Tag: #Covid19

-Report by Bhavana Bhandari

On 24.03.2023, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a plea by a prisoner seeking to allow parole granted during the COVID-19 outbreak to be included as a part of his actual term since it was compulsory in the case of Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others. Taking reference from an earlier court decision, the bench unanimously decided that the period of parole should be aloof when deciding the term of imprisonment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Anil Kumar, the petitioner, and prisoner, was released on emergency parole as a result of the decision taken by the High-Powered Committee, which was established following the instructions provided by the Supreme Court in SWM (C) No.1/2020. The subsequent directives said that prisoners who had been freed earlier on emergency parole under the High-Powered Committee’s decision should not be ordered to surrender until further orders and not on any application filed by the petitioner or by Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Behaviour Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, led to the petitioner’s release (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1988). Whereupon, the petitioner prayed that the court considers the time of parole as part of his real punishment.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The appellant’s counsel argued that in some states, the term of release on interim parole is directed to be considered against the entire duration of imprisonment of the convict/prisoner. If the petitioner had not been granted temporary parole and had instead served his sentence after a predetermined amount of time, he would have been eligible for remission. Moreover, since the petitioner was discharged on interim parole, his entitlement to request a remission would be further prolonged, which would be against the interests of the petitioner if the period in question is not taken into account when calculating the petitioner’s complete sentence.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The learned counsel for the State stated that the petitioner was convicted of the charges under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. Since then, the Apex Court has maintained the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, in line with the law and the punishment pronounced by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner must serve and complete his full term of life imprisonment.

RELIANCE ON FACTS:

The court relied on the legal guidelines established in its January 5 decision on a petition submitted by Rohan Dhungat, who is now serving a life sentence for the murder of a person. In Rohan Dhungat’s case, the Apex Court had rejected a challenge to a decision made by the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court on Rule 335 of the Goa Prison Regulations and Section 55 of the Prisoners Act 1894 (Extramural care, control, and employment of inmates), which states that the period of furlough and parole shall be considered as part of the sentence except in case there is a breach committed by the prisoner. However, noting that if the inmates’ request for the parole period to be taken into account when calculating the 14 years of real imprisonment is permitted, any prisoner who may be prominent might receive parole several times because there are no constraints on how many times it can be given. If the prisoners’ application is granted, it could undermine the entire goal and purpose of actual imprisonment.

JUDGEMENT:

The three-judge bench comprising Justices MR Shah, CT Ravikumar, and Sanjay Karol stated that the court had ruled that this time of release must be disregarded when determining the length of real incarceration. To avoid overcrowding, inmates were granted a term of parole during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, this time cannot be added to the prisoner’s real length of imprisonment.
In this instance, the legal issue was whether the Covid leave time of a parolee’s probation may be taken into account when determining the length of the prisoner’s actual sentence. The bench ruled that the petitioner convicted under section 302 (the punishment for murder) must serve the period specified and that the emergency parole term must be subtracted from the sentence; as a result, the court cannot provide relief. While Ms. Ritu Kumar, experienced counsel, addressed the appellant, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj represented the respondents on behalf of the State.

FINAL WORDS:

Therefore, the bench declared in its verdict that the suo-moto decision of parole to be granted to convicts during Covid was exclusively to avoid overcrowding and ensure the general health welfare of the prisoners, and shall not be deemed to be part of their real imprisonment in any manner.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40AKpcU

Introduction

Covids are a gathering of contaminations that can cause infections like the ordinary crisp, outrageous extraordinary respiratory condition (SARS) and the Middle East respiratory issue (MERS). In 2019, another Covid was recognized as the justification for a sickness discharge that started in China.

The contamination is known as outrageous extreme respiratory condition Covid 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The disease it causes is called Covid ailment 2019 (COVID-19). In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) broadcasted the COVID-19 episode as a pandemic.

General prosperity get-togethers, including the U.S. Places for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and WHO, are actually looking at the COVID-19 pandemic and posting investigates their locales. These social occasions have also given propositions for thwarting and treating the contamination that causes COVID-19.¹

The overall pandemic that has caused lockdowns in different nations all around the planet has caused aggravation in all highlights of life for an uncertain period. Social isolating has emerged as the most momentous weapon to condense the spread of this uncommonly irresistible contamination in the overall population generally speaking. Regardless, these social eliminating commands have reshaped and changed various endeavors all around the planet.

