim relief, stating that it is "only a matter of cut-off." The matter is now scheduled for a tentative hearing on February 21, 2024.

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 17 February 2024)

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

Legal News in this Weekly Legal Update are compiled by Team www.deepakmiglani.com