LEXPEEPS editor – Page 368

The Tarak Mehta fame actress Munmun Dutta’s FIR for her alleged remarks hurting the sentiments of the SC community was ordered to be stayed by the Supreme Court.

A division bench led by Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian issued a notice against a plea filed by Dutta against the FIR under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In the petition filed by Dutta, she sought a stay on the FIRs against her while clubbing and consolidating the FIRs registered in various states. Puneet Bali, a senior advocate, represented Dutta and submitted that since Dutta is Bengali, she was unaware of the real meaning of the said word. To which the bench contended, “That is not true. You may not be informed. Everyone knows the meaning. The same word is used in Bangla.”

The Bench directed a stay on 5 FIRs registered on her in different states along with issuing a notice in the petition. The matter has been listed in court after 6 weeks.

-Report by Saksham Srivastava

On Friday, a hearing on plea on habeas corpus filed by Gulfisha Fatima, an accused of offences under UAPA, was adjourned which sought release from Judicial custody by Delhi HC. It was adjourned by a division bench of Justices Naveen Chawla and Asha Menon. It is adjourned to July 5, instead of the court being burdened with heavy load and lack of time for the said plea. The plea will be looked into by the roster bench after vacation.

Fatima was charged under various sections of UAPA for being involved in the riots that happened in North East Delhi from 22.02.2020 to 26.02.2020. She is also accused that she was part of a larger conspiracy behind inciting the Northeast Delhi Riots that took place in February 2020. Fatima also involved Natasha Narwa, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal who were released from Tihar jail on Thursday by the bail order by Delhi HC on 15 June’20. They are allegedly the masterminds of the conspiracy of the North-East Delhi violence in Feb2020, they are accused of wanting to disturb law and order to National Capital as a reaction to the Citizenship Amendment Act enacted last year.

The Supreme Court of Friday issued a notice in an appeal filed by Delhi Police which challenged the verdict of HC. It said that the impugned judgment shall not be relied on as a precedent by any of the parties before any court. “It is clarified that release of the respondents (Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita & Natasha Narwal) at this stage not interfered with,” it added.

-Report by Saksham Srivastava

-Report by Manaswa Sharma

INTRODUCTION

On 01.06.2021 the Calcutta High Court in its bench which includes Justice Shekhar B. Sharaf, withinside the case of Bineeta Patnaik Padhi Vs. Union of India & Ors. held that one Army Public School, Panagarh, is held to be a State below Article 12 of the Constitution because it turned into discharging public responsibility. It, in addition, said that if the petitioner has felt that she stands violated of her valuable essential proper or any felony proper for that matter, it’s miles this Court’s bounden responsibility to look at the propriety of the identical.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The gift Writ petition below Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed with the aid of using the petitioner claiming that at the same time as she turned into discharging her obligations because the Principal of Army Public School at Panagarh and at the same time as serving in her tenure as a prolonged probationer, she turned into terminated with the aid of using the chairman of the identical faculty from such published in violation of each her essential rights in addition to positive statutory rights.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Ms. Sonal Sinha found out suggest performing on behalf of the petitioner argued on the subsequent grounds:

The suggest at the same time as concluding prayed earlier than the courtroom docket to invoke the writ of mandamus to implement provider situations of instructors serving in non-public unaided instructional establishments.
Reliance turned into additionally located upon the choice of the Apex Court at the same time as analyzing the problem of termination of an Assistant Teacher in a non-public unaided group, in which it turned into held that a writ utility is certainly maintainable in such instances whilst opposition to the non-public unaided instructional establishments.
It turned into emphasized that although the connection between the petitioner and the respondent turned into taken into consideration to have emanated out of a settlement, it’d now no longer close the doorways of this Court in invoking the writ jurisdiction below Article 226 of the Constitution.
It turned into contended that primarily based totally on diverse choices of the Supreme Court the Right to Education is an essential proper below Article 21 of the charter and consequently denial of the identical might bring about the violation of one’s essential proper.
It turned into submitted that those non-public establishments supplying training to college students from the age of six years and onwards, along with better training carry out a public responsibility and as a consequence falls below the purview of Article 12.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Mr. Y.J. Dastoor, found out Additional Solicitor General, performing on behalf of the contesting Respondents argued on the subsequent grounds:

