Weekly Round-Up of Major Decisions of the Courts in India as also Legal Policy Developments

Major decisions –

Split verdict in the AIADMK disqualification case: A division bench of the Madras High Court gave a split verdict on the petitions challenging the disqualification of 18 ‘rebel’ MLAs of AIADMK by the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly. These MLAs were disqualified in September, 2017 by the Speaker, when they submitted a letter to the Governor withdrawing their support to the Chief Minister, Edappadi K Palaniswami. In a split decision, while the Chief Justice of High Court, Smt. Indira Banerjee, upheld the disqualification of the MLAs ruling out any malafide or bias on the part of the Speaker, Justice Sundar struck down the Speaker’s decision on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, since the MLAs were not allowed to cross examine the materials purportedly agianst them, or submit oral evidence. Now the matter will be decided b the third judge. [ Vetrivel v P. Dhanabal, Writ Petition No 25260 of 2017, date of order: 16.06.2018, Madras High Court]

Notice delivered in PDF on WhatsApp is valid –In a significant decision, the Bombay High Court has held that if notice was served as a PDF attachment on WhatsApp, it would be treated as delivered for the purposes of Order XXI of the CPC. But at the same time, the judge also noted that the icons on the mobile application indicated that not only had the message been delivered, but the attachment with it had been opened as well. The respondent in the case had been evading arrest and the authorised officer of the plaintiff company also sent a notice of the suit to the respondent through WhatsApp. This is in line with the earlier precedent of the Bombay High Court, which had said that the Indian judicial system was flexible enough to accept the issuance of notice by WhatsApp or email (Kross Television v Vikhyat Chitra Production). [SBI Card & Payments Services v Rohidas Jadhav, Notice no. 1148 of 2015 in Execution Petition No. 1196 of 2015, date of order: 11.06.2018]

Court takes sou moto cognizance of lynching of men suspected to be child abductors – The Guwahati Court has taken sou moto cognizance of the lynching of two men – Nilotpal Das and Abhijit Nath – by villagers of the Anglong district and has also directed the government and police to take adequate measures and inform the court about the same. Das, a sound engineer and Nath, a digital artist, were visiting Kanthilangso to capture sounds of nature, but fake news circulated on social media identifying them as child abductors. As a result, they were beaten to death by a crowd from the local village. Meanwhile, the petition has also been clubbed with a petition against the practice of witch hunting. [XXXXXXXX v State of Assam, PIL (Sou moto) No. 5 of 2018, date of order: 13.06.2018]

Rahul Gandhi to face defamation trial for blaming RSS for the death of Mahatma Gandhi – Rahul Gandhi would be facing defamation charges on the basis of a complaint filed by an RSS worker for the former’s remark blaming the RSS for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi appeared in the Court in person and pleaded not-guilty to the charges. He had made these comments in a rally in 2014. He had earlier moved the Supreme Court praying for the dismissal of the complaint. [Rajesh Mahadev Kunte v Rahul Gandhi, Other Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 353 of 2014, date of order:12.06.2018]

Right to live as a transgender person upheld – The Kerala High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by the mother of a transgender person, wherein she claimed that her son had been detained illegally by some transgender persons. She further stated that her son was suffering from certain mental disorder and had changed his name to Arundathi, while in the custody of the transgender persons. Her son, to the contrary, asserted that he had been a transgender since birth and did not suffer from any psychological illness. The High Court asked for a medical evaluation of the person and the doctors found that the petitioner’s son did not suffer from any mental incapacity. The Court then noted that the individual identified herself as a transgender person, and the same was very clear during the interaction that the Court had with the petitioner’s son. The Court also relied on NALSA v UOI (2014) 5 SCC 438 to recognise that expressing oneself and recognising oneself as a transgender was protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the same could not be circumscribed by the limited understanding of the society. [Tessy James v Director General of Police, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 215 of 2018, date of order: 12.06.2018]

High Court not empowered to ban organisations: While dismissing a PIL seeking a ban on the alleged militant organisation, Popular Front of India, the Madras High Court categorically held that “it is not for this Court to decide which organisations should be banned and which organisations might continue. That is in the realm of the Executive powers of the State.” The Petitioner had approached the Court seeking a direction to the Central Government to act on his representation asking a ban on the organisation. [ Gopinath vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., Writ Petition No. 13736 of 2018, date of order: 08.06.2018]

Installing CCTV cameras without flat owner’s consent amounts to invasion of privacy: The Bombay High Court has held that installing CCTV cameras outside somebody’s flat or residence without their consent, in order to monitor their daily movement, constitutes violation of the fundamental right to privacy, and cannot be allowed. The Court held that the defendants could install such cameras only on their floor, and not on common areas, without consent of the other residents. [Farhad Ginwalla & Ors. vs. Zenobia R. Poonawala, Suit (L) No. 548 of 2018, date of order: 01.06.2018]

Directions given to the State Government for the welfare of elderly persons: The Uttarakhand High Court has passed a series of directions to the State Government for the protection and welfare of the elderly and aged persons, in accordance with the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Important directions include setting up old age homes in each district of Uttarakhand, including hiring of private accomodation as a temporary measure, making a scheme for the management of old age homes within 8 weeks, allocating sufficient number of beds for senior citizens in each government hospital, or government funded hospital, and free treatment to all senior citizens in all government hospitals in the State, amongst others. [Senior Citizen Welfare Organisation & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand& Anr., Writ Petition (PIL) No. 52 of 2018, date of order: 12.06.2018]

(IPA Service)

Prepared by Amritananda Chakravorty (amritananda.c@gmail.com) and Mihir Samson (mihirsamson@gmail.com), Delhi based practicing Advocates.