Author: LEXPEEPS editor

In response to a lawyer’s petition contesting the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the Delhi High Court today requested the Central government’s answer (IT Rules, 2021). Uday Bedi, a practising lawyer, filed a petition alleging that the new IT Rules violate basic rights to free expression and privacy. The Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has been served with a notice by the Court (MEITY). The case is set to be heard on September 13th.

Bedi claims that the new IT Rules violate his basic rights as a user of social media intermediaries (SMIs) including WhatsApp, Instagram, and Twitter. The challenged Rules are said to violate the Indian Constitution’s Articles 14 (right to equality, including the right against arbitrariness), 19 (freedom of speech and expression), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty, which is understood to include the right to privacy). News portals The Wire, The Quint, and AltNews, as well as the Press Trust of India, have challenged the IT Rules, 2021 in the Delhi High Court. The High Court earlier this month denied interim relief in cases brought by The Wire, The Quint, and AltNews while giving the Central government and other respondents time to respond to the claims.

Other challenges challenging the IT Rules have been filed in the Madras, Kerala, and Bombay High Courts. Because there are several petitions on the subject. The Centre has also filed a transfer petition with the Supreme Court, requesting that all matters be considered there. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has yet to order a stay on any of the High Court actions.

-Report by ESHAN SHARMA

According to news agency ANI, a lawyer cried “tareekh par tareekh (date after date)” while breaking courtroom equipment in a Delhi court recently, reenacting a famous film scene. According to the report, the event occurred on July 17 in courtroom 66 of the Karkardooma court complex in the national capital.

Advocate Rakesh, according to ANI, was irritated that his case has been waiting since 2016 In court. According to the agency, Rakesh smashed the judge’s dais inside the courtroom, citing police sources. The lawyer was seized by the police when the courtroom staff sounded an alarm. The policy sources reported to the agency that the dais of the judge in the courtroom was smashed by Advocate Rakesh. The lawyer was arrested by the police when the courtroom personnel sounded an alert.

The numerous adjournments sought by the opposing lawyer, played by the late Amrish Puri, infuriated Deol, who was portraying the character of an advocate in the film. Deol launched a monologue about how recurrent court adjournments had hampered his client’s struggle for justice before uttering the famous “tareekh par tareekh” statement in the court.

Meanwhile, Rakesh was apprehended and placed before a magistrate, who put him in judicial prison, according to ANI. Sections 186 (willfully impeding any public servant in the exercise of his official duty), 353 (assaulting or employing criminal force on any person who is a public worker), 427 (mischief), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code have been filed against him by the Delhi Police.

-Report by ESHAN SHARMA

Former Supreme Court Justice (retired) R.V. Raveendran has stated that legislative restrictions employed by the British to suppress the independence movement should not be applied in a democracy. In response to Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s recent assertion that criminal laws, including anti-terror provisions, are unconstitutional, It should not be used to suppress dissent, Justice Raveendran remarked, adding that while such legislation may be necessary, they should not be utilized to suppress dissent in a democracy.

The public’s trust in the judiciary, according to Justice Raveendran, is incredibly important. “The sovereignty of the judiciary does not lie in determining cases or enforcing sentences,” Justice Raveendran remarked, “but it is the public trust in the court that matters.” Democracy can endure and thrive as long as the judiciary maintains its credibility, he argued, but if the court loses its credibility, democracy’s survival is jeopardized. “I believe that the judiciary is capable of addressing and resolving contemporary issues, as well as providing the best possible service to society,” he said.

According to Justice Raveendran, wealthy people hire better lawyers, fight their cases better, and have a better chance of succeeding because their cases are presented in a better manner, whereas the system allows for appeals, reviews, and curative petitions since the poor who do not have access to the best lawyers and are unable to defend their case. When it comes to the issues, they must be watchful and make swift decisions. “When a matter involving a wealthy individual comes up, the court should be cautious not to be swept away by misleading evidence,” Justice Raveendran stated. And, if a poor person’s case is brought up, the court should be aware that he is unable to state his case adequately and ensure that he is treated fairly.

In response to the pending cases, Justice Raveendran suggested that alternative dispute resolution options be encouraged.

Former Chief Justice of India Justice K. G. Balakrishnan observed that while the diversity of laws is not a major problem, the multiplicity of authority generated by the laws is. On obsolete legislation, Justice Balakrishnan suggested that a highly efficient group of top professors and jurists be formed to create appropriate amendments.

When prompted why similar instances before benches and judges may result in different rulings, sentencing, and penalties, he responded that every judge has some personal prejudice and their ideology at play. An experienced judge, on the other hand, would know what the appropriate penalty is.

