Read Time: 27 minutes
"Weekly Analysis: Indian Courts" is Lawbeat's new segment delving into important legal developments that ensued in India. It highlights important issues of the Indian Legal System of the week objectively and with a magnified legal lens factually. [January 25 to January 29, 2021]
1. With the farmers protests turning violent on Republic day, the Supreme Court saw a barrage of petitions and letters, addressed to the Chief Justice of India. While a law student addressed a letter seeking formulation of a Special Investigation Committee to be formed for conduct of a rigorous inquiry against those involved in the activity of unfurling a flag other than a tricolour at the Red Fort, on India's 72nd Republic day, a plea by a lawyer sought constitution of a Judicial Commission for Inquiry into the violent incidents. Other petitions included prayers for sought for directions that an FIR be registered against ABP news and Sambit Patra for allegedly spreading false propaganda, another sought a court monitored NIA investigation into the violent incidents. Cases yet to be taken up by the Top Court. Case Title: Vishal Tiwari Vs. Union of India, ML Sharma Vs. Union of India, Swati Goel Sharma Vs. Union of India
2. No relief for makers and actors of Tandav Web Series as Supreme Court refused to quash FIRs filed against them for allegedly hurting religious sentiments on account of scenes in the show, mocking Hindu deities. However, the bench issued notice in the prayer for clubbing FIRs filed in as many as 6 states against the makers and actors of the show. "We made a political Satire," Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi told the Court. The bench orally observed during the course of the hearing that an actor is not precluded from the onus of hurting religious sentiments if he accepts a role, which he does after reading the script. Court made these remarks after Counsel appearing for actor Md. Zeeshan Ayyub informed the bench that Ayyub was contracted to play a certain character and the views expressed by the character on screen could not be ascribed to his own. Bench: Justice Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy & BR Gavai Case Title: Himanshu Mehra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
3. The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking protection to opposition leaders and for conduct of free and fair assembly elections in West Bengal this year. The bench observed that the plea could not have been entertained under Article 32 and that the petitioner in the instant case shall be permitted to take such remedy as is permissible under law. This plea came in light of the recent attacks on BJP leaders while effectuating rallies in TMC-ruled West Bengal. While the petitioner, a Noida resident informed court that there was a systemic violation of fundamental rights in the state of West Bengal with Hindu's not being allowed to cast votes, bench declined to entertain the plea and permitted the petitioner to take suitable recourse to law. Bench: Justice Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy & BR Gavai Case Title: Puneet Kaur Dhanda Vs. Union of India
4. The Supreme Court stayed the acquittal of an accused in terms of the Bombay High Court judgment which held that 'pressing of breast' and an 'attempt to remove salwar' of a minor would not fall under the definition of 'sexual assault' in terms of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), but would certainly fall under Section 354 IPC. Just two days after the controversial judgment was passed and faced a lot of backlash, Attorney General, KK Venugopal mentioned the prayer seeking stay on it. Attorney General KK Venugopal, while urging for a stay, submitted before the Top Court that the instant judgment was is 'likely to set a dangerous precedent'. What to expect on the next hearing? With the Top Court issuing notice on the prayer, returnable within 2 weeks, a petition in this regard is expected to be filed. As on date, the judgment of the Bombay High Court stands stayed and cannot be used as a precedent across the country. Bench: Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna & V. Ramasubramaniun Case Title: Attorney General for India Vs. Satish
5. Prannoy Roy & Radhika Roy, promoters of NDTV agreed to deposit shares at the rate of Rs. 37, as security in accordance with the SEBI order before Top Court. The Securities Exchange Board of India had imposed a penalty of Rs. 27 crores for failing to disclose price-sensitive information to the shareholders of NDTV on the Roy's. The bench was informed by Senior Counsel Mukul Rohtagi, representing the Roy's, that NDTV is a struggling news channel with no other resources and the only guarantee it could provide were shares of the channel. What to expect in the next hearing? The Roy's are expected to file an affidavit stipulating an undertaking for deposit as aforementioned. Bench: Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna & V. Ramasubramaniun Case Title: Prannoy Roy Vs. SEBI
6. Kunal Kamra, who is facing a contempt of court case, told the Supreme Court in his affidavit that the language and style he resorts to are not intending to insult but to draw the attention to and prompt an engagement with issues that he believes are relevant to our democracy and which have also been raised in the public domain by more severe and learned commentators. The Top Court’s took up the matter today and adjourned it by 2 weeks, granting the petitioner time to respond to the affidavit filed on behalf of Kamra. What to expect in the next hearing? With Kamra's reply on record, the petitioner(s) are expected to file their rejoinder(s). Bench: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice M.R. Shah Case Title: Abhyudaya Mishra, Skand Bajpai Vs. Kunal Kamra
7. The Supreme Court has issued notice in a plea seeking handing over of checks and balances on operators for violations to the Program Code, to private bodies, claiming that the Government is unable to handle the transgressions. The bench issued notice in the plea seeking expeditious disposal of complaints by private bodies, in case a complaint is received against an operator for alleged violations viz. the Programme Code.The plea seeks issuance of appropriate guidelines outlining the broad regulatory paradigm within which media houses, i.e., broadcasters and electronic media, can exercise their rights under Article 19(1), so as to judicially regulate the same. Bench: Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna & V. Ramasubramaniun Case Title: Nilesh Navlakha & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Supreme Court: Other News & Judgments
1. January 29, 2021 marked 71 years since the Supreme Court of India's functioning. The Public Relations Officer released a press statement stipulating that during the year 2020, despite technological constraints and other challenges of reduced workforce on account of the ongoing pandemic, 43,713 hearings were held by 1998 benches through Video Conferencing mode by top court. Marking 7 decades of effective and unprecedented functioning, the Supreme Court of India has noted that even though it was recently faced with the highly contagious Corona Virus, the Apex Court ensured access to Justice remains unabated. During these unprecedented challenges, the Court remained functional throughout, though number of benches were reduced.