Mr. Dastoor additionally argued that for the reason that stated faculty turned into a non-public unaided faculty and the AWES that is dealing with it, isn’t a public body, because of the mandate of Article 12 of the Constitution of India consequently the affairs of the stated faculty might be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
It turned into additionally contended that the jurisdiction below Article 226 should handiest be exercised with the aid of using a constitutional courtroom docket handiest if, an detail of public regulation is worried that is the sine qua non for the invocation of this Court’s powers below Article 226 of the Constitution and such electricity isn’t to be trifled with simple to implement non-public contracts of provider/ or provider associated contracts entered into among aware and ready parties.
He additionally submitted that there’s neither a contravention of any statutory proper nor any essential proper assured below Part III of the Constitution of India, as alleged with the aid of using the petitioner.
It turned into argued that such writ utility turned into now no longer maintainable for the cause that the stated faculty is a non-public unaided instructional group operated with the aid of using the Army Welfare Education Society.
It turned into in addition submitted that the reality that the petitioner turned into serving below a length of prolonged probation and it turned into legally permissible for each the AWES or the stated faculty to assess the petitioner’s overall performance with the aid of using a distinctive feature of her popularity as a probationer, making her eligible for both an affirmation or a discharge from such provider and within side the occasion of a discharge, such settlement couldn’t be enforced thru writ utility below Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

OBSERVATION AND JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

The following remark has been made with the aid of using the Hon’ble bench of Calcutta High Court:

If the petitioner has felt that she stands violated of her valuable essential proper or any felony proper for that matter, it’s miles this Court’s bounden responsibility to look at the propriety of the identical.
In the case of Article 226, similarly to the enforcement of an essential proper, a petitioner also can are searching for the enforcement of any felony proper.
The stated faculty that is run with the aid of using AWES had come to discharge a public responsibility which stands imposed in phrases of each Article 21A of the Constitution of India in addition to the RTE Act which gave impact to the essential proper in unequivocal phrases.
A writ of mandamus may be issued to a non-public body/authority which discharges ‘public function’ below Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

On thinking about the above the objection at the floor of maintainability of the petition turned into rejected. Further, the stated faculty, Army Public School, Panagarh, is held to be a State’ below Article 12 of the Constitution because it turned into discharging public responsibility.

On June 10, 2021, a fifty-year-old Sajad Rashid Sofi reportedly made a comment at a Janata Darbaar saying that he has no expectations from the non-local police officers posted in Jammu & Kashmir. The accused is said to have made the comment during an interaction with locals at Mansbal in Central Kashmir and has reportedly created panic and enmity between groups.

Sofi was arrested by the Jammu & Kashmir police under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code for promoting enmity between groups. To this, Sofi proceeded to move a bail application before the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ganderbal.

The bench of Judge Fakhr Un Nissa, on June 12, granted interim bail to Sofi till June 21, 2021, subject to various conditions. However, the police kept him under preventive detention, claiming that he was a potential “threat to peace” and that he could harass the witness and obstruct the investigation.

The legal counsel of the applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated in a frivolous case, of which he does not know of. He further stated that the applicant is the only source of earning for his family and if not released on bail, the family will die of starvation. Sofi’s advocate further ensured the court that Sofi will not harm or tamper with any part of the investigation.

The prosecution contended that the accused is involved in a non-bailable offence and thus, the accused is not entitled to bail as a matter of right. He further stated that there of credible evidence available against the accused and the concession of bail in the favour of the accused will harm the investigation.

On June 15th, the court stated that bail is a rule and its rejection is an exception. Bail in a non-bailable offence cannot be refused without supporting it with a strong reason although bail is ultimately at the discretion of the court. The court further stated that it has sufficient reason to exercise discretion of bail in favor of the applicant and granted interim bail up to 21st June, provided that he will furnish surety and personal bonds before the SHO concerned.

-Report by Anuj Dhar

PS Murthi, an 87-year-old and the father of 5 children, was allotted a plot by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 26th May 1972, where he built a two-story house for him and his family.

