- Ram
Janambhoomi cases to be heard in January
– The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul
will be hearing the Ram Janambhoomi cases on January 4, 2019. As many as 14
appeals have been filed against the Allahabad High Court judgment, which had
partitioned the land equally among the three parties. The Akhil Bharatiya Hindu
Mahasbha had filed a petition requesting early hearing which was denied by the
Court earlier this year. Further the Court had refused to reconsider the
observations made in a 1994 judgment (Ismail Farooqui) as to whether a
mosque is essential to Islam or not.
- BJP
challenges order to stay Rath Yatra
– The BJP has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Calcutta High Court
restraining it from holding the Rath Yatra in the State of West Bengal. While a
single judge bench had granted them permission, the division bench overturned
the decision as it considered more than 30 intelligence reports which indicated
that the Yatras would hurt communal peace in the state. The division bench sent
the order back to single bench with a direction to reconsider the intelligence
reports. The petition by the party on the other hand argues that the
restriction violates the fundamental rights of the party guaranteed under
Articles 19 and 21. The rally was completed in time and no incidents were
reported. [Bharatiya Janata Party West Bengal v State of West Bengal,
Diary No. 48112 of 2018]
- Review
petition filed in the Supreme Court against the Aadhaar judgment
– A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court in Justice K.S.
Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India & Others, the judgment which had
upheld the validity of Aadhaar. The petition challenges the validity of the
provisions which were upheld in the earlier decision. The petitioner claims
that his arguments in the interim application were not considered and has
reiterated some of them. The petition highlights that Section 2(k) prohibits
disclosure of information related to income, but at the same time a person is
required to link their Aadhaar with their PAN card, which is neither a benefit
nor a service.
- The
MHA surveillance order challenged – Petitions
before the Supreme Court have been filed arguing that the order passed by the
Ministry of Home Affairs authorising the Intelligence Bureau, Narcotics Control
Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence, Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation
Agency, Cabinet Secretariat (R&AW), Directorate of Signal Intelligence (For
service areas of Jammu & Kashmir, North-East and Assam only) and
Commissioner of Police, Delhi to intercept information stored on any computer
device. The petition argues that the government has not given any reasons as
mentioned under Section 69 of the Information Technology Act. Section 69 also
provides that a person in charge of the computer device is required to provide
all requisite assistance, failing which he or she can be jailed for 7 years.
The order treats all citizens as criminals and is in the violation of right to
privacy.
- Persons
belonging to aboriginal tribes have inalienable right to their property
– The Chhattisgarh High Court held that while aboriginal tribes have a right to
development, their right to the land is also inalienable and the land cannot be
sold for recovery of loan without permission from the Collector. The MP Land
Revenue Code bars transfer of land belonging to aboriginal tribes. The Code
does not define the term transfer, but the Court held that the sale of property
for the recovery of loan is covered under the term. It would essentially
deprive the land owner of their property, which is barred by the Code. The
lower court had given the judgment against the plaintiff and the higher court
set it aside. [Joseph v Dhaneshwar, Second Appeal No. 197 of 1993, date
of judgment: 13.12.2018]
- Man
convicted of rape after 21 years – The
Bombay High Court has convicted a 41 year old man of committing rape on a minor
girl. The trial court had acquitted the man in 1996, against which the
Maharashtra government had appealed. Importantly, the bench noted in the
judgment that the absence of any injury marks on the body of the victim does
not indicate consent on her part – it simply reflects lack of resistance, which
cannot again be construed as consent. The Court also criticised the lower court
for taking a callous attitude to the determination of the age of the victim.
While the trial court had come to the conclusion that the girl was 16, the High
Court found that the age of the girl was 11 years at the time of the incident.
Further the Court has asked the state to locate the girl and dispense the
requisite compensation under the NALSA compensation scheme. [State of
Maharashtra v Macchindra, Criminal Appeal No. 713 of 1997, dated
22.12.2018]
Other
developments –
- Death
Penalty for aggravated assault of Children approved by Cabinet
– The Union Cabinet has approved amendments to the POCSO. The amendments impose
death penalty for aggravated assault against children and fines against persons
who would not delete pornographic material or report the same. Attempting to
inject hormones in children to make them attain sexual majority earlier has
been made an aggravated assault under the Act. The amendment also aims to
protect children in times of distress and natural calamity. The Act, according
to the press release “is expected to discourage the trend of child sexual abuse
by acting as a deterrent due to strong penal provisions incorporated in the
Act”.
- Triple
Talaq Bill passed in the Lok Sabha: The Lok
Sabha passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill or the
Triple Talaq Bill which makes the husband using the triple talaq method to
dissolve his marriage as a crime. The motion to adopt the Bill was supported by
245 members and opposed by 11 members. The earlier Bill has also been passed by
the Lok Sabha but had been stuck in the Rajya Sabha. The government then
brought about an ordinance to make the act an offence. Eventually, a bill to
replace the ordinance act was introduced this year in December which was
passed.
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.