2. Top Court has reiterated that mutation entries do not by themselves confer title. The contention for consideration in the instant case was that, as there was a title suit pending in relation to the subject matter of the property, the High Court ought not to have issued a direction for mutation. "It is well settled that mutation entries do not by themselves confer title which has to be established independently in a declaratory suit," the bench observed. Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud, indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna Case Title: Commissioner, Bruhath, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Vs. Faraulla Khan State/ Point of Law Involved: Civil Procedure Code
3. Is the court doing justice if it directs an accused to pay compensation to victims as a condition to grant bail? The Supreme Court will examine this issue raised in a special leave petition filed against the oral order of the Gujarat High Court whereby an accused was directed to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs each towards compensation to the victim(s) before the learned trial Court within a period of three months as pre-requisite to grant of bail. Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy Case Title: Dharmesh @ Dharmendra @ Dhamo Jagdishbhai @ Jagabhai Bhagubhai Ratadia Vs. State Of Gujarat Statute/ Point of Law Involved: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
1. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to grant bail to accused Munnawar Faruqui & co-accused Nalin Yadav booked under IPC sections 295-A (outraging religious feelings), 269 (unlawful or negligent act likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life) and other relevant provisions. A bench of Justice Rohit Arya observed,"the evidence/material collected so far, suggest that in an organized public show under the garb of standup comedy at a public place on commercial lines, prima facie; scurrilous, disparaging utterances, outraging religious feelings of a class of citizens of India with deliberate intendment, were made by the applicant". On the last date of hearing, the bench had reserved orders in the plea, stating that people like this must not be spared.
2. The Allahabad High Court last week dismissed a plea seeking directions for Union Of India Thru Secy. Home Affairs Ministry New Delhi to consider legislating a law regulating the religious conversion on the pattern of the law legislated on the subject by the State of U.P. and other States. The Court noted that the Supreme Court also referred to various judgments in which it has been clearly held that “Courts have very limited role with regard to judicial legislation since neither the Courts can legislate nor they have any competence to issue directions to legislature to enact a law in a particular manner.”
3. The Allahabad High Court has directed Police Authorities to desist from making automatic and routine arrests, specifically in cases related to section 498A of the IPC (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty). A division bench of Justices Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Gautam Chowdhary noted that despite the safeguard provided for under section 41A of the CRPC, police is still routinely proceeding to arrest accused persons, even if they are involved in offences punishable with up to 7 years imprisonment. In this light, Court issued a slew of directions.
4. A sessions court on Monday dismissed the application filed by renowned car designer Dilip Chhabria, arrested in multiple FIRs pertaining to alleged forgery and cheating cases.
5. Actress Kangana Ranaut and her sister Rangoli Chandel have attempted to create communal disharmony and also tried to incite disaffection against the Maharashtra government, the Bombay High Court was informed on Monday. The HC has however, adjourned the hearing of the matter. A bench of Justices Sambhaji Shinde and Manish Pitale was hearing a plea filed by both Kangana and Rangoli seeking to quash the FIR they were facing under serious charges of sedition and promoting communal disharmony through their tweets.
6. The Allahabad High Court has recently declined to quash an FIR filed against Ashok Kumar Pandey, Leader of a political party, Hindu Mahasabha, for allegedly passing communal slurs against Aligarh Muslim University and its Founder, Sir Saiyed Ahmad Khan. The division bench comprising of Manoj Kumar Gupta J. and Rajendra Kumar-IV J. has found that the allegations against the petitioner disclose a commission of cognizable offence under Sections 153-A, 153-B, 505(2) of Indian Penal Code.
7. An FIR has been lodged against NDTV News Anchor Rajdeep Sardesai, Mrinal Pande (Editorial Advisor, National Herald Group), Zafar Agha (Editor In Chief, Quami Awaz), Paresh Nath, Anant Nath, Vinod K. Jose (of Caravan) alleging that they had indulged in inciting people to indulge in violence with their misinformed reporting concerning the Tractor Rally violence in the capital. Arpit Mishra, the complainant has lodged an FIR at PS Gautam Buddh Nagar under sections 153(A) [Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony], 153(B) [Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration], 295(A) Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs, 298 [Uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person] IPC and other relevant provisions against the aforementioned persons.
8. A commercial Court in Pune on Saturday rejected the injunction application filed on behalf of CUTIS Biotech against Serum Institute of India, claiming Trademark "Covishield" of the Covi19 Vaccine. Judge A V Rote has rejected the application which had sought a perpetual injunction against Serum Institute of India for purposes of restraining it from using the trademark "COVISHIELD" or any other mark which is confusingly similar with the trademark COVISHIELD in respect of the goods which are same/similar/dissimilar with the goods of the plaintiff.
Please Login or Register