The Indian authentic scene has furthermore been vexed and genuinely impacted by this pandemic. Again with the social isolating responsibilities and the country again under lockdown orders, regulation workplaces in India and the Indian lawful structure have expected to close their approaches to the general populace. Eventually, considering that a complete conclusion of the Indian value structure is horrendous, the law workplaces have done work-from-home procedures, however, the legitimate directors have embraced development by coordinating hearings through video conferencing.²

The Supreme Court of India on 14.03.2020 expressed that from 16.03.2020 just dire issues will be thought about. The SC has moreover planned that super the lawyers following up with respect to this present circumstance, i.e., either for disputes or presenting oral perspectives or to help, close by one litigant just, will be permitted in the court. The SC has moreover guaranteed all power to require warm screening at all members and to deny entry to individuals found to have high inside heat levels. In addition to this, the Supreme Court vide Suo Moto Writ Petition no. 1 of 2020, has similarly raised the issue of illness of Covid-19 disease in confinement offices. The realization of desperate issues is done through video conferencing by presenting an application called “Vidyo” (informed by Supreme Court vide fliers dated 23.03.2020 and 26.03.2020). Likewise, Supreme Court vide Suo Moto Writ Petition no. 3 of 2020 expanded the Limitation period for all of the cases w.e.f. fifteenth March 2020 till extra arrangements of the Supreme Court. All tries are been expected to manage value in the country.³

Changes to the Indian Legal System

The Indian Judiciary has been overburdened for a seriously significant time frame, and COVID-19 is simply adding to this danger. As of May 27, 2020, there is generally 3.24 crore approaching cases in India’s subordinate courts and around 48.2 lakh impending cases in the High Courts. The Supreme Court, vide its notification dated March 13, 2020, restricted working of the Court to “squeezing matters” so to speak.

High Courts additionally have restricted their working to basic issues. In the customary course, a High Court hears in excess of 400 issues each day. As indicated by data accumulated from Daily Cause Lists of various High Courts, since late March, High Courts in the country over are hearing wherever between 10-100 matters consistently.

Subordinate courts address over 80% of approaching cases. On June 2, the Karnataka High Court extended the finish of all area courts, family courts, work courts, and current chambers in the state till July 6. On April 29, the Punjab and Haryana High Court mentioned that all area and sub-divisional Courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh will work “restrictively” from May 1 “till the lockdown/time impediment is in force in the specific locale”. These restrictive measures have provoked an overabundance of impending cases, thusly growing the load on courts.⁴

The pandemic has channelized the ability of under-utilized gadgets and elective work models (like virtual hearings). Customary ways to deal with working have been changed and recognized at a stunning speed and without any problem.

With a very restricted ability to concentrate time, graduate schools had changed to electronic coaching and learning, the Courts had relied upon the Virtual Courts System and regulation workplaces are continuing to work from home giving development to be a lifeline for the Indian genuine scene.

The impact of the pandemic has been essentially tracked down in the Indian courts. To adhere to the social isolating guidelines and to control the spread of the second surge of this overwhelming contamination, the Indian Courts have relied upon Virtual Hearings in Virtual Court Rooms to guarantee that the association of value stays undisturbed. A most recent model that can be referred to here is that of Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi High Court who carried on the virtual hearing beyond 11 pm on Monday, 21st June 2021 to complete the issues recorded before him!

The model similarly suggests that having changed the Indian legitimate scene by taking on development during this marvelous overall crisis, the Indian Legal System has completed and guarded our old-fashioned custom – Justice, at all Costs, Always!⁵

The impact of the pandemic has been altogether tracked down in the Indian courts. To adhere to social isolating norms and to control the spread of the second surge of this overpowering disease, the Indian Courts have again relied upon Virtual Court Rooms to ensure that the association of value stays consistent. It ought to be seen that, the possibility of Virtual Courts is certainly not a unique thought in India. In 2003, the Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra v. Prafulla Desai held that recording of confirmation by a Court through video conferencing will be seen ‘as per the procedure spread out by guideline’. From there on out, a couple of subordinate Courts in India have recently illustrated rules in such a manner and have held legitimate methods through video conferencing.²

Without a doubt, even free genuine aide — dependable under the Constitution — is out of reach to an enormous number of regardless of the National Legal Services Authority’s organization that there should be one legitimate organization’s office for a reasonable bundle of towns. The IJR reveals that extensively, there is only a solitary office for 42 towns. In states like UP and Odisha, there is only one for more than 500 and 300 towns independently.

