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

IPA Staff
9 Min Read

  1. Centre
    ordered to furnish details of detention centres in Assam

    – The Supreme Court while hearing a petition highlighting inhuman treatment of
    immigrants in detention centres in Assam, ordered the Central Government to
    furnish details of such centres. Further, the Centre has to report as to how
    many of the detainees have been declared as foreigners and deported
    accordingly. While the State of Assam said that the persons in the detention
    centres are such persons who have been decidedly found to be foreigners and
    detention on mere suspicion not been ordered, the Petitioners argued that the
    persons who have been declared as foreigners after serving their term cannot be
    detained just because the state machinery cannot arrange for them to be
    deported. [Harsh Mander v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No.
    1045/2018, date of order: 28.01.2019]
  1. Insurance
    companies prohibited from unilaterally changing terms of policy

    – The Supreme Court held that an insurance company, especially one which is
    state-owned, cannot act arbitrarily and change terms of an insurance policy
    unilaterally. The petitioner in the case was a sports event management company.
    The policy issued to it insured it against matches cancelled due to rains,
    floods etc. The petitioner claimed on the basis of this clause once in 2010.
    But then unilaterally the insurer removed this clause and did not grant the
    claim of the petitioner when another match got cancelled in the same year,
    citing such deletion. The Court held that the insurer had violated the
    fundamental right of the petitioner by doing so and had acted arbitrarily in
    changing the terms in such a manner. The company has been ordered to process
    the claim for the latter match. [M/s Twenty First Century Media Private
    Limited v New India Assurance
    , Civil Appeal No. 1128 of 2019, date of
    order: 25.01.2019]
  1. Notice
    issued in A.K. Bassi’s petition against illegal transfer

    The Supreme Court sought a reply from CBI in the plea filed by DSP Ajay Kumar
    Bassi against his transfer to Port Blair, which had been ordered by Nageshwar
    Rao. The transfer order had been revoked by Alok Verma when he had been
    reappointed because of the Supreme Court quashing his removal, the order was
    renewed by Nageshwar Rao when Verma was unceremoniously removed on the very day
    of re-appointment. [Ajay Kumar Bassi v Central Bureau of Investigation,
    Writ Petition (Civil) No.90 of 2019, date of order: 01.02.2019]
  1. Scheduled
    Tribe status to continue even after conversion to Christianity

    – The Supreme Court has held that the status of a Scheduled Tribe is maintained
    even after conversion to Christianity. The election of one Amit Ajit Jogi was
    challenged by the losing candidate claiming that he no longer belonged to a
    Scheduled Tribe as he had converted to Christianity and so could not contest on
    a reserved seat. But the court pointed out that the family still believed in
    the tribal religion and observed the rituals and so the conversion would not
    affect his status as a tribal. The Court specifically placed reliance on the
    difference in language in the SC Order 1950 and the ST Order 1950. The former is
    restricted to those belonging to Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism but the same is
    not the case with the latter and so the tribal status would not be dependent on
    the religion of the person. [Sameera Paikara v Amit Ajit Jogi Amit Aishwarya
    Jogi
    , Election Petition No. 3 of 2014, date of judgment: 30.01.2019]
  • 26
    weeks pregnant woman denied abortion even though foetus could have down
    syndrome
    – The Calcutta High Court has denied
    a 26 weeks pregnant lady abortion despite baby having a high risk of Down
    Syndrome, and problems in the oesophagus, heart and abdomen. The medical board
    constituted to examine the woman held that there was risk of morbidity or
    mortality and so did not allow the abortion. So she claimed the ground of
    mental agony for giving birth to the child. The Court held that the life of the
    foetus was more important than preventing the mental trauma to the mother. The
    State had also argued that the woman had been aware of the condition for the
    past 8 weeks and yet did not approach the court in time. The court did not side
    with the State but held that the case did not fall within the exception clause
    under Section 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, since the life of
    the mother was not in danger if she continued with the pregnancy.[Suparna
    Debnath v State of West Bengal
    , A.S.T. No. 3 of 2019, dated 29.01.2019]
  • Medical
    leave can be included within “extension of leave
    ”-
    The Delhi High Court has upheld the right of a woman to take an extension,
    despite her taking an extension in the form of her maternity leave. The Court
    held that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act would be applicable to
    such a student. The provisions though provide for the provision to be
    applicable to an ‘employee’, but the Court explained that the Act is a social
    welfare legislation and should be read in the light of that. The petitioner had
    not been allowed to take her examination of Doctor of Medicine because of her
    leave. The Court felt that the petitioner could not have been put to a
    disadvantage because of her pregnancy. She had asked AIIMS to include the
    medical leave in her “extension of leave” but had been denied by AIIMS. The
    Memorandum governing her course did not cover the situation and so it would be
    unreasonable to not include it. [Dr. Ankita Baidya v Union of India,
    W.P.(C) 8748/2018, dated 01.02.2019]
  • Priya
    Ramani summoned in defamation case filed by M J Akbar

    – The Delhi High Court has summoned Priya Ramani in the defamation case by
    former minister M J Akbar in light of the allegations made against him during
    the #MeToo movement. The case has been filed under Section 500, IPC. The Court
    mentioned Akbar has argued that the statements were false and lowered his
    reputation. [Mobashar Jawed Akbar v Priya Ramani, Complaint Case Number
    15164 of 2018, dated 29.01.2019]
See also  Datia Assembly Bypoll In Madhya Pradesh Exposes Factionalism In State BJP

Other
legal developments –

  1. Instructions
    issued for implementing EWS quota
    – The
    Department of Personnel and Training have issued a set of instructions for
    implementing the 103rd constitutional amendment granting a 10%
    reservation to the economically backward sections of the society. The quota
    will be applicable for all vacancies advertised for from 1st
    February onwards. The posts classified as “scientific and technical” will be exempt
    from any such quota. Thos whose family income is less than 8 Lakh will be
    covered under this quota. The benefit of reservation can only be availed upon
    production of an Income and Asset Certificate issued by a Competent Authority.
    If suitable persons to fill the reserved posts are not found, then the posts
    will not be carried forward. The Ministries and Departments have to prepare
    fortnightly and annual reports on EWS representation.

(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