- Supreme Court
dismisses petition for day-to-day hearing in Ayodhya case
– The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition seeking speedy hearing in the
Ayodhya land dispute. The petition cited the delay that had already happened
and the feelings surrounding the issue prevailing in the nation as the reason
for the petition. The Court said that the proper order will be passed only on
January 10 by an appropriate bench and not before that[M. Siddiq v Mahant
Suresh Das, Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867/2010, date of order: 04.01.2019]
- Class action suit
against Nestle revived – The Supreme Court
has revived the class action suit against Nestle in which the government had
sought ₹640 Cr in damages against the giant, on the basis of its claims that
Maggi noodles were healthy. When samples were tested earlier, they were found
to contain high levels of lead and MSG (monosodium glucamate) and were deemed
unfit for human consumption. Maggi noodles had been banned for some time in the
light of these findings. The government used Section 12(1)(d) of the Consumer
Protection Act for the first time to bring about a class action suit against
Nestle. [Nestle India v Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 14539 of 2018,
date of order: 03.01.2019]
- Government ordered
to file affidavits indicating steps taken to set up a search committee for
Lokpal – The Supreme Court asked the Attorney
General, KK Venugopal, to file an affidavit stating the steps taken by the
government to set up a Lokpal search committee. The AG had suggested submitting
a note, but the Court insisted on an affidavit. NGO Common Cause had been
pursuing the cause of a Lokpal and argued that the government had not even
bothered to make public the name of the members of the search committee on its
website. The Search Committee was set up finally on September 27 and comprises
former SC judge Justice Ranjana P Desai. [Common Cause v Ajay Mittal,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 714 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 245 of
2014, dated 04.12.2018]
- If promise to marry
is not made with the sole intention of sex, it cannot be termed as rape –
While quashing a rape case filed against the appellant, the Supreme Court has
laid down that if a person does not make the promise to marry with the sole
intention to seduce a woman into having sex with him, the act would not amount
to rape. The Court stated the facts of the case in detail highlighting how the
prosecutrix and the appellant had been living together for some time and she
put together the case only when she came to know that the appellant had married
another woman. She had not alleged that he had forcibly raped her or that she
had consented to sex only under the misconception that he will marry her. The
Court, has to check whether the accused in such cases had any mala fide
intentions or not. [Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v State of Maharashtra,
Criminal Appeal No. 1443 of 2018, date of judgment: 22.11.2018]
- Patients in mental
asylums cannot be chained as it violates their dignity – The
Supreme Court came down heavily on the practice of keeping patients in mental
asylums in chains. The petitioner had highlighted the plight of the patients in
the Faith Based Mental Asylum, Badayun, Uttar Pradesh by placing photographs on
record. The Court said that such a practice was inhuman and violative of
Article 21 of the Constitution. Even if the patients were mentally challenged,
it did not mean that their right to dignity was not to be respected. It goes
against the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act as well which specifically
prohibits the use of chains on inmates. [Gaurav Kumar Bansal v Union of
India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1496 of 2018, date of order: 03.01.2019]
- Order suspending
online sale of medicines stayed –The Madras
High Court has stayed the order passed by a single judge which had suspended
the online sale of medicines finding that patients will be affected if the sale
of medicine was prohibited all of a sudden. The single judge had prohibited the
sale until the Drugs and Cosmetics Amendment Rules, 2018 would be notified. The
petition had been filed by the Tamil Nadu Chemists and Druggists Association
claiming that expired or fake medicines could easily provided through online
platforms, thus making such a model unsafe for patients. The online medicine
sellers appealed against the order, arguing that the Government had admitted
that handling drugs via mail was not prohibited under the Act and that online
retailers were also subject to a variety of periodic checks. The judges noted
such an abrupt prohibition would inconvenience patients. [Medlife
International Pvt. v Tamil Nadu Chemists and Druggists Association, Civil
Miscellaneous Petition No. 23350 of 2018, date of judgment: 02.01.2018]
- Cross-gender
massages not prohibited in spas – The Madras
High Court held that the police have no right to prevent a health spa from
operating even if it offers massages to person of one sex from that of the
opposite sex. The petitioner in the case has accused the police of conducting
an illegal raid at her spa and keeping her, a trained spa therapist, in custody
for 26 days. The Court perused the case diary and came to the conclusion that
the case was completely made up and that she was entitled to compensation from
the government to the tune of ₹2,50,000. The petitioner had to undergo
unnecessary harassment at the hands of the police. The Court recognised that
cross-gender massages are a worldwide phenomenon and banning them cannot
guarantee the clamping down of illegal activities. It is also important to
recognise that the both male and female therapists can be subject to abuse. We
need to rid ourselves of our conceptions about spas. [Kadak Dwi Ani Rasimi v
K. Natarajan, Writ Petition Nos. 29995 and 31320 of 2018, date of judgment:
02.01.2019]
- Special CBI Judge
calls CBI’s case in Sohrabuddin trial a conspiracy –
Special CBI judge SJ Sharma recorded his judgment in the Sohrabuddin trial case
and termed the entire investigation and the case a pre-meditated attempt to
implicate political leaders, hatched with the help of the Rajasthan and Gujarat
Police. The judgment notes that almost all of the witnesses, ones which were
not police officers, had turned hostile and refused to corroborate their own
statements, including persons who were allegedly in the bus with Sohrabuddin
and his wife, when they were picked up by the Rajasthan Police; a dhaba owner
who allegedly served breakfast to Sohrabuddin and the police personnel with him
etc. The Court also concluded that the investigation had been completed in a
hurried manner and unsuspecting police officers were implicated in the process.
The CBI, thus, had not provided the court with sufficient evidence to convict
any of the 22 accused. [CBI v Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara & Ors, Session
Case No. 177 of 2013, date of judgment: 21.12.2018]
(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.
