The Supreme Court issued notices on a PIL seeking for a direction to the Central Government to appoint the Chairperson and Members of the Law Commission of India within one month and to make it a statutory body.  A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian issued notice to the Centre on the plea of BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, who made the ministries of Home Affairs and Law and Justice as well as the Law Commission of India as parties. The plea said the cause of action arose on August 31, 2018, and is continuing when the tenure of the 21st Law Commission ended but the Centre has neither extended the tenure of its Chairperson and Members nor notified the 22nd Law Commission. The plea said since the Law Commission is not working, the Centre does not have the benefit of recommendations from this specialized body on the different aspects of law, which are entrusted to the Commission for its study and recommendations. The Commission, on a reference made to it by the Centre, the apex court, and high courts, undertakes research in law and reviews existing laws for making reforms therein and enacting new legislation,

Yesterday

The Supreme Court refused to transfer to itself the petitions filed in Allahabad High Court challenging the ordinance brought by the Uttar Pradesh government against religious conversions, which among other things, criminalizes religious conversions for marriage. The Bench sternly remarked, "We have issued notice does not mean High Court cannot decide. People are making light of High Courts these days. High Court is a constitutional court." PS Narasimha, appearing for the UP Government, had urged the Supreme Court to allow the transfer application to avoid multiplicity of proceeding before the High Court and the Supreme Court The controversial ordinance titled, Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 (Uttar Pradesh Vidhi Virudh Dharma Samparivartan Pratishedh Adhyadhesh, 2020 in Hindi) was cleared by the UP State Cabinet in November and was signed off by the State Governor, Anandiben Patel on November 28. The ordinance lays down a detailed procedure to be followed before an individual can convert from one religion to another. Violation of the same entails criminal liability on the individual who undergoes conversion and the individual who converts the person

Yesterday

The Private Schools Association of Jammu and Kashmir has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking the restoration of 4G internet services in the state, which have been suspended since the abrogation of J&K's special status on August 5, 2019. Our students have been suffering since 5 August 2019 due to prolonged school closures which were first imposed in the aftermath of abrogation of Article 370 and then extended on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. The children of Jammu & Kashmir have already lost two academic years because it is impossible to conduct online classes using video-conferencing tools like Zoom or WebEx at 2G mobile internet speed,” the association pleaded in the petition. The association, having 3800 schools as members, states that due to the disruption of online classes, students in J&K are at a competitive disadvantage when compared to students from the other parts of the country. It may be noted that this will be the third round of litigation in the Supreme Court seeking restoration of 4G internet services in the state since August 2019. The first batch of cases, filed soon after the repeal of the J&K's special status, resulted in the judgment of Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India in January 2020. Though the judgment waxed eloquent about the necessity of the internet for freedom of speech and expression and trade and also about the principles of proportionality, it did not direct the immediate restoration of internet services and relegated the matter to the Central Government for review.

Yesterday

The Supreme Court granted bail to Kannada actor Ragini Dwivedi, who had been arrested by the police for allegedly consuming and supplying drugs at parties and events. A Bench headed by Justice Rohinton F. Nariman heard the arguments put forth by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luther, appearing on behalf of Dwivedi, and Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, and proceeded to note that Section 37 of the NDPS Act had been wrongly invoked by the Sessions Court and the High Court. a petition filed by Kannada film actress, Ragin I Dwivedi, seeking bail in an alleged Sandalwood drugs case. A three-judge bench of the Apex Court, headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, and also comprising Justices Navin Sinha and Indu Malhotra, adjourned the petition, till Thursday, filed by Ragini, seeking bail in the alleged drug abuse case. Kannada film actress, Ragini Dwivedi, had approached the Supreme Court for bail in the alleged Sandalwood drugs case. Ragini had filed the Special Leave Petition (SLP), challenging the Karnataka High Court's order of November 3, last year, declining her relief.

5 days ago

The Supreme Court, by 4:1 majority, has dismissed a batch of review petitions challenging the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the Aadhaar case. The present review petitions have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 26.09.2018. We have perused the review petitions as well as the grounds in support thereof. In our opinion, no case for review of judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 is made out. We hasten to add that change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. While Justices AM Khanwilkar, Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer, and BR Gavai observed that no case for review of judgment, Justice DY Chandrachud expressed his dissent. 

5 days ago

A court in Gujarat''s Mundra in Kutch district issued an arrest warrant against senior journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta in a defamation suit filed by the Adani Group. He was charged with a complaint under section 500 of IPC. You are hereby directed to arrest the said accused and to produce him before me," Judicial Magistrate Pradeep Soni said in a direction to the Nizamuddin police station in New Delhi. The Article in question was co-authored by Thakurta, when he was the Editor of Economic and Political Weekly, alleging that Narendra Modi's Government tweaked special economic zone rules which ultimately led to the Adani Group reaping a benefit of Rs 500 crore. As reported by PTI, Judicial Magistrate Pradeep Soni, while issuing the warrant of arrest, directed the Nizamuddin police station in New Delhi

