- Issue of minority
status of AMU referred to a larger bench – The
Supreme Court referred the issue of the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim
University to a bench of 7 justices. The bench will essentially define the
parameters of a minority institution. An earlier judgment had held that AMU
could not be a minority institution as it was a central institution. To
override the effect of the judgment, AMU (amendment) Act, 1981 was brought
about, which was further struck down by the Allahabad High Court. The UPA
government and the University had filed an appeal against the same, but the
present government told the court that it would withdraw the said appeal. [Aligarh
Muslim University v Naresh Agarwal, Civil Appeal No. 2286 of 2006, date of
order: 12.02.2019]
- Court monitoring of
probe into Saradha scam denied – The Supreme
Court denied monitoring of the probe into the Saradha Chit Fund scam. The
Counsel for the petitioners drew attention of the court to a order by then CJI
T.S. Thakur, which had transferred the matter to CBI and had not decided the
issue of constituting a monitoring committee into the matter. The counsel also
pointed out the short comings in the investigation that CBI had been conducting
till date, requesting a court monitoring of the investigation. The bench
observed that it was not inclined to pass any orders on the matter. The Counsel
though took permission from the court to approach the competent High Court with
a similar prayer. [Subrata Chattoraj v Union of India, Miscellaneous
Application No.297 of 2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.401of 2013, date of order:
11.02.2019]
- Nageshwar Rao found
guilty of contempt of court – The Supreme
Court found CBI Additional Director M Nageswara Rao guilty of contempt of court
for transferring the investigating officer heading the probe in Muzaffarpur
shelter home case in violation of the earlier order of the Court. The Court had
specifically ordered that the investigating team would not be changed, but Rao
went ahead and did the same anyway, while being cognizant of the order. S Bhasu
Ram, in-charge Director of Prosecution CBI, who provided legal advice in the
issue to CBI has also been found in contempt. Rao had given an unqualified
apology for defying court orders but looking at the brazen nature of the
action, he was sentenced till rising of the court and fined ₹1 Lakh. [Nivedita
Jha v State of Bihar, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.
24978 of 2018, date of order: 12.02.2019]
- Judgment
on contempt petition against Anil Ambani reserved
– The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the contempt petition filed by
Ericsson against Anil Ambani and other officials of Reliance Communications
Ltd. Ambani came to the court itself for the proceedings of the case. The
petition had been filed because the company violated the undertaking it gave
the court of paying off ₹550 Cr. This comes after the Court gave Reliance the
last opportunity to clear its debts. During the proceedings, tampering with
records came to the attention of the court where the words of the order by the
court were deliberately changed to dispense with personal appearance of Anil
Ambani even though the order pronounced in the court was clear in requiring the
presence of Ambani. The CJI, in exercise of his power as the administrative
head of the court has sacked two clerks who allegedly tampered with the
documents [Reliance Communication Limited v State Bank of India, Writ
Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 845 of 2018, date of order: 13.02.2019]
- Property cannot be
attached under PMLA during the IBC process – The
Mumbai Bench of NCLT has allowed the lifting of the provisional attachment
order against Sterling SEZ and Infrastructure passed by the Enforcement
Directorate in light of allegations of money laundering more than ₹4000 Cr
against it. The order though was passed after the insolvency petition under
Section 7 IBC was admitted in the NCLT. The Resolution Professional then filed
a petition in the NCLT praying that the order be lifted in the light of Section
238 (IBC) which provides for its overriding effect over other enactments and
Section 14 which places a moratorium on any proceedings against the corporate
debtor. The ED had argued that the proceedings under the PMLA were criminal in
nature and were not hit by Section 14. The NCLT agreed with the Professional
and lifted the attachment order holding that the PMLA court cannot attach
assets of a company undergoing Corporate Insolvency process. [SREI
Infrastructure Finance Limited v Sterling SEZ and Infrastructure Limited,
Miscellaneous Application 1280 of 2018 in Company Petition 405 of 2018, date of
order:12.02.2019]
- Anand Teltumbde
granted interim bail – The Bombay High
Court extended the interim protection that had been granted to activist Anand
Teltumbde in relation with the Bhima Koregaon case, till February 22. In the
event of arrest, he would be released on bail upon providing a bond of Rs 1
lakh. He was ordered to appear before the Investigating officer on February 14
and 18. This comes in the light of the illegal arrest carried out by Pune
Police earlier this month, against the protection granted by the Supreme Court.
[Anand Teltumbde v State of Maharashtra]
- Centre denied any
Aadhaar data breach – The Central
government has denied any loss of Aadhaar data in the petition filed by Professor
Shamnad Basheer. In his petition he alleged a violation of his fundamental
right to privacy under Article 21 because of the negligence of the government
and other named respondents because of which Aadhaar data has been regularly
compromised. He specifically relies on Section 43A of the IT Act, which pins
responsibility on body corporate which cause data loss by their negligence. He
has also brought to the Court’s attention various reports which provide details
of such data breaches and he cites wilful negligence on the part of the UIDAI
to observe basic security measures as the reason. The counter affidavit filed
by the government further claims that the information relating to the Aadhaar
scheme has been “grossly misreported and interpolated” and argues
that the Aadhaar scheme has been especially beneficial for providing basic
amenities to citizens. In his demands he has asked for the publication of a
privacy policy and an information security policy to govern the operations of
the UIDAI. [Shamnad Basheer v UIDAI, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5405 of
2018, Counter Affidavir dated 12.02.2019]
- Safety issues of
the Indian Railways to be looked into –
The Supreme Court will soon be looking into the safety issues with the Indian
Railways, but has sought the views of the Central Government on the issue. The
case dealt with the death of one Dashrath Yadav after his head collided with a
post by the side of the railway track. Apart from dealing with the issue of
compensation payable, the Court also appointed an amicus to help it look into
the issues of safety with the Railways and looked at different reports on the
issue. The Court asked the Railways to consider the matter seriously. [Union
of India v Radha Yadav, Civil Appeal No. 1265-1266 of 2019, dated
29.01.2019]
(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.