-Report by YASHVARDHAN SHARMA

Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Judge and Chairman, e-committee of the Supreme Court of India, addressed some crucial statements at the live streaming of Gujarat High Court proceedings event, underlining the importance of the Live Streaming Court’s activities.

He emphasized that live streaming has become essential and that it increases clarity. “Even when the pandemic is over, live streaming will help to exemplify court proceedings and spread the message that courts are for the people. “Learners recognize that judges are doing their jobs properly.” He added. He also addressed the widespread misunderstandings about how judges work. “We are targeted for the vacations we take,” he added,” Judges, on the other hand, work 24 hours a day; but people don’t comprehend the magnitude of the job that judges perform even while they are on vacation.”

N.V. Ramana, India’s Chief Justice, has stated that live-streaming of Supreme Court hearings may begin shortly, and that practicalities are being worked out to make this possible.

According to India’s Chief Justice, people currently acquire information about court proceedings through the media, “In effect, information from the courts is filtered by agents. Due to the lack of context, there is occasionally a communication loss during the proceeding, resulting in misinterpretation of questions asked and observations made by the bench. “Vested interests can exaggerate these misunderstandings to mock or defame the institution,” he said. It is this lack of direct access that allows for misconceptions to grow. The best treatment for the aforementioned issue is the formalization of live streaming of court sessions. Live-streaming of proceedings is crucial for information dissemination, which is a core component of Article 19.” People can acquire first-hand information about the entire proceedings and the judges’ judgments with such direct access, he said, “leaving little opportunity for any wrongdoing.”

The Supreme Court had previously stated that the court’s proceedings should be live-streamed in cases of constitutional significance. Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Vikram Nath remarked during the virtual inauguration, “Going live requires bravery, confidence, and, most importantly, conviction. The live-streaming guidelines are unanimously approved by all of my brother and sister judges.”

-Report by YASHVARDHAN SHARMA

The bench of justices TS Sivagnanam and S Ananthi has held that “the authorities unmindful of the heritage value of various temples had licenses and leased out the temple property as well as the programs and verandas of the temples to traders to carry on trading activity by selling articles which are unrelated and unconnected with the temple and the worshipping public. These shops have virtually become shopping centers if not shopping malls” the order stated.

The PIL petition which was moved by K Suresh who is vice president of the Dharma Sena he argued that the Kanniyakumari district temple trustee board and the Shree Parameshwara Brahmanandha Theertha Sivangal, Madathipathi of the Munchirai madam be engaged to conduct certain temple rituals for the Arulmighu Adhikesavan temple which he stated was mandated as per scriptures of the temple.

The petitioner argued that the temple is not being maintained properly and the Pooja and rituals were not being conducted regularly as per scriptures.

Further, the court observed that the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department had a duty to maintain the temple and preserve its heritage. The court also agreed to petitioner contentions made that the temples in Tamil Nadu where the Pooja are not being performed due to lack of funds.

The court expressed its inability to allow petitioner prayer and directed them to approach the appropriate forum to get his grievances addressed. The court proceeded to dispose off the writ petition.

-Report by ANAND PATIL

A single-judge bench of Justice P Velmurugan of the Hon’ble Madras High Court while hearing a woman’s appeal against the acquittal of a man charged with sexually assaulting her two-year-old daughter said that the woman’s statement was recorded, and the English term “semen” was incorrectly spelled out as “semman” in Tamil which means red soil color. By taking advantage of that mistake, the accused was successful in securing acquittal in the Trial Court.

The case dates back to 2017 when the mother left her two-year-and-nine-month old daughter with a neighbor while she went grocery shopping. After shopping, when they got home, the child refused to eat and started crying, claiming she was having pain in her private parts. When the girl’s mother checked her clothes, she discovered white stains on her body and undergarments. She took her to the hospital, where it was determined that the child had been sexually assaulted.

The neighbor was charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act. Following the trial, a POCSO Court acquitted the accused citing the prosecution’s failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, The Police Report clearly stated that the woman said “semen” and spotted a “white color fluid” on the child’s private parts. The English word “semen” was misunderstood as “semman” in Tamil, according to the Court.

The Court observed that “The Trial Courts sometimes do not apply their minds; instead of exercising their discretionary power to order a re-investigation or to summon relevant records they only look for a proof beyond a reasonable doubt. With the exploitation of such procedural flaws, the accused gets the benefit of the doubt. In circumstances like these, a high value cannot be placed on the technical basis of proof.”