Methodology makers and commitment holders need to orchestrate attempts across police prisons’ lawful chief and authentic manual for recognizing squeezing repairs than can be set missing fundamentally more weight on resources. Illustratively, ensure assortment – has the first call while enlisting, center around resources so genuine organizations are open at the doorway step of the remotest estates and towns: this could mean growing the number of police chowkies in country districts to placing assets into quick skilling up of judges, constables, board lawyers, and jailors who are individuals ready to come in case of an emergency.

The Supreme Court has, again and again, affirmed that permission to value is a significant right. Its affirmation has fumbled and unnecessarily extended. The transport of significant worth value ought to now be seen as on a very basic level significant and become truly in the presence of everyone.⁶

Conclusion

This piece has recently covered a part of the repercussions of COVID-19 on the legitimate calling and there are various locales, for instance, genuine preparation which moreover ought to be tended to on truly significant. The ongoing concedes in the general arrangement of regulations might be exacerbated by the snags COVID-19 will present to the progression of assessments, charging decisions, pre-primer cycles, etc.

Clearly, the Coronavirus is putting down profound roots, and the Judiciary needs to adjust to it. Normal working or rather “new standard” working of courts will take as much time as required. Preferably, it shouldn’t accept unreasonably extended, in the event that Lady Justice will in a little while need to, close by a blindfold, cutting edge and scales, be decorated with a facial covering.⁴

---

References:

1. Kohli, Rusy. [Online] https://www.barandbench.com/columns/from-the-bubonic-plague-to-covid-19-impact-on-the-legal-profession-in-india.
2. College, Asian Law. [Online] https://alc.edu.in/blog/changes-in-justice-delivery-system-in-pandemic-virtual-hearings/.
3. Daruwala, Maja. [Online] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/how-covid-pandemic-hit-the-justice-system-101614554343346.html.

This article is written by Cheshta Bhardwaj, a student of Delhi Metropolitan Education (GGSIPU).

INTRODUCTION

One of the most unprecedented crisis ever in modern human history unfettered its wings in the form of a virus transmission namely Covid-19. The pandemic shook all spheres of life ranging from regular personal issues to the most intriguing aspect of our life. The Legal field was no exception to this havoc and it too bore the brunt of the pandemic. It compelled the justice delivery system to turn its recourse from traditional instruments of justice delivery to modern ones. In order to cope with the complicated demand system and ensure speedy and accessible delivery of justice, the virtual courts evolved to the fullest. It would be necessary to observe that even though they were present before the pandemic, covid-19 caused their application. Even after the retrieval of the pandemic, the ever arching presence of technology-assisted tools such as video conferencing and virtual courts are like to stay long after given their immense benefits of time-saving, speedy trials, social distancing norms, and technical benefits. However, as we know everything comes at a cost, this becomes more relevant in this case where the queen card is technology.¹

TECHNOLOGICAL CONUNDRUM

Starting from the very conception, nearly all the aspects in this technology-driven process suffer from myriad glitches. In the present scenario of virtual proceedings, only lawyers and their respective clients can view the same. The general public is barred from participating in the process. This completely goes against the notion of open courts and access to justice because these ultimately erode the rule of law as the very credibility and transparency depend on the open and fair judicial trials. Moreover, poor audio-video quality, manipulation of testimonials and evidence, power backup and connectivity issues, irregular code of conduct by the stakeholders, difficulty posed in cross-examination of witnesses, and multiple other issues that have crept into the system have further accentuated the discrepancies and complications of the ongoing virtual process.

The words of Adv. Dushyant Dave who quoted, “Performance of virtual courts through the medium of video conferencing has been not only far from satisfactory, but utterly disappointing.” presents a stark contrast as to actual requirements of setting up the requisite infrastructure and the ground reality.