Murthi lived peacefully with his wife and his fourth son i.e Laxmi Rajah. On the demise of the Murthi’s wife, PS Vijay and PS Suraj started demanding a share in the properties, forcefully took possession of the ground floor of the house, and allegedly ill-treated their father on many accounts.

The 87-year-old filed a contempt petition before the Madras High Court against his two sons for wilful breach of undertaking dated 28.12.2019 given to the court of V Metropolitan Magistrate of Egmore, Chennai. The mentioned undertaking was for the petitioners to vacate the Murthi’s house, to save themselves from a criminal complaint filed by their father for the ill-treatment he was sustained by his sons.

As per the Madras High Court order date 04.06.2021, PS Vijay and PS Suraj were found guilty under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and were sentenced to undergo 3 months of imprisonment or pay a fine of Rs.2000. and undergo imprisonment for one week.

The Supreme Court of India, on June 11th, noted the submission made by the counsel of the petitioners who had till June 13th to vacate the premises and was asked to file a compliance affidavit on June 14th, 2021.

On June 15th, the counsel of the petitioner, Anup Kumar, stated that June 14th i.e. Sunday was a complete lockdown and thus, was the reason for their breach of undertaking. The counsel further asked for 7-15 days to vacate the premises. The apex court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and stated that the sons will vacate the property on or before June 17th and the court further refused to grant them any protection for arrest.

-Report by Anuj Dhar

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 4649 of 1984

Equivalent Citations

AIR 1989 SC 777, 1989 (1) ARBLR 306 SC, JT 1989 (1) SC 132, 1989 (1) SCALE 126, (1989) 1 SCC 411, 1989 (1) UJ 416 SC

Bench

K.N. Singh, L.M. Sharma

Date of Judgment

January 20, 1989

Relevant Act/ Sections

Section 17, 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940

Order 41 Rule 33 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Facts of the Case:

The Government of India decided to hold the Third Asian International Trade Fair, scheduled to be opened in November 1972. Various countries were invited to participate in the Fair and were assured of getting space, by the first week of October 1972, in two huge structures named Hall of Nations and Hall of Industries. Tenders were invited on 9.10.1971 by an open advertisement described by the parties as Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT in short). The appellant, Puri Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the contractor), submitted its tender and was allotted the work. The contractor completed the work within the stipulated period and the Fair opened in time. The parties disagreed as to the amount payable for the executed work and even about the terms relating to arbitration.

Procedural History:

The contractor filed before the Delhi High Court an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act on 30/5/1974 which was registered as Suit No. 329-A of 1974. By consent of the parties, the High Court referred the dispute to Sri M.K. Shivasubramaniam, Chief Engineer, Central Public Works Department, to act as the sole arbitrator. The suit was accordingly disposed of. Sri Shivasubramaniam was appointed as the Chief Engineer (Vigilance Cell) and could not thereafter proceed with the arbitration. The Union of India (UOI) then purported to appoint one Sri M.K. Koundinya as the sole arbitrator, whose authority was challenged by the contractor before the High Court by filing a miscellaneous petition. By consent order, Sri D.N. Endlaw retired Chief Engineer, C.P.W.D. was appointed the sole arbitrator to continue with the arbitration proceeding. The dispute included mainly the claim of the contractor and several counter-claims by the Union of India. Sri Endlaw made a non-speaking award and filed it in court on 29.5.1981. A case being Suit No. 551/A/81 was registered and notices were issued and the Union of India filed objections thereto. The case was disposed of by a judgment dated April 16, 1982, passed by the single judge bench of G.K. Luthra, J. dismissing the objections and accepting the award. The Union of India challenged the judgment in the appeal which was heard and disposed of by a Division Bench consisting of Rajinder Sachar and Jagdish Chandra, JJ on May 21, 1984. The present appeal is directed against their judgment.

Issues before the Court:

Whether the sole arbitrator is required to give reasons in support of his award. (Part 4)
The contractor contended that it had to execute many new items of work, as directed from time to time during the course of construction, and these were beyond the awarded contract and were accordingly entitled to an additional payment.
Whether the amount payable to the contractor had to be reduced by the value of the discardable additional steel described by the parties as ‘salvaged steel’.
Whether the court can sit in appeal over the views of the arbitrator by re-examining and re-assessing the materials.
Whether a plea/claim is liable to be entertained if not raised before the lower courts.

