- Live-in partners can seek maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act – The Supreme Court has held that a woman living in a live-in relationship is entitled to seek maintenance from her partner under the Domestic Violence Act. The Supreme Court was answering a reference from the Jharkhand High Court where the lower court had posed a question as to whether a live-in partner could claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. If a man and woman have been living together for a long time, the law presumes marriage instead of concubinage. Thus, the Court asked whether the live in partner could be covered even without a proper marriage in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act. The Supreme Court refused to answer the question and instead pointed out that a better remedy was available to such women under the Domestic Violence Act. [Lalita Toppo v State of Jharkhand, Criminal Appeal No(s). 1656 of 2015, date of judgment: 30.10.2018]
- Mere possibility of forgery is not reason enough to reject 5 documents to make claim for the NRC – The Supreme Court has allowed 5 more documents for the making of claims for inclusion into the first draft of the NRC. These are – “Names in NRC, 1951; Names in Electoral Roll upto 24th March, 1971; Citizenship Certificate; and Refugee Registration Certificate; Certified copies of pre-1971 Electoral Roll and ration cards”. These documents were sought to be excluded by the NRC State Co-ordinator for Assam, as he argued that the first two documents in the list, he feared, could have multiple entries registered against them and this would allow imposters to claim different entries to make their claims. Further the other three documents could have been easily forged. The Supreme Court not only denied his claims for not considering these documents on the mere suspicion of forgery, it also allowed the claims to now be filed until 15th December, 2018.[Assam Public Works v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No(S). 274/2009, date of order: 01.11.2018]
- Borrower/Debtor can file for securitisation of collateral at the stage of possession notice – The Supreme Court held that a debtor/borrower can go to the Debts Recovery Tribunal even at the stage of issuance of a possession notice issued in accordance with the Enforcement Rules under the Act. The judgment in turn set aside a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had explained that the borrower can apply for securitisation only when actual or physical possession of the collateral is taken and symbolic possession by issuance of a notice cannot be included in the meaning of taking possession in this case. But according to the Supreme Court, such a measure would completely denude the borrower of the remedy to file against the wrongful action of the creditor as the borrower would have to wait until a sale notice is issued, or worse still, until a sale actually takes place.[Hindon Forge v Uttar Pradesh, Civil Appeal No. 10873 Of 2018 [Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5895 of 2018], date of order: 01.11.2018]
- Even a woman of easy virtue can refuse to engage in intercourse – The Supreme Court overturned a decision of the Delhi High Court, which in turn had set aside the conviction of the accused by the trial court of the offence of gang rape, while noting that even a woman of easy virtue had the right to deny submitting herself to sexual intercourse with someone. The accused in the case alleged that the prosecutrix engaged in prostitution and they had lodged complaints to the effect as well. These complaints had not been submitted at the trial court level and the accused were convicted on the strength of the evidence of the prosecutrix. But during the course of the arguments at the High Court, these complaints were presented and the court then set aside the conviction. The Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court should not have accepted the complaints and further, it should not have disregarded the evidence of the prosecutrix simply because she may have engaged in prosecution. The trial court sentence of 10 years was restored. [State v Pankaj Chaudhary, Criminal Appeal No.2299 of 2009, date of order: 30.10.2018]
- Telecom Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations and Broadcasting and Cable services Regulations upheld – The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Madras High Court which had not accepted the challenge to the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017’ and Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Eighth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order, 2017, which placed a variety of restrictions on the way channels would be sold to customers. HD channels and SD channels cannot be bundled in the same bouquet of channels to the customers or in a bouquet a channel cannot be priced at more than ₹19 etc. The Court held that Copyright Act had no role to play here as it does not control the price of the channel and copyright only controls the right of the owner of the material from exploitation. Further, TRAI specifically enacted the Rules because customer choice was getting stifled by the bouquets being formed by the broadcasters making it an unfavourable deal for the subscribers, but the point of TRAI was to ensure that there is a level playing field for both, the consumer and the subscriber.[Star India Private Limited v Department of Industrial Policy and Promotions, Civil Appeal Nos. 7326-7327 of 2018, date of order: 30.10.2018]
- Stay ordered on online sale of medicines – The Madras High Court has ordered a stay on the sale of medicines by e-commerce platforms. This came as a response to a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Chemists and Druggists Association which claimed that the websites were selling Schedule H, H1 & X, which are only allowed to be sold with a valid prescription and under the supervision of a registered pharmacist, having licence. The Central government has come up with rules under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and has invited objections on the same, but until then unregulated sale of medicines should not be allowed, argued the petition. The Court took note of the issue and in an interim order prohibited the sale of such drugs until further directions. [Writ Petition No.28716 of 2018, date of order: 31.10.2018]
- PIL seeking directions to CBI to challenge Amit Shah’s discharge dismissed – The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition filed by the Bombay Lawyers Association seeking directions to be issued to the CBI to file an appeal against the discharge of Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin’s case. The petition noted that the CBI had clearly stated that Shah was the main accused in the case but they did not challenge the discharge. The Court, on the other hand, held that the petition had been filed ages after the discharge and thus saw no merit in granting the relief sought. [Bombay Lawyers Association v Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Public Interest LitigationStamp No.6 of 2018, date of order: 02.11.2018]
- Directives issued to control exercise of powers under Section 107 and 151 CrPC – The Delhi High Court has issued directions with respect to exercise of powers under Section 107 and 151 of the CrPC, which authorise preventive detention arrests, if it is suspected that the accused could harm public tranquillity an peace. In the case at hand, one Narender had been remanded to judicial custody by the SEM shortly after he was produced before him, without any papers being supplied to him or his family being informed of his arrest. The Court has asked for the setting up of an oversight committee to look into the behaviour of the SEMs, apart from creating separate spaces being created in jails for persons arrested under the said sections. The Court has also ordered the SEMs to satisfy themselves that the person accused has been informed of their constitutional rights and that they can either engage an advocate on their own or receive one from the State. The accused detainee should be allowed to effectively seek legal advice as well. The SEMs should also undergo training in relation to the measures suggested by the Law Commission of India and the NHRC in this regard. [Aldanish Rein v State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2039 of 2018, date of order: 01.11.2018]
Others –
- 4 new judges inducted into the Supreme Court – Justices Hemant Gupta, R Subhash Reddy, M R Shah and Ajay Rastogi were sworn in as Supreme Court judges after the Centre cleared their name in 48 hrs after being recommended by the Collegium. Justice Gupta was the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court, Justice Reddy was the Chief Justice of the Gujarat HC, Justice Shah of the Patna High Court, Justice Rastogi of the Tripura High Court. The Collegium resolution noted that these judges were deserving on the basis of their merit and integrity and that their respective High Courts have not been represented in the SC since long.
(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.