One of the pertinent questions that arise is how to retain the public trust and confidence in the ongoing convoluted circumstances when the very concept of open courts and access to justice have been endangered by the advent and ramifications of covid-19? One of the notable answers to this question could be the live streaming of cases in matters of constitutional and national public interest which had been laid down in the case of Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court Of India². The case lays down the groundwork required for setting up virtual courts, thus, paving way for the establishment of online norms and infra for live streaming.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

In 2017, Swapnil Tripathi, a law student, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution and was joined by 3 others, seeking declaration for the live streaming of the cases of constitutional importance and affecting the public at large in a manner that is accessible for public viewing. It further sought guidelines for laying down criteria for determining the cases that qualify for live streaming and also chalking out the list of exceptional cases. In order to buttress his case, the petitioner relied on the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirjkar v. the State of Maharashtra³ wherein the court emphasized the efficacy of open trials for upholding the legitimacy, effectiveness of the courts, and enhancement of public confidence and support.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether there should be live dissemination of the cases with aid of ICT( information and communication technology) and, if they are to be introduced in India, then under what conditions?

DECISION

The decision was delivered by a 3 judge bench of the Supreme Court of India wherein Justice Khanwilkar delivered the majority judgment on behalf of himself and CJI Dipak Misra. Justice D.Y Chandrachud gave a different concurring judgment. The bench ruled that the cases of the constitutional and national importance of public matter should be live-streamed in a manner consistent with the guidelines as prescribed by the honorable Supreme Court of India.

HELD

The Judgement is held to be significant, for it opens the door that provides open access to justice, public information and ensures transparency of the judicial process. The judgment has opened the application of live stream even to the most bottom tiers of judicial institutions i.e. lower courts thereby enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the entire judicial ecosystem. The court held that the right to view the live broadcast of the above-mentioned cases flowed from the right to access to justice which is derived from Article 21 Right to life and liberty thereby underlining the concept of open courts. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to the provisions of model guidelines framed for this purpose. The SC shall hold the broadcast and archive rights exclusively. The court concluded that live streaming of cases would uphold the constitution values, infuse public confidence into the judicial machinery, and uphold the values of democracy and integrity. However, there is a compelling need to balance the administration of justice and the virtues of privacy and dignity of the stakeholders involved. The other benefits involve:

1. It would infuse radical immediacy of the court proceedings and espouse public awareness regarding matters of national importance.
2. It would reduce public reliance upon second-hand narratives and ensure the credibility of the system.
3. It would literally eliminate the space and the time constraints by removing physical barriers and decongesting the courtrooms, thereby, greatly aiding in keeping infections at bay.
4. It would drastically enhance the accountability and credibility of the judicial process, thus, promoting democracy.

CONCLUSION

While allowing such streaming, the majesty, integrity, and decorum of the courts as well as of the stakeholders involved, should not be compromised. Given in this unprecedented crisis of covid19 and the post covid world, live streams would be an imperative tool for the purpose of serving justice and fulfilling the notion of open courts thereby promoting technological prowess.

References:

1. https://lawtimesjournal.in/swapnil-tripathi-vs-supreme-court-of-india/
2. (2018) 10 SCC 628
3. 1966 3 S.C.R 744

This article is written by Riya Ganguly, 2nd year BBA LLB student at Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College, Pune.

-Report by GURPREET SINGH

The Court in this case refused to interfere in a settlement deed by invoking its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, 1908 as pleaded by the petitioners.

FACTS OF THE CASE

A settlement deed was agreed upon by both parties by 3rd November 2016. The deed read that there shall be no further extension/enlargement for any reason whatsoever beyond 30.6. 2021. It further stated that the second party shall remove all its installations, fittings, and fixtures on or before 30.6.2021. The petitioner approached the court on 29.6.21 seeking a modification in terms of the deed.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

The main contention of the petitioner was that at the time the deed was signed neither of the parties could predict the pandemic Covid-19 wreaking havoc on the world and due to lockdowns in place the petitioner submitted that they are granted 3 months to remove fixtures and furniture. They contended that in the interest of justice the petitioners be accorded adequate time to vacate the premises and respondent be restrained from seeking forceable eviction.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The respondents raised doubts about the bona fides of the said petition as the petition the presented at the Nth hour, just a day before 30.6.2021. The respondent relied on Compack Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Beant Singh and contended that the court rarely interferes in the settlement deed.