Ratio of the Case

The Union of India contended that in view of the special provisions in the NIT, which was binding on the parties requiring the arbitrator to give a speaking award, Sri Endlaw was bound to do so. The learned Single Judge agreed with the appellant contractor that the case was governed by the general rules applicable to arbitration and Sri Endlaw was, therefore, not obliged to support his decision by reasons. The Supreme court upheld the decision of the Single Judge bench.
The Union of India after the award of the contract sought the construction of “Space frame structures” for housing the Hall of Nations and the Hall of Industries. It was the first venture to construct a “space frame structure in exposed concrete” in India. The result, therefore, was that till the contract work was allotted to the appellant no detailed drawings were available from the architects, and when the work was actually entrusted to the appellant, they were still struggling for evolving a design for a suitable “space frame structure”, which could be stable with all the various loading and other structural considerations.
At the time the contract work was given to the appellant, it was intended to put up prefabricated structures, but later what was built in accordance with the changed directions has been described as “cast-in-situ”. The Court stated that as a result of this change, it became necessary to use huge quantities of additional steel for a continuous period of about 9 months after which they had to be discarded. The discarded surplus steel was, thus, available to the appellant-contractor for resale and termed salvage.
When a court is called upon to decide the objections raised by a party against an arbitration award, the jurisdiction of the court is limited, as expressly indicated in the Arbitration Act, and it has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal and examine the correctness of the award on merits.
Some of the objections taken by the UOI before the appellate court were not raised before the lower court and therefore such objections cannot be considered in appeal and are liable to be rejected at the outset. One such example is the plea belatedly taken on behalf of the respondent in regard to Claim No. 16, which also has to be rejected. No such objection to the award was taken before the learned Single Judge.

Final Decision:

It was held that, for the reasons mentioned above, the High Court judgment dated May 21, 1984, passed in by the division bench in F.A.O. (O.S.) 67 of 1982 is set aside, and the judgment dated April 16, 1982, passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 551-A of 1981 is restored. The appeal is allowed with costs.

This case law analysis is written by Prateek Chandgothia, a first-year BA LLB (Hons.) student at the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab.

LATEST POSTS

ARCHIVES

About the Organizer:

Narsee Monjee Insitute of Management Studies, Navi Mumbai was established in 2017. It is recognised by the Bar Council of India.

About the Competition:

The voice of the marginalised is often overshadowed by the voice of the powerful. A debate offers a safe platform to open ourselves to positive discussion and provides a safe environment for learning how to brush off your mistakes, learn from them and ultimately move forward.

Second Edition of NMIMS ERISTICA – National Level Debate Competition organised by SVKM’S NMIMS School of Law, Navi Mumbai enables the students with an opportunity to come forward and experience the art of debating and take away experience, expertise and excellence.

Being a part of the newer generations, it is imperative to discuss and debate over the problems in society and any solutions for the same that may arise as students and future lawmakers of the country. It strives to provide a safe platform for students to grow and experiment with their communication skills and critical thinking.

Participants will have to advance in 3 rounds, with Preliminary and Semi-Finals having the topic “Does cultural appropriation promote the heritage of a community or hamper it?” and the Final round having the topic “Is language/accent another basis for Racial Discrimination?.

This debate will be based on the Lincoln-Douglas debate format, i.e. one on one debate in order to promote individualism amongst contestants.

Eligibility Criteria:

The competition is open to all the students pursuing an undergraduate course in any registered University.

Team Composition:

Only individual registrations are allowed and a maximum of three teams (three individuals) from any university/institute can participate.

Registration Details:

Step 1: https://bit.ly/3zrNYFJ

Step 2: Each participant is required to pay Rupees 250/- as the registration fee which is to be paid through an NEFT transaction.

NEFT Detail

Account Holder Name: Soumitra Joshi
Account Number:- 993910110011762
IFSC Code: BKID0009939
Bank Name: Bank of India
Branch Name: Pansemal UPI: 7509236600@paytm
Note: Paytm Wallet Payment is not accepted.

