Major decisions
- Review petition filed against Supreme Court’s decision in Judge Loya judgment – The Bombay Lawyers Association has filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking review and recall of the judgment given by the Apex Court in which the Court dismissed the bunch of petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of CBI Special Judge Harkishan Loya in October, 2014. The Court had come to the conclusion that the Judge had died due to cardiac arrest. The petition argues that the Court erred in relying onlyon the statements given by the District Judges as they were never cross-examined;further, raising doubts over their testimonies did not amount to raising aspersions on members of judiciary. The State of Maharashtra only presented an unconfirmed report of inquiry by a Police Officer, Commissioner of State Intelligence, which, in turn, had relied on the statements of the judges. They argue that the report was hurried and insufficient. It could not have been relied upon. The petition will be heard after the Court reopens after summer vacation. [Bombay Lawyer’s Association in the matter of Tehseen Poonawalla v Union of India, Review Petition No. of 2018]
- High Courts restrained from entertaining petitions regarding RBI circular prohibiting virtual currencies– The Supreme Court has asked all the High Courts across India not to entertain any petitions against the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India prohibiting the use of virtual currencies or cryptocurrencies. The Court has also stayed proceedings before the Delhi and Calcutta High Courts. The Supreme Court has asked all the petitions that had been filed earlier to be transferred to it and will be heard in July, 2018. The Circular issued by RBI has categorically prohibited all entities regulated by it from dealing in Virtual Currencies and has issued a general word of caution to those who invest in them. [Siddharth Dalmia v Union of India, Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).1071/2017, date of order: 17.05.2018]
- The Cauvery scheme approved by the Supreme Court – The Supreme Court has approved the Cauvery water management plan framed under Section 6A of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 by the Central Government. The report establishes a Cauvery Water Management authority to administer the scheme, but the name of the authority is still undecided. It will be responsible for the apportionment of the water of Cauvery, supervision of the water reservoirs, dictate release of water. The States tried to argue that this would be a violation of their right to control their water resources. But the objection was over-ruled as the Court has earlier held that inter-state rivers are national assets. The authority will apportion the water at the beginning of each water year i.e. June 1 after taking into account submissions made by all interested parties. The authority also has the power to ask the central government for help, if one of the States are not co-operating. The decision of the authority with regards to the implementation of the award would be final and binding.[State of Tamil Nadu v P.K. Sinha, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 898 Of 2018 In Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007, date of order: 18.05.2018]
- PIL to lower drinking age admitted by Delhi High Court – The Delhi High Court has issued a notice in a PIL seeking lowering the age of drinking in Delhi from its current limit of 25 in consonance with that of other states, which ranges from 18 to 21. It argues that the increased age acts as discrimination against the citizens of Delhi. The Delhi Excise Act controls the age for consumption of alcohol. He stated that he had filed an RTI asking what actions were taken to control underage drinking. He pointed out that the patrons were never asked for the proof of their age. It also pointed out that if a person comes from a State that has a lower drinking age to Delhi, the State criminalises this habit. [Kush Kalra v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 740 of 2018, date of order: 24.05.2018]
- Calling two ‘respectable’ persons for a raid under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act not mandatory – The Rajasthan High Court recently held that the violation of Section 15(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 would not mandatorily vitiate the search, as the provision was only directory and not mandatory. Section 15(2) dictates that when a search is conducted under the Act two persons of repute from the locality are to be called as witnesses to the search. One of them has to be a woman. It has to be efficacious for the police officers to call two persons and whether the provision could be complied with or not.[ Mona v State of Rajasthan, Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 221 of 2018, date of order: 25.05.2018]
- CBI probe could be ordered, even without any inter-state or international consequences– The Allahabad High Court allowed the wife of a deceased police officer to conduct a CBI probe into the death of her husband’s death and held that the CBI could be ordered to probe, even if it might not have inter-state or international ramifications. The wife had approached the High Court, as the Union Government denied consent for a probe even though the state had given it. The Union said that the killing seemed as a ‘chance killing’ and it did not have international or inter-state ramifications. The bench agreed that given the facts, pre-meditated murder could not be ruled out and absence of ramifications would not matter, and CBI probe was ordered. [Arti Gujjar v State of Uttar Pradesh, Miscellaneous Bench No. 22997 of 2016, date of order: 23.05.2018]
- Injunction granted against Cobrapost from publishing sting operation against Dainik Bhaskar– The Delhi High Court issued an ex-parte injunction against Coprapost, an investigative journalism site, from releasing the second part of its documentary ‘Operation 136:Part II’ which seeks to expose on malpractices in media houses, like paid news and peddling communal agenda. The petition was filed by Dainik Bhaskar which also featured in the documentary and feared harm to its reputation. The documentary was set to release on Thursday. The documentary showed a Coprapost reporter pretending to be a BJP supporter who intended to push Hindutva ideology through the news channels for helping BJP in 2019 elections. Many houses agreed to do so in exchange for illegal gratification. Dainik Bhaskar had argued that the sole intent of the documentary was hurt the image of the newspaper. [DB Corp Limited v Forum for Media and Literature, Civil Suit (Original Side) No. 256 of 2018 date of order: 25.05.2018]
- Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Model Rules, 2016 to be applicable, irrespective of date of incident – The Rajasthan High Court held that Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Model Rules, 2016 could be used to determine the age of the child, irrespective of when the incident occurred. The lower court had followed the older guidelines and ignored evidence that could be considered under the new Act to determine the age. It also relied on an older case where the rules passed under the Act in 2007 were in question. The Supreme Court had even held that the rules would be applicable to petitions pending before it as well. It then remanded the decision back to the lower court and asked it to determine the age in accordance with the new rules. [Kanaram Saini v State of Rajasthan, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 67 of 2018, date of judgment: 18.05.2018]
- Delhi High Court renders a split verdict on whether Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund would be covered under RTI or not – The Division bench of the Delhi High Court issued a split verdict on the issue of disclosure of details of donors to the PM’s National Relief Fund. The question was whether it can be considered a public authority under the Act or not. Justice Bhat noted that the Fund, though a trust, was constituted by a government notification issued by the PM in 1948 and thus it actions would have to be treated as the actions of the government, given that its governing committee comprised many important government functionaries. It may not be a public authority but it can be seen as one. Further once the money was disbursed from the fund, according to the judge, the donation of money becomes public record and the citizens had the right to know how the money which is meant for natural disasters was being handled. But Justice Gaur disagreed. He stated that the body had not been constituted by the government or the Parliament and was not being managed by government officials in their official capacity and thus it could not be a public authority. The money of the trust was not being used any government projects not was it ruled by the policies made by the government.[Prime Minister’s National Relief Fundv Aseem Takyar, Letters Patent Appeal No. 231 of 2016, date of judgment: 23.05.2018].
(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.
