- Denial of sanction to prosecute Yogi Adityanath in hate speech case challenged in Supreme Court – The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government in an appeal filed against an Allahabad High Court judgment, given earlier this year, dismissing a petition seeking an investigation into the denial of sanction by the government to prosecute Chief Minister, Yogi Adityanath. The original petition had also asked for the transfer of the investigation to an independent agency into a speech given by Yogi Adityanath, then BJP MLA from Gorakhpur, which allegedly led to riots. The petition was then dismissed for lack of sanction. The Petitioner informed the Apex Court that Adityanath had accepted his responsibility in the issue in an interview to a private news channel as well. [Parvez Parwaz & Anr. Vs. State of UP& Ors, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6190/2018, date of order: 20.08.2018]
- NOTA will not be allowed in Rajya Sabha elections – The Supreme Court recently quashed a notification of the Election Commission of India providing for NOTA (None of the Above) option in Rajya Sabha elections. The petition argued that the notification was in violation of Article 80(4) of the Constitution (Regarding election to the Council of States), the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Article 80(4) provides for indirect election to the Rajya Sabha by the Members of the Legislative Assembly of the State in accordance with the system of proportional representation by single transferable vote, which would be rendered irrelevant by the provision of NOTA. The Court held that it would undermine the purity of democracy and would also encourage corruption and defection in such elections. [Shailesh Manubhai Parmar v ECI, Writ Petition (Civil) No.631 of 2017, date of judgment: 21.08.2018]
- Petition challenging the SC/ST Atrocities Amendment Act, 2018 filed – A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Act amending the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, which was passed by Parliament recently. The Act came effectively overruled the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, which had introduced requirements of a preliminary inquiry into the allegations and of permission before an arrest. The new Section 18A restores the unconditional ban on grant of anticipatory bail and removes the requirement of an inquiry. The decision saw massive unrest across the country and the Centre had sought a review in the same. But the Act has rendered the review petition unnecessary. The petition challenges the Act on the ground that the Act is being misused, as indicated by the high rate of acquittals under the Act and that the ban on anticipatory bail is in violation of a person’s right to liberty guaranteed under the Constitution. [Prathvi Raj Chauhan & Priya Sharma v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1015 of 2018]
- Centre agrees with the suggestion of live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings – In a significant development, the Attorney General of India, KK Venugopal has made submissions in the petition filed by Indira Jaising seeking a declaration by the Supreme Court allowing the live streaming of important matters that affect the lives of the people at large and are of national importance. The Attorney General recommends that a pilot project should be started only in the Chief Justice’s Court and only in the important matters of Constitutional law. A media room should be designated in the Supreme Court for managing the required infrastructure. [Indira Jaising v Secretary General and Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 66 of 2016, date of order: 24.08.2018]
- Calcutta High Court order allowing online nominations in West Bengal Panchayat elections quashed – The Supreme Court has quashed the Calcutta High Court order directing the State Election Commission for West Bengal to accept the nominations filed online in the West Bengal Panchayat elections. The judgment has given 30 days time to those candidates who were uncontested to challenge the results. Earlier, the Supreme Court decision dictated that the elections would proceed as scheduled in a free and fair manner. The State EC has also been restrained from issuing results of such constituencies without leave of the Court. [West Bengal State Election Commission v Communist Party of India, CIVIL APPEAL NO 8515 OF 2018 (Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 12590 Of 2018), date of judgment: 24.08.2018]
- Media reporting prohibited in Muzaffarpur shelter home proceedings – The Patna High Court has restrained the media from reporting on the Muzaffarpur shelter homes case in all forms, electronic or print. The Court stated that the reporting would hamper the reporting of the case, especially with respect to the investigation of the cases. The Supreme Court had earlier restrained the media from publishing images of the victims. The earlier investigating officer was transferred in the midst of investigation, reasons for which were sought by the Court from the CBI. The CBI did not comply with the orders and another opportunity has been granted to it by the Patna High Court. [Based On The Letter Of Social Activist Mr. Saleem Madavoor Dated 29.07.2018 v State of Bihar, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15490 of 2018, date of order: 23.08.2018]
- MCI ordered to frame guidelines for delinquent doctors – The Delhi High Court has asked the Medical Council of India to come up with guidelines for delinquent doctors and respond on the issue within 3 months. The case pertained to a surgery which the petitioner had endured in his left leg, even though he required surgery in his right leg. Delhi Medical Council had taken sou moto cognisance of the case. The DMC had suspended the doctors for 80 days. The victim moved against this decision to the MCI, which exonerated the attending doctor as he was not present during the surgery. Overruling the MCI order, the High Court held that the attending doctor did owe a duty of care to the petitioner and his absence on the day of the surgery alone could not exonerate him of the same. The MCI is also required to hear the matter afresh. [Ravi Rai v Medical Council of India, Writ Petition No. 10506 of 2017, date of judgment: 20.08.2018]
- Notice issued to LIC, RBI etc on LIC’s plan to acquire 51% – The Delhi High Court issued notice to LIC, RBI and various other authorities to seek their response on LIC’s impending acquisition of a stake in IDBI. The petition has been filed by the IDBI officers asking the court to issue directions ensuring that % the stake of the officers is not reduced from the existing 77% and barring LIC from acquiring the stated 51%. The officers argue that this would lead to loss of their status as a public sector bank and a Government company as this acquisition will lay the path for future privatisation of the Bank. [All India IDBI officers’ Association v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8842 of 2018, date of order: 24.08.2018]
(IPA Service)
Prepared by Amritananda Chakravorty (amritananda.c@gmail.com) and Mihir Samson (mihirsamson@gmail.com), Delhi based practicing Advocates.
The post Weekly Round-Up of Major Decisions of the Courts in India as also Legal Policy Developments appeared first on Newspack by India Press Agency.