Step 3: Download the payment receipt. Take a screenshot and upload it on the Google form. Submit the registration form. You shall receive a confirmation email on completion of the process.

Important Dates:

Date of the Competition: 17th and 18th of July, 2021.
The deadline for registration is 11:59 pm, 11th July 2021.

Awards and Certificates:

Winner: INR. 5000/-
First Runner Up: INR. 3000/-
Second Runner Up: INR. 2,000/-
All the participants will be awarded E-certificates for participation

Contact Info:

Bhavya Godawat: 9413374455
Rudraaksha Sharma: 7011294757
Email Address: debateclubsol@nmims.edu.in

Further Details:

RULEBOOK-ERISTICA2021-1 Download

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/BKRZpHyuzA46mTWlaFqdjq

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

Call for Papers:

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) is a statutory body established under the Competition Act, 2002 with the objective to prevent practices having an adverse effect on competition, to promote and sustain competition in markets, to protect the interest of consumers and to ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants in markets in India. CCI is also mandated to take suitable measures for the promotion of competition law through organising various advocacy programmes for the stakeholders.

In furtherance of the above, CCI as a public institution is engaged in encouraging scholarship in the field of competition law and policy so as to develop a better understanding of competition issues relevant in the Indian context, to draw inferences for implementation of competition law and to create a culture of competition in India. In pursuit of the same, the Commission is publishing its annual Journal on Competition Law and Policy in both print and online version.

Submission of Papers:

The Commission invites original high-quality research papers, articles, case law and book reviews on competition law, the economics of competition law and contemporary antitrust issues for publication in the aforesaid journal. The orientation of the papers may be theoretical, empirical or case studies based.

The journal would cover a wide range of related themes. However, research papers/articles/book reviews on the following themes, in the Indian context and based on empirical research, would be encouraged:

Cartel
Vertical restraints and competition
Market definition, measuring market power and abuse of dominance
Merger and acquisition
New age economy, platform markets and challenges for antitrust enforcement
Intellectual property rights and competition law
Recent development in competition law and policy
Any other issues related to competition law and policy

Selection Process:

Papers received for publication in the journal shall be selected through a rigorous two-stage review process. At the initial stage, the Joint editors will carry out a blind review to determine the eligibility of the paper for further review. On clearing the initial stage, the paper will be sent to the editorial board.

A double-blind review process will be followed at both stages. Based on the editorial board recommendations, the paper will be rejected or accepted or sent to authors for revision.

Important Dates:

There is no specific deadline for the submission of papers. Papers cleared by the Editorial Board will be published in the next available issue of the Journal.

How to Submit?

Full papers along with a CV/Resume of author(s) and duly signed certificate of originality (Please see Annexure) may be sent to journals@cci.gov.in.

Contact Info:

E-mail ID: journals@cci.gov.in

Requests for further information or any other queries may also be sent to this email ID.

Further Details:

Call-for-Papers-for-CCI-Journal Download

CCI-Journal-2021-Flyer Download

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/BKRZpHyuzA46mTWlaFqdjq

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

About the Organizer:

Over the years, the Legal Services Committee of National Law University Delhi has been involved in fostering legal aid and awareness. While previously our focus was on spreading awareness about rights and facilitating access to courts, from this year the Committee has expanded its domain to also ensure access to government institutions.

About the Event:

The Legal Service Committee is pleased to inform you all that it is launching its own quarterly newsletter which will cover upcoming events, changes, developments and happenings in the field of Legal Aid.

The newsletter is one of its kind in India and through this initiative in the legal aid arena, the committee aims to reconnect with the people and agencies working in the field, academicians, lawyers and law students. The first issue would be released in July with the theme, ‘Challenges to Legal Aid in times of the COVID – 19 pandemic’.

To commemorate the launch of the newsletter, the committee has planned to organise two competitions, namely:

Project Innovation Challenge
Rights, Camera and Caption

Eligibility:

Students pursuing the three or five-year LL.B. course from any Law school/ college/ university in India are eligible to participate. Students pursuing their LL.M. from any Law school/college/university are eligible to participate.