The Court, setting aside the decision of the Trial Court, held the accused guilty of section 9 of the POCSO act punishable under Section 10 of the Act. It further stated that in cases of child abuse, the onus of rebutting an accusation falls on the accused.

-Report by VANESSA RODRIGUES

The plea for change in dress code for advocates has been brought under Allahabad HC on Friday and issued a notice to the bar council of India. Where the existing dress code of black coat and the robes for lawyers were alleged against the climate condition of India. This was held by the under the bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava.

The plea also started quashing which mandates the advocates to wear black robes before the court. Also prays to change the dress code of all judges of courts, tribunals, authorities, as prescribed under the advocate’s bar council of India, rules 1975.

The petitioner contended in the plea for change in dress code is not before the climatic condition of the country but the main notion is that the white color band is indicating the Christianity symbol and the white sari and salwar kameez for the women is the symbol of widow ladies as per the Hindu tradition. Then the petitioner also challenged the provisions of the BCI rules of chapter 4 which was framed in 1975 under section 49(i)(gg) of Advocates Act 1961. This was alleged beyond the powers of the constitution by violating the article 14, 21 and 25. And changing the dress code of the color back and white is like completely breaking the tradition that has been in force as a sought of custom.

Criticizing this the petitioner asked the bar council to change the dress code in the pattern provided for the navy, air forces, and army. So bench directed this issue to the center and the high court administration to their respective responses by August 18.

-Report by AJISHA

The Name for the “Common High Court of UT of Jammu and Kashmir and UT of Ladakh” has been Changed and agreed by the officials and signed by the president to “High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh,” according to an official decision.

The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2021, has been signed by India’s President, Ram Nath Kovind, to bring about this transformation. The Department of Justice in the Law Ministry has issued an official order in this regard yesterday. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir was created by the Jammu and Kashmir Government Order Number 1 on March 26, 1928.

The official order said that the nomenclature will be changed. ” The current nomenclature is found to be rather long-winded and cumbersome; accordingly, the said nomenclature may be substituted as High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, which, in addition to being convenient, would also be under the name pattern followed in other common High Courts, namely Punjab and Haryana, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh;”

According to the official order, the Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory of Ladakh and the Chief Justice of the Common High Court for the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh both indicated their approval for the proposed name and had no objections.

Thus, Ram Nath Kovind, President of India, issued the Order in exercise of the authority provided by subsection (1) of section 103 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, following order, namely:

To begin with the short title and commencement.- “(1) This Order may be called the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2021 (of 2021).”

(2) It will take effect on the day it is published in the official gazette. The terms “High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh” should be substituted for the phrases “Common High Court for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Union Territory of Ladakh” In section 75 of clause (a) under the subsection 1 Territory of Ladakh” In section 75 of the clause (a) under the subsection 1

The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, was passed to reorganize the existing state of Jammu and Kashmir into the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh.

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir was designated as the Common High Court for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh, Under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 75 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.

-Report by ESHAN SHARMA

In light of the COVID-19 situation in West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court resolved on Friday to extend the duration of all interim decisions issued by the High Court and its subordinate courts, including the Tribunals inside West Bengal and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, until August 20, 2021. A Full Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justices IP Mukerjee, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen, and Subrata Talukdar issued an order to that effect.

We extended the interim orders imposed in this Writ Petition till August 20, 2021, in light of the West Bengal government’s extension of restrictions related to the Covid-19 epidemic,” the order stated.

On March 24, 2020, the first such order was issued. This order’s applicability was extended until June 30 on April 23, and again until September 30 on June 24. The Court ruled on August 7 to prolong the duration of interim orders until November 30. It was extended in November until February 28, 2021, and then until March 31, 2021.

Apart from extending the duration of interim court orders, the August 7 ruling had also allowed for the following;

• Any party who is impacted by the continuance of interim orders will be able to petition to have them vacated or modified. This shall also apply to all orders issued after March 15, 2020, by this Court or any Subordinate Courts or Tribunals.
• Court rulings permitting the possession of any premises subject to the payment of rent or occupational charges shall remain in effect despite the non-payment of rent or occupational charges from March 15 to November 30.
• If rent or occupancy costs are not submitted under rent control laws, the tenant or occupant will not be responsible for eviction until November 30 or earlier decisions of the Court.
• Regardless of whether or not the requirements set have been met, all other conditional orders of the Court will remain in effect until further orders. This will apply to non-compliance with the requirements from March 15 to November 30, as well as any prior court rulings.
• This ruling will also apply to orders issued by the High Court’s Original Side.