5 days ago

The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional validity of the amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which, among others, mandated that to trigger an insolvency proceeding against a defaulting builder in respect of a real estate project, the application must be filed by a minimum of 100 allottees or 10 percent of the allottees, whichever was lesser. A Bench of Justices R F Nariman, Navin Sinha, and KM Joseph upheld the Constitutional validity of Sections 3, 4, and 10 introduced by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020. Writing for the Bench, Justice Joseph noted: “Insisting on a threshold regarding these categories of creditors would lead to the halt to indiscriminate litigation which would result in an uncontrollable docket explosion as far as authorities which work the Code are concerned … The legislative policy reflects an attempt at shielding corporate debtor from what it considers would be either frivolous or avoidable application

6 days ago

The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed all proceedings in a criminal case– what has come to be referred to as insider trading in capital land deals– prosecuted by the Crime Investigation Department against some private persons. The entire prosecution case bristles with several fatal legal infirmities and cuts the case of the prosecution at its roots. A single bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy observed that private sale transactions cannot be criminalized and that the concept of the offense of "insider trading", which is essentially an offense in the field of stock market relating to selling and buying the securities and bonds, cannot be applied to the offenses under Indian Penal Code and cannot be read into Section 420 IPC or any provisions in the scheme of Indian Penal Code. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the said concept/theory of the offense of insider trading which is essentially an offense dealing with illegal sale of securities and bonds of the company cannot be applied to the private sale transactions relating to sale and purchase of lands to criminalize the said transactions under any of the provisions of the IPC, much less under Section 420 of IPC, Justice Roy said. The judge said it was legally impermissible to prosecute the petitioners for the offenses under Sections 420, 406, 409, and 120-B of IPC by applying the said concept of insider trading and in the guise of the said concept of insider trading

6 days ago

The prescription of a Higher educational qualification as a qualification for promotion to a post cannot be held as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has reiterated. The bench headed by the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde observed thus while setting aside a Judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court which quashed an administrative Order of the Chief Justice prescribing certain qualifications for promotion to the post of Head Assistant. the bench referred to a 1968 Constitution Bench Judgment viz., also consisting of Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian in the case of the state of Mysore Condition & Anr. To vs. P. Narasinga Rao AIR 1968 SC 349, in which it was noted that Article 16(1) would not exclude a fair classification or a reasonable test for the selection of employees. The court further observed that it was held in a case of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Khosa (1974) 1 SCC 19 that the Law providing for the qualifications of graduates for promotion to the exclusion of diploma holders was not contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Referring more to T.R. Kothandaraman vs. Water Supply and Drainage Board for Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 282

January 19, 2021, at ,02:50 PM

A plea in the Bombay High Court seeks to initiate contempt proceedings against actress Kangana Ranaut for tweeting a video in alleged violation of her undertaking given to the court. An interim application has been filed in the Bombay high court (HC), seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against actor Kangana Ranaut for lowering the dignity of the court by tweeting and posting a video of her visit to Bandra police station on January 8. The petition, filed by Bandra resident Munnawarali Sayyed, claims that the actor has violated the undertaking given by her on November 24, during the hearing of a petition filed by her seeking quashing of a first information report (FIR). The FIR was filed against Ranaut and her sister, Rangoli. The petition, filed through Sayyed’s advocates Kamran Shaikh and Mohsin Shaikh, pointed to a tweet and video message posted by Ranaut on January 8. In the tweet, the actor alleged being mentally, emotionally, and physically tortured and sought the support of her Twitter followers. In the video message, she questioned the judiciary for asking her to keep quiet. The complaint says that Kangana tweeted in "utter disregard to the dignity, decorum, and Order of the High Court which squarely falls within the ambit of Section 2 (b) and (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971."Adding that this tweet is a portrayal of her callous and disobedient attitude towards orders of the court.

January 19, 2021, at ,02:50 PM

The Supreme Court considered a petition filed by a man, who claimed to be a 'spiritual guru', seeking the release of his 'spiritual live-in partner' who was alleged to be under the illegal detention of her parents. The special leave petition was filed challenging an interim order passed by a division bench of the High Court on January 4 refusing to order the release of the woman. A man in his 40s, married with two daughters, moved the Supreme Court seeking to free a 21-year-old woman from "illegal custody" of her parents claiming that she considered him to be her spiritual live-in partner and challenged a Kerala high court order giving custody to her parents against her choice. Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan told a bench of CJI SA Bobde and Justices LN Rao and Vineet Saran that it was disturbing to note that the HC interacted with the woman, who wished to go with her spiritual guru, and yet allowed her custody to her parents. The petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, submitted that the High Court's order was against the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Hadiya case, which upheld the right of a major woman to choose her partner. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde expressed initial reluctance to entertain the petition

January 19, 2021, at ,02:49 PM

The petition challenging the mandates Bar Examination Rules 2010 fmade by the BCI mandate that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Exam (AIBE) to practice in Law. A three-Judge Bench comprising of Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai, and Krishna Murari issued notice to BCI in a plea seeking a stay on conducting AIBE. The petition filed by Parthsarthi Mahesh Saraf, who enrolled in 2019, questions the authority of the BCI to prescribe such a post-enrollment requirement for practice. The petitioner also challenges the notification issued by the BCI on December 21, 2020, regarding the holding of AIBE 2021 on January 24 and March 13. The petition filed through Advocate V K Biju states that in the case V Sudheer vs BCI and another 1999(3) SCC 176, the Supreme Court had quashed the Bar Council Training Rues 1995 holding that BCI cannot impose additional conditions for advocates by way of subordinate rules contravening the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.

January 18, 2021, at ,01:02 PM