- Fresh petitions filed challenging Section 377, IPC – The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union Government on a petition filed by Keshav Suri, Executive Director of Lalit Hotels, seeking to quash Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’),which criminalises sexual acts between men. The Court has tagged the petition with 5 other similar pleas. Subsequently, two other petitions have been filed by gay men challenging the law and wanting to be heard. Those petitions are to be heard on Tuesday. These petitions highlight the fear, danger and discrimination that the community faces on a daily basis. [Keshav Suri v Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal)No.88/2018, date of order: 23.04.2018]
- Trial in Kathua rape and murder case stayed – The Supreme Court has stayed the trial in the gang rape and murder of a minor girl in Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir. The Court has stayed trial pending decision on the two petitions, one to transfer the trial outside the State (preferably to Chandigarh) filed by the victim’s family and second filed by the accused to transfer the inquiry to CBI. While the accused maintained that they have been falsely implicated in the case and specifically argued for transfer of the case to CBI and against the transfer outside J&K, the counsel for the victim, Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate, highlighted that the plea for a CBI inquiry was a clear attempt to impinge on the investigation being carried out by the local police. [ Akhtar v State of Jammu and Kashmir, Writ Petition No. (Criminal) No. 86 of 2018, date of order: 27.04.2018]
- Submissions continue on Ayodhya dispute to be heard by a larger bench – Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran submitted before the Supreme Court bench hearing the Ayodhya dispute requesting the Court to refer the matter to a larger bench. The dispute is currently being heard by a bench of 3 judges headed by Chief Justice. Mr. Ramachandran cited an order from the Allahabad High Court from 1989 where it ordered, on a petition from the UP Government, the withdrawal of all the various suits in the dispute from the lower court, to be eventually tried by the High Court. The order further requested the then Chief Justice to nominate a third judge to hear the matter, given the gravity of the issue. He pointed out that the case had become enmeshed with the social fabric of the country and thus five judges should deliberate on it. Though Harish Salve, counsel for the respondents, replied to these arguments by arguing that the country had moved on from the events that occurred in 1992 and treating the case with any more importance than given to any other civil dispute was not required. [ Siddique v Mahant Suresh Das, Civil Appeal No. 10866-10867 of 2017, date of order: 27.04.2018]
- Supreme Court reserves judgment in Shanti Bhushan’s petition on distribution of cases– The Supreme Court reserved its decision on a petition filed by Shanti Bhushan, former Law Minister of India and Senior Advocate, seeking clarification on the powers of the Chief Justice of India to distribute cases among the benches. Appearing for the Petitioner, Dushyany Dave argued that the power to distribute the cases accorded to the CJI does not arise from the Constitution. If the Constitution wanted to confer certain powers on the CJI, it had expressly done so like in Article 130, which empowers the CJI to fix the seat of the Supreme Court. He contended that instead of the CJI deciding the list, in line with previous judgments which have read the term CJI to mean the collegium, either all the judges, or the collegium could meet and decide the list of matters. He even suggested randomisation of allocation by a computer, without any human interference. He then asked the Court to come up with a mechanism that is not arbitrary and did not give extensive powers in the hands of the CJI to determine the roster.In reply, the Attorney General of India, K.K. Venugopal, argued that the power should remain with the CJI, as he would be in the best place to decide which matter should be assigned to which judge. [Shanti Bhushan vs. Supreme Court of India, through its Registrar& Anr., Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 12405/2018, date of order: 27.04.2018]
- Government admits that linking Aadhaar with SIM had no Court sanction– In the Aadhaar hearings, the Central Government finally admitted that Department of Telecom’s circular dated 23.03.2017, which asked all telecom operators to conduct an Aadhaar-based re-verification exercise of all existing pre-paid and post-paid mobile connections, was not based on the 6th February, 2017 order of the Supreme Court in Lok Niti Foundation vs. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 607 of 2016]. But throughout last one year, the Government misrepresented to the citizens and the Court that the order of mandatory linking of Aadhaar with SIM was pursuant to a Supreme Court order. Senior Counsel Rakesh Dwivedi pointed out that the direction was in anyway justified in the light of the power given to the Centre under the Telegraph Act to impose any condition on operators, as it deemed fit. [ Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 492 of 2012, date of order: 25.04.2018]