DECISION OF THE COURT

The Court refused to interfere with the settlement deed and dismissed the petition. The Court stated that the deed is clear and unambiguous and it warrants no more extension beyond the stipulated period. The court rejected the argument of petitioners that no one could have predicted the impact of Covid -19, by stating that if the court passes any order that would contravene the settlement deed. The court also rejected the plea of the petitioner that in the interest of justice, they shall be granted be an extension for removing furniture and fixtures by stating that the deed was signed about 5 years back and they had ample time to fulfill their obligations. The Court also relied on the Compack enterprise’s case, which ruled that consent decrees are not to be lightly interfered with by the court, except with the consent of parties involved in the transaction. The circumstances in which the court can modify the consent decrees are where there is a revised consent of the parties, the consent was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, and lastly where there is a clerical or arithmetical error. The Court after examining these circumstances stated that none of them apply to the present case.

The CNLU students open front against Administration over Fee Tussle as they are facing various problems due to arbitrary decisions taken by their administration. For this academic year (2021-22), their administration has increased their fees by Rs.12,000 as compared to the last online academic year. For the last 2 years, the students have been charged Rs.16,000 as “Facilities Fees” in which the facilities include Hostel Gym Fees, Hostel Wi-Fi & Internet Fees water-cooler fees and other facilities used by the students in physical classes. It is pertinent to note that in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic since March 2020, the students have not used any of these facilities as their curriculum is being conducted online.

Thus, it is abundantly clear that the students have no access to these facilities as the entire curriculum is being conducted online from home. Hostel Gym, Hostel Wi-Fi Internet, Hostel Water cooler and other facilities used in the physical classes were not being used by the students in their Online semesters. But still, the students are being charged Rs.16,000 without any reasonable justification for past academic years.

This time the administration has also increased Rs.12,000 under these 3 heads:

• Infrastructure development Fees.
• Student welfare Fees.
• Development Fees.

That, their fees in absence of any guidance from the State, has been arbitrarily increased from Rs. 1,27,500 to Rs. 1,39,500 this year.

When the students approached the Vice-Chancellor to request and convey to the appropriate authority the problems being faced by the students due to the arbitrary inclusion of Facilities Fees which the students are not even using, the Vice-Chancellor Justice Mridula Mishra (Retd.) infuriated by the demands of the students dismissed the request on the vague justification that the students have no say in demanding relaxation in fees. In order to resolve any further conflict, the students also requested the Vice-Chancellor to form a body of students and faculty to communicate directly. However, the students were dismissed without any justification or reply.

In view of the request to waive off facilities fees, Hon’ble Kerala High Court in WP(C). No.17494 OF 2020(J) directed the NUALS, Kochi to re-consider the fee structure being implemented for the academic year 2020-21. Justice Amit Rawal in the order expressed his opinion that, “Be that as it may, it is a matter of record that since the physical classes have not yet opened. The University has not granted a 100% reduction under the Sports and Games fee, and Medical/ Gym / Fitness fee whereby reduction of 30% and 25% have been granted. In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that 100% reduction on these two heads should have been given. Accordingly, I direct the Executive Council to re-consider the issue regarding considering the 100% waiver on these two heads.”

The students in view of the said judgement approached the Vice-Chancellor but to no avail. The voice of the students was neglected and out rightly rejected on the account that in absence of any order from the State, the University has no obligation to give any relaxation in the Fees.

The University had previously also witnessed such abuse of power by the Administration in 2018. After weeks of strong protest, the appropriate authority appointed Ret. Justice Mridula Mishra as an interim Vice-Chancellor and Ret. District Judge, Manoranjan Prasad Srivastava as an interim Registrar. Since 2018, there has been no notification for appointing permanent Vice-Chancellor and Registrar.

As of now, the students are facing grave emergency since only 5 days are left before the deadline of payment of fees, i.e., 20th August, after which till 31st August, a late fine of Rs. 500 will be charged for late payment of fees.

In such a scenario, many students might pay the fees in fear of being their results withheld. There will be another burden of Rs. 500 more, but this does not change the fact that the administration is arbitrarily charging the fees for the facilities the students are not using. So, with little time in their favour, the concerned students of Chanakya National Law University, kindly request their administration to reduce their “Facilities fees” being charged arbitrarily.

The students have also requested the students of other National Law Universities to come forward to support them – out of which they have received statement of solidarity from NLSIU Bangalore, DNLU Jabalpur and NLU Odisha.

Report By – Lexpeeps Anonymous Reporters

The PIL regarding the restrain and rehabilitation of the beggars in the wake of this pandemic situation was brought before the court by the petitioner Kush Karla on 27.07.2021, before the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah.