Submission Procedure:

To submit your entry fill in the details and attach your submission.

Click here for Project Innovation Challenge.

Click here for Rights Camera Caption.

Fee Details:

No Fees

Submission Deadline:

The final date of Submission is 10th July, 2021.

Awards:

The First place winners from both the competitions would be featured in the newsletter and first, second and third placeholders will be awarded cash prizes worth Rs. 2000, Rs. 1000 and Rs. 500 respectively. Please note, in the case of group submissions, the prize money of that respective position would be split equally amongst the group members.

The entries/submissions will be assessed for the award by a panel constituted by the committee for this purpose. The decision of the panel will be final and binding on all participants.

Rules for Project Innovation Challenge:

In ‘Project Innovation Challenge’, participants have to come up with an idea for a project which could be taken up by the Legal Services Committees or other organisations to mitigate the direct or indirect effect of COVID-19 and the lockdown. The project should have some legal nexus and an element of legal aid to it.

The participants must justify that the project could assist in solving or reducing the effects of a problem/challenges arising in COVID-19 times. The problems could be a direct or indirect result of COVID-19 and would include problems caused by pandemic to Non-COVID patients as well.

While coming up with a project, participants should be mindful of the resources which would be required to execute the project, its sustainability, practicality, scalability, innovation, creativity, efficiency, and whether it could be executed by students.

Students could participate in this project individually or in groups. The maximum number of participants in a group cannot exceed 4. The maximum word limit for submissions is 1000 words, with diagrams being permitted. All submissions must be made in a word document. The following heads must be included in the project. Any additional appropriate heads could be added by the participants:

Description of Project
Methodology
Workforce Required
Logistics (Financial, Personnel, Infrastructure, etc.)
Beneficiaries
Social Impact
Feasibility, Scalability and Sustainability

Rules for Rights Camera Action:

Through this competition, we plan to recognize and reward entries in the form of visual representations (Cartoons, Caricatures, Photographs and Pictures) that highlight social issues and stigmas to raise awareness and sensitivity around them. The theme of the Newsletter is ‘Challenges to Legal Aid in Times of COVID-19 Pandemic’, participants are encouraged to submit entries that focus on the pandemic situation.
If entries are in the form of cartoons/caricatures, it would be preferable if the submissions are made in .jpg, .png, .svg format. For pictures and photographs, there are no specific format requirements.
Participants may also form teams of two.
Submissions must be static/still images with no Flash or other animation.
The cartoon/caricature/photos/pictures must be the original work of the participant and should not violate any provisions of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. The entries should not infringe upon any intellectual property rights. Any evidence of the same will result in disqualification.
A written declaration to the effect that the work is original must be submitted along with the entries.
Captions/texts, if any, could be in English or any other vernacular language. If the participant uses a vernacular language, a translation for the same should be provided in English/Hindi.
Apart from that, a brief description (not exceeding 50 words) of the context/concept/rationale behind the cartoon/caricature/photographs/pictures should be presented in English/ Hindi.
The entries/submissions will be judged based on their creativity and originality, and how well they convey the respective idea.

Contact Information:

E-mail ID: lsc[at]nludelhi.ac.in

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/BKRZpHyuzA46mTWlaFqdjq

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

On 11 June Allahabad High Court, a bench of justice SP kesarwani and Justice Shamim Ahmed directed the State Government to strictly implement its policy of granting compensation to a citizen, who has been illegally detained.

The court has been dealing with 2 illegal detention one of which was filed by Shiv Kumar Verma, who was illegal detained by police on 8 October as he was having some ancestral property dispute with his relatives. After he is detained the detention is extended till 21 October and just because of the verification of the paperwork is detention was extended. Such has been increasing and is harassment by the public authorities. So he demanded compensation for the period.

After understanding the problem Allahabad High Court felt the need to implement policy to solve this problem. The court also observed that the harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially disliking and legally impermissible and it may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Accordingly, Allahabad High Court directed Uttar Pradesh Government to strictly implement its policy of granting compensation of Rs. 25,000 to a victim of illegal detained and direct disciplinary action.

-Report by Riddhi Dubey