- Kerala Brahmana Sabha files review petition in the Sabrimala judgment – The All Kerala Brahmins Association, also known as Kerala Brahmana Sabha filed a review petition in the Sabrimala decision arguing that the restriction did not pertain to gender discrimination. The Court should have considered similar restrictions placed on men in temples across the country. The petition argues that firstly, the Court ignored the difference between a devotee and a pilgrim, the former being more enthusiastic about their devotion to a particular god, while the latter may simply be looking to visit a temple as a tourist. The Court should also take note of the fact that many women came out against the judgment. Thirdly, the court should not have looked into the question of whether the practice was essential to Hindu religion, but whether it was essential to the Temple itself. [All Kerala Brahmins Association v Indian Young Lawyers Association, Review Petition in Writ Petition No. 373 of 2006]
- Court deciding a Section 34 petition under the A&C Act cannot send it back to arbitrator for fresh decision – The Supreme Court struck down an order of the Calcutta High Court, which had remanded a decision of an arbitrator to seek a fresh decision on the issue. The division bench of the High Court had upheld the decision of the single bench. Both orders were struck down and the court reiterated that while handling a petition under Section 34, the Courts have to check the decision of the arbitrator on the parameters set under the section. The Court cannot remand the matter to the arbitrator in accordance with the earlier precedents of the court. [Radha Chemicals v Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 10386 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2334/2018, date of judgment: 10.10.2018)
- Pune Police directed to not take coercive action against Gautam Navlakha and Anand Teltumbde until next week – Gautam Navlakha and Anand Teltumbde had filed a petition to have the cases filed against them quashed with respect to the Bhima Koregaon violence in the Bombay High Court. They claimed that there was no evidence against them. The Delhi High Court had also noted earlier that many legal requirements were not adhered to in arresting Mr. Navlakha. The Court passed an order directing the Pune Police to not take coercive actions against the two until next week in the light of the Supreme Court order granting Mr. Navlakha protection against arrest until 26th [Gautam P. Navlakha v State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 4425 of 2018, date of order: 19.10.2018]
- Lottery money to be taxable under GST Act – The Calcutta High Court held that money won in lotteries would be taxable under both Central and State GST Acts. A writ petition had been filed arguing that lottery tickets could not be called goods and so their sale could not be treated as exchange of goods, excluding them from the ambit of the GST Act. The judge specifically pointed out the provisions of the Act, which mention that lottery is not to be covered under the ‘actionable claims’ that can be excluded from the application of GST and lottery can be generally called goods. Further the GST Council in one of its meetings specifically held that lotteries would be taxable, the amount may vary from time to time.[Teesta Distributors & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition No. 18424 of 2017, date of judgment: 10.10.2018]
- Main accused in lynching of Junaid Khan granted bail – The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to Naresh Kumar, the main accused the lynching of Junaid Khan last year. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had stayed the prosecution in his case and the accused had been in jail for a year. Further his co-accused has also been released by the Court on bail. The Court, though, stated that Kumar would have to surrender the day the decision in his Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court was taken. The petition has been filed by his father asking for a CBI investigation in the matter arguing that the investigation has been shoddy. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had already declined the petition.[Naresh v State of Haryana, Criminal Misc. No. M-32694 of 2018 date of order: 03.10.2018]
- NEET will not be compulsory for admission to Aayush Courses – The Patna High Court struck down a press communication issued by the Bihar government, which had made taking the NEET mandatory for admission to AYUSH (Ayurvedic, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) courses. It was argued that NEET was held for admission to MBBS and BDS courses because of statutory requirements under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Section 10D of the Dentists Act, 1948. Such requirements cannot be thrust on the admissions to the AYUSH courses without making the requisite statutory amendments. The Court also asked the State to come up with a test for admission to such courses and in the absence of the same, the colleges offering such courses could conduct a common test if they wanted. [Vihar Private Unani Medical Colleges v Union of India, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16541 of 2018, date of order: 10.10.2018]
- Lesbian couple permitted to continue with live-in relationship-The Kerala High Court has allowed two women Sreeja and Aruna to continue their live in relationship in the light of decriminalisation of homosexuality by the Supreme Court. Sreeja had filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that Aruna has been admitted to a mental hospital by her parents and the hospital had refused to release her without a court order. Apart from the said decision, the Court also placed reliance on two other precedents of the Supreme Court one which had denied the custody of a major woman to her father, holding that she was free to decide whom to live with. Live-in relationship between the two women would not offend any existing law in the country and was nor a crime. [Sreeja S. v Commissioner of Police, Writ Petition (Criminal).No. 372 of 2018, date of order: 24.09.2018]
- Bombay HC warns against misuse of #MeToo movement – Vikas Bahl, Bollywood director accused of sexual harassment in the wake of the #MeToo movement, seeking directions against his colleagues for making defamatory remarks with respect to the allegations made against him. The High Court, during the proceedings, had added the woman accuser as a respondent in the case. Her counsel informed the court that she did not wish to file a police complaint in the issue. The Justice observed that the campaign should not be used by others to settle their scores. The Court even insisted on framing of guidelines on the issue. [Vikas Bahl v Anurag Kashyap, Notice Of Motion (L) No.2506 Of 2018 In Suit (L) No.1407 of 2018, date of order: 17.10.2018]
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.