- Arbitral award can be enforced through the NCLT – The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal wherein the applicants argued that an arbitral award, in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, can only be enforced through proceedings before a civil court and it could not be pursued before the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’). The award had asked for rectification of title in the register of the appellant company to register the shares in the name of the respondents. The Court noted that this remedy could only be provided by the NCLT and thus the proceedings were valid. The bench also stated, relying on another recent judgment, that it is not necessary to obtain a transfer decree from the civil court that would supposedly have jurisdiction for the enforcement of an award, before the proceedings are initiated. [Cheran Properties v Kasturi Sons, Civil Appeal Nos. 10025-10026 of 2017, date of judgment: 24.04.2018]
- Asaram Bapu found guilty of rape of minor girl – A Court in Jodhpur has found Asaram Bapu guilty of raping and wrongfully confining a minor girl in his ashram on the outskirts of Jodhpur in 2013. Two of his associates have also been found guilty in the case. Asaram has been awarded life imprisonment for the offence, while his two associates have been sentenced to 20 years in jail. The minor girl had been confined in the ashram on the pretext of being possessed by evil spirits and she was sexually assaulted by the self-styled godman. Various witnesses and the family of the complainant have been threatened during the course of the trial, and three witnesses in fact died. [State of Rajasthan v Asaram and Ors, Session No. 116 of 2016 (152 of 2013), date of judgment: 25.04.2018]
- Kafeel Khan finally granted bail in Gorakhpur hospital death cases – The Allahabad High Court finally granted bail to Dr. Kafeel Khan who was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Police as the main accused in the Gorakhpur medical college tragedy which led to the death of more than 60 children, due to lack of oxygen. The doctor had languished in jail for more than 7 month, and was accused of medical negligence. The High Court noted that there was nothing on record to establish medical negligence against the doctor and no preliminary enquiry was conducted before arresting the doctor, as mandated by the Supreme Court. [ Kafeel Ahmed Khan vs. State of U.P., Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5727 of 2018, date of order: 25.04.2018]
- Centre and Uttarakhan Government directed to compensate and assist farmers suffering from indebtedness – Noting the difficult conditions of farmers and agricultural distress in the State, the Uttarakhand High Court directed the State government to prepare a scheme for payment of compensation to the bereaved families of farmers commited suicide, create a corpus for waiving off their loans, and other directions.The Centre also been directed to ensure that the farmers are insured against losses beyond their control. This direction was passed in a PIL highlighting the incidents of suicide committed by farmers. One of the reasons for such indebtedness was pointed out to be delay on part of government agencies to make payments to the farmers. The Centre and the State have also been asked to statutorily recognise Minimum Support Prices and give wide publicity to the same.[ Ganesh Updhyay v Union of India, Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 105 of 2017, date of order: 26.04.2018]
Others –
- Fugitive Economic Offender’s Ordinance Promulgated – The Fugitive Economic Offender’s Ordinance was promulgated by the President with the aim of apprehending economic offenders from fleeing the country to evade the process of law. According to the Ordinance, a Director (or a person not lower than the rank of a Deputy Director) can declare any person against whom a warrant of arrest in relation to Scheduled Offences has been issued by a competent Indian Court and has left India to avoid or refuses to return to India to face prosecution as a fugitive economic offender, after following the procedure under the Ordinance. Once so declared, the court can order confiscation of the property involved in the crime or any other benami property owned by the offender in India or abroad. The person can be prohibited from defending any civil claims against them, on the order of the court. [The Fugitive Economic Offenders Ordinance, 2018 (No. 1 of 2018), dated 21.04.2018]
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.
