- Supreme Court refuses to stay the infamous SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act judgment– The Supreme Court refused to stay its March 20 judgment on diluting the stringency of the POA, on an application of recall of the judgment filed by the Union of India. The Attorney General argued that the judgment was judicial legislation and the Court had encroached on the prerogative of the Legislature, since the Courts only have the power to lay down general guidelines for the disposal of cases before it and cannot create the law. He also highlighted the heinous nature of the crimes that are reported under the Act. Ms. Indira Jaising, appearing on behalf of the original complainant, against whose FIR the Petitioner in the present case had approached the Apex Court, also submitted that the original petitioner had not come to court with clean hands and had actively hidden those parts of the FIR, in its English translation, that weakened his case. Following which, she also presented the Court with an application for perjury, which was dismissed.The Court, however, decided to treat the petition for recall of judgment as a review petition. [ Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra, Miscellaneous Application Dairy No. 15064 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2018, date of order: 03.05.2018]
- Directions issued by the Supreme Court for the better implementation of POCSO – The Supreme Court has issued directions for the better disposal of matters under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The petitioner in the case had collected data from the registries of High Courts of various states to show that the pendency in most states was anywhere between 89%-95%, in spite of the clear mandate by the Act to complete the trial in 1 year. To tackle the situation at hand, the Court directed that the High Courts would ensure that the special courts dispose off the cases as per the provisions of the Act; the special courts should not grant adjournments easily; High Courts would have to constitute a committee to look into the progress of the trials under the Act, etc. [Alakh Alok Srivastava v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 76 of 2018, date of order: 01.05.2018]
- Centre to introduce DNA Profiling Bill soon in the Parliament – The Central Government submitted in the Supreme Court, in response to a petition filed by Lokniti Foundation praying for directions to the governments for dealing with the unclaimed dead bodies that are reported annually, that it would introduce the DNA Profiling Bill in the Parliament in the monsoon season to deal with the issue, which would cover the unidentified dead bodies and missing persons.The Bill wiould constitute a DNA profiling board and data banks where the information collected would be stored. The main aim of the bill is to help the relatives of missing persons to locate them. Upon this submission, the Court disposed of the petition. Lokniti Foundation v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No.491/2012, dated 01.05.2012]
- Issue of ‘seat’ of arbitrationreferred to a larger bench–After months of deliberation, the Supreme Court has referred a specific question pertaining to the issue of determination of ‘seat’ of arbitration when the parties only mention a ‘venue’ in their arbitration clause to a larger bench. The Court stated that “though, the question regarding the “seat” and “venue” for holding arbitration proceedings by the arbitrators arising under the Arbitration Agreement/International Commercial Arbitration Agreement is primarily required to be decided keeping in view the terms of the arbitration agreement itself, but having regard to the law laid down by this Court in several decisions by the Benches of variable strength”, itrequired the consideration of a larger bench. [Union of India v Hardy Exploration and Production, Civil Appeal No. 4628 of 2018, date of order: 01.05.2018]
- Petition challenging ban on condom ads during daytime dismissed – The Rajasthan High Court shockingly dismissed a petition challenging the advisory issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting regulating time slots for airing condom ads. The petitioner, an NGO working with HIV+ve patients, argued that the advisory was against Article 14, since the time slot for 10PM to 6AM had been specified without any reasonable explanation. The High Court though refused to interfere observing that it was “the duty of the legislature to regulate such telecast of advertisement of condoms”. [Global Alliance For Human Rights v Union Of India, Double Bench Civil Writs No. 23387/2017, date of order: 30.04.2018]
- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders against NDTV set aside – The Delhi High Court set aside two orders of the ITAT, Delhi against NDTV. The first order had allowed a plea by the Income Tax Department for an early hearing in the case without giving due notice of the hearings to NDTV. The decision was challenged on the grounds that the order was not an administrative one, as ITAT had observed in the impugned order, but a judicial one and the requirement of notice could not be skipped. The second order allowed the IT Department to place additional evidence before the tribunal, without giving notice and without following proper statutory requirements. The High Court set aside both orders for falling foul of principles of natural justice and the provisions of the IT Act, but allowed the IT Department to apply again in accordance with the relevant provisions. [Radhika Roy v DCIT, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4742-4273 of 2018 and Criminal Application No. 18428-18251 of 2018, date of order: 04.05.2018]
- Police Manual held to be a public document – The Bombay High Court has held that the Police Manual is a public document and further directed the Director General of Maharashtra Police to upload the same on the website of the Police. The petitioner had sought copies of the Police Manual in English and Marathi but the request was rejected citing Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, which mandates that information could be denied in situations where the release of the information could endanger the life of the source of information. The High Court observed that the Police Manual was not information and Section 8(1)(g) had no application in the case, while noting that Police Manual is a government document. [State of Maharashtra v Chief Information Commissioner, Writ Petition No. 9971 of 2013, date of order: 19.04.2018]
- Dalmia Group’s resolution plan rejected – The National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) Kolkata Bench directed the Committee of Creditors to consider the revised offer from UltraTech Cements within 3 days. The resolution plan submitted by Dalmia Group was opposed by Ultra Tech, which was the second highest bidder and other operational creditors as well, as they were getting between 10-70% of their verified claims. In its revised offer, Ultra Tech has offered 100% payment of all verified claims. The NCLT while directing the CoC also has given Dalmia Group a chance to revise its plan. [Bank of Baroda v Binani Cement, Company Petition (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code) 359/KB of 2017, date of order: 02.05.2018]
- Chota Rajan convicted of murder of journalist Jyotirmoy Dey – The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court convicted gangster Chota Rajanof the murder of journalist Jyotirmoy Dey in 2011. The trial saw witnesses and, apart from the chargesheet filed by the Mumbai Police, a supplementary chargesheet filed by the CBI. Dey was murdered at the behest of Rajan. There were 11 accused in the trial, 9 including Rajan, were convicted after 7 years of the incident. The acquitted include Jigna Vohra, who according to the police’s version due to her professional rivalry, had instigated Rajan into ordering the killing. [CBI v Rohee Tangappan Joseph and Ors., Mcoc Special Case No.19 of 2011, 07 of 2012, 15 of 2016, date of judgment: 02.05.2018]
Others –
- Operators directed to accept other documents than Aadhaar for Mobile SIMs – The government has directed telecom operators to accept other documents like passport, voter IDs for verification for issuing new SIMs. The move has been prompted by the submission of the government last week where it accepted that the DoT circular asking telecom operators to conduct re-verification of the customers using Aadhaar, had no basis in the Supreme Court order in Lokniti Foundation v Union of India.
- Supreme Court defers the decision of Justice K.M. Joseph – The Collegium has decided to defer the reconsideration of the elevation of Justice K.M. Joseph to the Supreme Court, in light of the recommendations made by the Central Government. The minutes of the Collegium meeting indicated that it would take into account the judges superior in rank to Justice Mr. Joseph and also deal with the issue of representation from other High Courts.
(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.
