i. Supreme Court modifies the guidelines of Section 498A, IPC: The Supreme Court has modified the directions issued by it in Rajesh Sharma v Uttar Pradesh, which were aimed at controlling the misuse of Section 498A, but ended up diluting the whole law. The Court felt that the directions were more legislative in nature than judicial – creating an extra judicial body to perform functions of the police could not have been done. The Court had no authority to create such a body and yet it did – in clear violation of the scheme of the CrPC. The power to quash proceedings as provided in the CrPC, for section 498A only lay with the High Courts. So the direction of withdrawing criminal proceedings in the event a settlement is reached could not be allowed. [Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 73 of 2015, date of order: 14.09.2018]
ii. Discrimination cannot be allowed on the basis of leprosy – The Supreme Court has issued directions to ensure that discrimination on the basis of the fact that a person has leprosy should not be allowed. The directions ask the governments to make campaigns to tell people about availability of free treatments for leprosy. Measures should be taken for rehabilitation of those suffering from leprosy and they should be given disability certificates. The State has to ensure that no discrimination in education and employment is perpetrated against them. The Court reiterated that it has been accepted that the disease is completely curable. The State has also been asked to formulate a policy to end leprosy and provide the proper treatment for the same.[Pankaj Sinha v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 767 of 2014, date of judgment: 14.09.2018]
iii. Court reiterates the duties of a Public Prosecutor – The Supreme Court has reminded the public prosecutors that they cannot act as the ‘post office of the government’ and are actually required to assist the Court in the relevant proceedings. The accused in this case belongs to a party which is an ally of the ruling government and so when it came in power, it ordered withdrawal of prosecution under certain sections of the IPC. The Court also criticised the decision taken by the lower court of simply accepting the government’s decision without checking whether the procedural requirements were met. The matter has been remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to reconsider the matter. [Abdul Wahab K v State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal No. 1047 of 2018, date of order: 13.09.2018]
iv. Surendra Gadling receiving treatment like that of a third grade criminal, points out counsel – In a petition filed by historian Romila Thapar and four other eminent persons of the society, Senior Advocate Anand Grover pointed out in his arguments that Advocate Gadling was being treated as a third grade criminal because he had represented G.N. Saibaba, a Maoist activist, in his case against the Delhi University. He stated that Gadling was not being allowed to argue his case. The impleadment of Gautam Navlakha was also criticised by the ASG arguing that he was already pursuing his remedy before the Delhi High Court and was trying to get impleaded in the proceedings before the Supreme Court as well. The house arrest orders would continue till the next hearing.
v. Magistrate asked to pass reasoned orders to take cognizance criminal complaint against Yogi Adityanath – The Supreme Court has remanded the complaint against Yogi Aditynath back to the competent Chief Judicial Magistrate, which alleged that the Gorakhpur riots in 2007 were triggered by a speech that he had given, then an MP. The complaint mentioned offences against various sections of the IPC including Section 153A (promoting enmity between communities) which requires a sanction for the trial to proceed. The magistrate who took cognizance of the matter didn’t pass one and after following the entire chain of appeals across Courts, the matter has now been remanded to the CJM. [Rasheed Khan v State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No(s).3159/2018, date of order: 11.09.2018]
vi. CCTV Cameras within classrooms held not to be in violation of the right to privacy of the students – The Delhi High Court has held that CCTV cameras within classrooms were acceptable and not in violation to the right of privacy of the children – since no private activities were being performed in the classroom. The Court found that the safety of the children was more important than their privacy. Further, in case the parents accuse teachers of not teaching properly, the CCTVs would provide a clear picture. It was argued that girls discussed some private and personal matters in the classrooms and so it would not be proper to have cameras in the classrooms. The government assured that a procedure to use the cameras would be devised and the cameras would be password protected. [Daniel George v Government of NCT of Delhi, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7083 of 2018, date of judgment: 13.08.2018]
vii. Denial of a passport or delay in granting one without reasons violates fundamental rights of a citizen – The Delhi High Court has reiterated that denying a citizen a passport or delaying the passport without giving any reasons for the same violates their fundamental rights. In the instant case, the petitioner was working as a truck driver in Canada and eventually was nominated to be granted permanent resident status of Canada for which he needed his passport. Once he applied for renewal, it was revealed that his brother in law had applied for a passport by impersonating the petitioner and it was suspected that the petitioner had a role to play in the same. The Court came down heavily on the passport authorities stating that the fundamental rights of a citizen cannot be held hostage to the long periods of investigations they take. The Court has directed that the petitioner’s passport be renewed and in case any reason to cancel his passport is revealed during the investigation, it could be cancelled in accordance with law. [Jasvinder Singh Chauhan v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2091 of 2018, date of judgment: 11.09.2018]
viii. Arcellor Mittal challenges NCLAT order putting conditions on it for bidding for Essar – ArcellorMittal has challenged the NCLAT order which had asked it to pay₹7,000 cr loans of companies with which it was associated in the past to be eligible for bidding for Essar. While Numetal, its competitor, it is argued is related to the promoters of Essar and hence should not be allowed to bid, was cleared by the NCLAT without a hitch. Mittal further argued that it had exited the defaulting companies earlier in the year and issue did not exist anymore. They also drew the court’s attention to Numetal’s shareholding pattern to further discredit it. One of the major shareholders in it is a Russian Bank, VTB which was recently penalised by the European Union – raising suspicions over the interest of a Russian Bank in an Indian sick company. [ArcellorMittal Pvt. Ltd. v Satish Kumar Gupta Civil Appeal No. 9402 of 2018, date of orders: 12.09.2018 and 13.09.2018]
(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.