“We can’t restrain beggars. Nobody wants to beg it’s all the situation leading the human to do so. And this restraining them cannot miss out of our eyes but it is an economic crisis of the society that brought them to this situation even it’s their own will to do so”, said the bench.

Senior advocate Chinmoy Sharma, who appeared as the petitioner’s counsel, responded to the bench that our plea is not regarding the restrain of beggars but to provide rehabilitation for them after being vaccinated, And all the people in this country mandatory to be vaccinated but why not the beggars. In light of this, the court sent notice to the national capital territory of Delhi also to the union of India on the prayer regarding the vaccination and rehabilitation of the beggars.

The court ordered that in regards to the plea every citizen in the country means to be safe and secured, irrespective of the rich nor poor. Also, the court highlighted that it is the socio-economic crisis that leads people in the streets to beg, it is not anyone’s choice to opt for such a decision. Restraining them is not a way to decrease this socio-economic crisis, People do beg due to poverty and unemployment. Also, the mentioned that there are many societies to help and protect the homeless people, though the court issued an order to protect them from the spreading of COVID 19 in the traffics and streets due to the act of begging, And directed the union and Delhi to give response for such human situations, and the court asked the Solicitor General to assist the court.

The hearing would be continued two weeks later.

-Report by AJISHA

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

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

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday ordered the Federation of Indian Pilots to provide more information about the number of pilots who participated in the Vande Bharat Mission and other similar missions so that the Court can consider their claim for compensation for services rendered during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senior Advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar said that Federation pilots were participating in the Central Government’s Vande Bharat Mission (VBM) and Air Bubble missions, which were used to evacuate stranded individuals from overseas and for the transportation of life-saving medicines. He submitted the report that COVID took the lives of roughly thirteen senior pilots, with some of them also suffering from long-term effects due to which they had lost their pilot license.

Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni said that before they could evaluate the prayers of the petitions, they needed further information about the pilots. “We’d like facts and numbers, such as the number of pilots and which airline they work for, their salary and benefits, and how many flights were part in the Vande Bharat Mission or similar missions.”

They postponed the matter’s hearing for two weeks to give the Federation time to file an additional affidavit with these details. The Federation filed public interest litigation (PIL) requesting that the Maharashtra government and the Central government, through the Ministry of Civil Aviation, develop a policy or program providing adequate pay to pilots who were giving emergency services. The Federation also requested that the Ministry issue instructions to develop a comprehensive insurance policy that would cover all pilots. It was also suggested that the Ministry develop a special class of COVID first responders known as ‘Air Transportation Workers’ to receive priority in the vaccines. Finally, the Federation sought perks that could be granted to pilots, such as family employment to the family member of the pilots who succumbed to COVID.

The matter will be heard again after two weeks.

-Report by Eshan Sharma

Recently a hashtag was trending on the Twitter page stating that most of the positive cases of coronavirus were found from Tablighi Jamaat Nizammudin in Delhi which is the reason for the massive spread of coronavirus, by attaching the Muslim community in the tweets by highlighting the term #Islamiccoronavirusjihad. Concerning this, a plea was brought down under the SC by Advocate Khaja Aijazuddin who appeared as the petitioner. This case was heard by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana.

As we all know that previously in our country so many controversies were held against the Muslim community, and this shouldn’t be happening in our country, as we are living in a diverse society, united together with all the religious communities. It is our right and responsibility to take care of our nation. But irrespective of this our nation is completely down due to the conflicts happening by the religious community.

In contrary to this CJI asked the petitioner that “already people are forgetting these issues, you want to rake them up again?” so the main issue of this plea by the petitioner is, in this pandemic situation the social media should deliver positive news content to the society rather spreading the hate message against the religious community and hurting the religious feelings and belief of the community. And the petitioner asked the court to direct the government to frame particular guild lines under the IT Act of 2000 about the hate message delivered on Twitter and asked the court to restrain these types of messages in social media.

Regarding this issue, the petitioner prayed under Telangana HC, then moved to the apex court since the court does not entertain his matter. Then the court implied on this matter and adjourned the matter for a week and asked the petitioner to read new IT rules where the petitioner contended that the new IT rules do address the issue of communal propaganda in social media where there exists a new rule of IT Act 2021 as it already takes care of it.

-Report by AJISHA