Last March, the Court decided to dismiss a suo motu writ petition filed to determine whether to prolong interim orders amid the epidemic, claiming that such restrictions did not need to be extended until March 31. However, when COVID-19 limitations were re-imposed in the state, the High Court has resurrected these actions and prolonged the duration of interim orders once again. On August 13, the case will be examined again and will be considered.

-Report by ESHAN SHARMA

–Report by YASHVARDHAN SHARMA

An Assistant Conservator of Forests accused of abetting a female subordinate officer in committing suicide was granted bail by the Nagpur Bench. While granting bail to an applicant accused of abetting the death of a forest officer, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court stated that bail cannot be denied to quell society’s collective fury.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

• Mrs. ‘D’ (Deepali Chavan ) penned three suicide notes. The first note is a letter addressed to Mr. Reddy the then Additional Chief Conservator of Forest, Melghat Tiger Project, Amravati, who is also arraigned as accused. The succeeding note is a letter addressed by Mrs. ‘D’ to her mother and the third note is a letter addressed by Mrs. ‘D’ to her husband.
• The deceased’s husband filed a report with Police Station Dharni, District Amravati, under Crime 211/2021, for offences punishable under Sections 306, 312, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the applicant, who was direct superior at that time of Mrs. ‘D’s, and who is a member of the Indian Forest Service, was arrested on 27.03.2021.
• The applicant attempted to persuade the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur to grant bail, but in vain.
• Opposing Shivkumar’s bail application, district government pleader (DGP) Parikshit Ganorkar said There are accusations made against the defendants that led to Chavan’s suicide. There is prima facie evidence against the accused and He could have obstructed investigations and tamper with prosecution witnesses because he held a top position.
• Ganorkar testified in court that Shivkumar attempted to run and was apprehended dramatically at Nagpur train station. If he gets released on bail, He may attempt to flee justice as well and pleaded for discharge of his bail application.
• From the case diary and explicit, it is clear that Shivkumar had been tormenting Chavan for over a year. In March 2020, He even threatened to implicate Deepali in a case of atrocities and put her behind the bar.
• “The issues that have been raised when the accused forced her to perform field duties while pregnant, resulting in her abortion. The applicant used to call her at odd hours at night and disgustingly speak to her. The accused sought to take advantage of her loneliness, and when she refused, he used to punish her, according to the suicide note,” the court said.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• Deepali Chavan penned three suicide notes. The first note is to Mr. Reddy the then Additional Chief Conservator of Forests. Second note to her mother and the third note to her husband.
• Under Crime 211/2021, for offences punishable under Sections 306, 312, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the applicant, was arrested on 27.03.2021.
• The accused argued that he had no criminal antecedent, was a law-abiding citizen, and was working for the betterment of the forest. His deeds were a part of his official responsibilities.
• The three letters’ contents used as evidence and the accusations contained therein are refuted by additional evidence gathered during the investigation.
• The application is allowed.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

• Prashant Deshpande, his lawyer, filed a bail application on his behalf that the accused argued that he had no criminal antecedent, was a law-abiding citizen, and was working for the betterment of the forest. He claimed in his application that Chavan’s allegations in her suicide note were ambiguous and did not meet the threshold of abetment. His deeds were a part of his official responsibilities. Prima facie, the allegation that the applicant, As Assistant Conservator of Forests, ordered the deceased to go on a rough terrain trek while she was pregnant, By any stretch of the imagination, this implies a responsible intent to cause a miscarriage.
• The contents of the letters, which the prosecution claims were written by Mrs. ‘D’ are taken at face value, even a prima facie inference of suicidal abetment cannot be drawn.
• Even if it is assumed arguendo, that the three letters’ contents will be used as evidence, The accusations contained therein are refuted by additional evidence gathered during the investigation.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

• Despite this, the court noted that if taken at face value, the three letters on which the prosecution is relying do make out a prima facie case of abetment, considering that the applicant is suspended and would not be in a position to influence the witnesses, that the applicant is not a flight risk and that bail cannot be denied as a pre-trial punishment, I’m inclined to believe that a case has been established for granting bail.
• The application is allowed.
• The applicant is released on bail on the condition that he deposit a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties of like amount. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any attempt to contact much less influence, any witness cited in the charge-sheet nor shall the applicant make any attempt but otherwise influence the course of the trial.
• The applicant shall attend every date of hearing scrupulously and shall report at the Sadar Police Station, Nagpur on the second and fourth Saturday of every month. The applicant shall, within 72 hours of release, he should provide his current address and phone numbers to the Investigating Officer, and keep the Investigating Officer informed of any changes. The applicant must hand over his passport to the Investigating Officer if he has any. Without the authorization of the jurisdictional court, the applicant could not leave the country.