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

IPA Staff
9 Min Read

  1. Assam NRC deadline
    not to be extended beyond 31stJuly –
    The
    Supreme Court refused to extend the deadline for the publication of the final
    National Register of Citizens for Assam beyond 31 July. The State Co-ordinator
    informed the Court that due to the impending general elections, the
    finalisation of the list could take until September. The Court expressly
    refused extending the date beyond July. However, the persons who would work for
    the NRC and those who would work for the election should be discussed in a
    meeting of the State Coordinator, the Secretary of the Election Commission and
    the Chief Secretary of the State of Assam and report back on the outcome within
    seven days. For the hearings for inclusion into the list, the bench was
    informed that those involved would be given 15 days notice before hearing would
    begin. The hearings are slated to begin on 15 February. [Assam Public Works
    v Union of India
    , Writ Petition (Civil) No. 274 of 2009, date of order:
    24.01.2019]
  1. AK Bassi challenges
    transfer order issued by Nageshwar Rao –

    CBI DSP Ajay Kumar Bassi challenged the transfer order passed by the interim
    CBI chief Nageshwar Rao. Rao sanctioned transfers of officers that were probing
    corruption charges against CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana. Alok Verma,
    when he resumed charge set aside these transfer orders, but the transfers
    became effective again when he was sacked by the high powered committee. He
    alleges that his transfer order was fuelled by mala fide and there was
    non-application of mind. He further claims that the elements in the CBI that
    did not want him to conduct free and fair elections.[Ajay Kumar Bassi v CBI,
    Diary No. 2778 of 2019]
  1. More than 50%
    hearing or seeing impairment condition for judicial officer is legitimate –
    The
    Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by V. Surendra Mohan, in which he was found
    ineligible to hold a post of a judicial officer as he was found having 70%
    hearing impairment. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition challenging
    this decision by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The Court in the
    process observed that the condition that disability, which is suitable for
    appointment on the post of Civil Judge should be between 40%-50% does not
    violate statutory provisions. The requirement of reservation mandated by
    Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 was also fulfilled. It
    held that the appointing authority has the power to prescribe eligibility
    condition depending on the nature of the job. [V. Surendra Mohan v State of
    Tamil Nadu
    , Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2019, date of judgment:22.01.2019]
  1. Notice issued on
    surveillance powers of the State under Indian Telegraph Act –

    PUCL has challenged the surveillance power of the Government under Section 5(2)
    of the Indian Telegraph Act, Rule 419-A Telegraph Rules and Section 69 of the
    Information Technology Act. The petition has been put together with the earlier
    petition challenging order passed by the Home Ministry authorising security
    agencies to intercept information on computers. PUCL argues that there has been
    indiscriminate use of the power and that the judiciary has to get involved in
    the process to check the arbitrary use. Further this would be in violation of
    the privacy judgment. It also points out that the UK has also introduced
    judicial oversight for surveillance orders. The Supreme Court has issued notice
    on the petition.
  • Notice issued on
    petition challenging the 10% economic reservation –

    The Supreme Court has issued notice on the petition challenging Constitution
    103rd (Amendment) Act, 2019 giving 10% reservation to economically
    weaker sections. The bench has refused an interim stay on the application of
    the amendment. The petition challenges the amendment claiming that it was
    against the basic structure and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indra
    Sahwney
    . The reservation is also applicable to private unaided
    institutions.[Youth for Equality v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil)
    No.73 of 2019, date of order: 25.01.2019]
  • Entries in Aadhaar
    card cannot be treated as conclusive –

    The Allahabad High Court held that the entries in Aadhaar Card indicating
    address, date of birth etc., cannot be regarded as conclusive proofs in
    criminal cases. The mother of the girl in the case had filed case against a boy
    and his family. The girl and the boy relied on their Aadhaar card to show that
    they were of marriageable age, but the dates of birth recorded were 01.01.1997
    and 01.01.1999. The Court arraigned UIDAI as a respondent and sought its views
    as the dates appeared unreliable. The UIDAI responded stating that when a
    person’s date of birth is not clear, an approximate date is entered and so they
    should not be treated as conclusive. Different High Courts have given different
    views on the issue. [Smt. Parvati Kumari & Ors. v. State of U.P., Misc
    Bench No. 13419 of 2018, date of order: 09.01.2019]
  • EC directed to take
    steps to prohibit paid political content on social media –

    The Bombay High Court has asked the Election Commission to take steps to
    prohibit advertisements or paid political content on social media. It observed
    that it had a constitutional obligation to ensure free and fair elections. This
    was as a response to a petition seeking banning of posting advertisements
    related to politics or elections, or paid political content on social media
    platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, 48 hours before the day of
    the election. The Election Commission claimed that there could be an amendment
    to the Representation of People Act to that effect. The court has directed the
    EC to take steps for effective management.
  • Directions issued
    to drug abuse in Punjab –
    The Punjab and the
    Haryana High Court have issued directions to deal with the issue of drug abuse
    in the State. The State has to carry out awareness drives to make people aware of
    the ill-effects of drugs on the society, in conjunction with the campaigns on
    electronic and print media. The State has to provide latest testing kits to the
    Police for carrying out tests under the NDPS Act. The DG Police has been
    directed to register cases against the drug mafia ringleaders under the PMLA,
    even if it requires attachment of property. Rehabilitation centres are to be
    opened and students in schools should be counselled. Plain policemen should be
    posted around schools to nab drug peddlers. Minors should not be served drugs
    or alcoholic beverages in shops. Narcotic cells and task forces are to be
    reorganised with a code of conduct to be followed when the investigations and
    raids are carried out. [Baljinder Singh v State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal
    D-917-DB-2011, date of order: 22.01.2019]
See also  Saffronisation Of Higher Education In Kerala Gathers Pace

(IPA Service)

Prepared by
Amritananda Chakravorty (
[email protected]) and Mihir Samson ([email protected]), 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.

IPA Newspack

Share This Article
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply