Showing posts with label Latest News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Latest News. Show all posts

Thursday, 29 November 2018

A Law Intern Found Dead After Filing Sexual Harassment Complaint Against Senior Lawyers.

November 29, 2018

A law intern in Banglore was recently found dead. Curiously, the law intern had filed a sexual harassment complaint with Commercial Street police station just days before she was found dead. The intern was from Andaman & Nicobar Islands and had traveled to Bangalore.
A law intern found dead after filing sexual harassment complaint against senior lawyers

Times Of India report, she was assigned to work with an advocate named Chandra Naik T, who introduced her to another advocate called Chetan Desai, a pleader with Karnataka High Court.

She also alleged that the two advocates “used to take her to pubs and bars and force her to consume alcohol. They would then touch her inappropriately and sexually harass her.”.

She had then filed a sexual harassment complaint against those advocates with the Commercial Street police station on 20th November.  However, she was found dead on Saturday, November 24, under mysterious circumstances at her PG in Malleswaram. The matter is now under investigation. 

Death Penalty is a Valid in Law, held Supreme Court in its 2:1 Ruling

November 29, 2018

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by 2:1 majority, upheld the validity of death sentence in the statute book on Wednesday.

Supreme Court held Death Penalty is Valid in law

On Wednesday, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, Deepak Gupta, and Hemant Gupta, ruled upon the validity of the highest punishment under the penal law in India while dealing with a case of a death sentence.

Justice Kurian Joseph, the most senior judge on the bench, cited the 262nd Law Commission's report to state that death penalty has failed to prove a deterrent for crimes in the society. 

He ruled that trials are usually subject to public opinion and collective demand and that investigating agencies mount pressure on the courts by invoking passions and public sentiments.

But the other two judges in the bench dissented with their senior colleague. 

Justice Deepak Gupta, reading out the majority opinion on this point, held that death penalty is a valid punishment and in view of the Supreme Court's rulings in Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh in 1980s, there is no need to debate the correctness of the capital punishment.

However, in the case concerned, the three judges were unanimous when they commuted the death penalty of convict Chhannu Lal Verma to life term. 

Chhannu Lal Verma was convicted of killing three persons in 2011. The Apex court on Wednesday noted that there was no evidence to show he was beyond reformation and that life term will prove to be an inadequate punishment for his crime.

Tuesday, 15 May 2018

Supreme Court found Navjot Singh Sidhu not guilty for Culpable Homocide not amounting to murder in 1988 road rage case

May 15, 2018
Supreme Court of India on 15.05.2018 acquitted ex-cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu from the charge of Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder (U/S304 of IPC) in the 1998 road rage Case. But the Hon’ble Bench found him guilty for an offense under Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt) and sentenced him with a fine of Rs. 1000 only. His co-accused Rupinder Singh Sandhu has been acquitted of all the charges.

A bench headed by Justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul had pronounced the judgment on an appeal filed by Navjot Singh Sidhu against a December 2006 Punjab and Haryana High Court decision convicting and sentencing him three years in jail in a road rage case.

"The net result of all the above discussion is that the first accused cannot be held to be responsible for causing the death of Gurnam Singh. Therefore, the judgment under appeal is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The material on record leads us to the only possible conclusion that we can reach that the first accused voluntarily caused hurt to Gurnam Singh punishable under Section 323 IPC", said Justice Chelameswar in the Verdict.

Tuesday, 24 April 2018

A litigant cannot plead that he should not be suffer for not giving the correct advise by the advocate, held Madhya Pradesh High Court

April 24, 2018
The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a litigant cannot plead that if his lawyer had not given correct legal advice to him/her, he should not suffer from adverse orders.

Before the Hon’ble High Court, in an appeal proceeding against a trial court order which had decreed a suit for declaration of title and specific performance of the contract, an interim application was preferred for sending an agreement to sell to a handwriting expert for verification of the signatures of the appellant.

Court held:
A litigant cannot plead that since his lawyer had not given correct legal advice to him, therefore, he should not suffer.

The counsel for the appellants’ argued before the Hon’ble Court that the parties are rural villagers and they are not aware of the technicalities of law and if it was not advised by their advocate. It was a lapse on the part of the advocate in not giving proper and correct advise, the party to a litigant should not suffer.

Dismissing the contentions of the appellant’s, Hon’ble Justice GS Ahluwalia had observed: “Advocates claim themselves to be professionals having knowledge of the law. They are law graduates. They cannot claim that they were not having knowledge of the law. The Advocates cannot say, that the party should not suffer because they were not technically sound.”

The Hon’ble court also held that since there are two parties in a matter, if a very lenient view is adopted by ignoring the mistake of an advocate, then it would always adversely affect the rights of the other litigant also. The court observed “If a litigant feels that he has been cheated by his Counsel by not giving proper legal advice, then the said litigant has remedy, against his lawyer, under the law of the land, but to the detriment of the interest of the other litigant, no leniency can be shown to a litigant on the ground that the Counsel engaged by such litigant was not professionally competent,” the court said.

Read Order here

Tuesday, 17 April 2018

Supreme Court Issue Notices to State of Jammu and Kashmir in Kathua Rape Case

April 17, 2018

Supreme Court has issued a notice to the state of Jammu and Kashmir in the writ petition filed on behalf of the Kathua gangrape and murder victim’s father, requesting for the transfer of the trial proceedings outside of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice A. M. Khanwilkar has also directed protection to victim's family members and Advocates Deepika Singh Rajawat and Talib Hussain. At the commencement of the urgent hearing on Monday of the writ petition instituted by the father of the 8-year-old victim of the Kathua rape and murder.

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has issued following order:-

“As an interim measure, it is directed that the respondent-State shall keep the security, as provided to the family members of the victim, in continuity; provide security to Ms.Deepika Singh Rajawat and her family members; and that protection shall be provided to Mr.Talib Hussain, who is assisting the victim's family in prosecution of the grievance by remaining present in the Court or engaging counsel to assist the public prosecutor. Ms.Deepika Singh Rajawat shall provide the details of Mr.Talib Hussain to Mr.M.Shoeb Alam, learned Sanding Counsel for the State of Jammu & Kashmir to that he can do the needful in the matter. At this juncture, a submission has been advanced by Ms.Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the State authority should provide security in plain clothes. Mr.Shoeb Alam, learned standing counsel for the State of Jammu and Kashmir accepted the same and, therefore, we direct that the security shall be provided in plain clothes.”

Saturday, 14 April 2018

CIC direct the govt. authorities not to hold the pension of the employees for want of linking adhar.

April 14, 2018
The Central Information Commission has held that the public authority cannot delay the payment of pensions to the senior citizens and retired employees shifting away the burden in the name of linking to Aadhar.

Even if linking with Aadhaar is necessary, it should not result in delaying the payment of pension or denial of information regarding pension, said Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu.

The pensioners might mainly depend upon the pension for their livelihood and delaying it will be inhumane and also amounts to denial of their fundamental right to life. Even if linking with Aadhaar is necessary, it should not result in delaying the payment of pension or denial of information regarding pension, said Prof M Sridhar Acharyulu while deciding an appeal filed by a retired govt. employee.

In this matter, the employee had required the details of names of the persons whose pension was held for want of Aadhaar card for the month of March 2017. The Chief Public Information Officer declined information on the ground that it would cause unjustified invasion of the privacy of an individual, hence the details cannot be supplied.

The Chief Information Commission, in this regard, held: “Pension is part of the salary as consideration for the services rendered and continuation of payments to the retired public servants, and that would paid out of public exchequer as per the pre-fixed scale and other aspects. The salary detail of the public servant is not his personal information. It has to be in the public domain under Section 4. On the same logic the pension-related information is not personal information of the pensioner. The CPIO should not have denied that information wrongly invoking Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.”

Friday, 13 April 2018

Delhi High Court issued notices to some houses over Kathua Rape Case

April 13, 2018
Delhi High Court today issued a notice to some media houses on the publication of the identity of 8-year-old minor girl (Kathua Case victim). Court termed it as violation section 228A to E. Court took a suo moto cognizance of the issue

Tuesday, 10 April 2018

Whether vakalatnama filed by a newly appointed advocate can be taken on record without no objection obtained from erstwhile advocate

April 10, 2018

Whether vakalatnama filed by a newly appointed advocate is to be accepted in the absence of 'no objection' of the erstwhile advocate, is a question for consideration in below-mentioned case. The Registry of the court has raised an objection on the vakalatnama of the appellant filed by Sri Ajith Anand Shetty, advocate; the objection was that the vakalatnama does not contain 'no objection' of the erstwhile advocate for the appellant.


Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 6526/2013 (LAC)

Decided On: 02.12.2016

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs.
M. Rajashekar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
H.G. Ramesh and John Michael Cunha, JJ.

1. Whether vakalatnama filed by a new advocate is to be accepted in the absence of 'no objection' of the advocate already on record, is the short question for consideration in this case.

2. The registry has raised an objection on the vakalatnama of the appellant filed by Sri Ajith Anand Shetty, advocate; the objection is that the vakalatnama does not contain 'no objection' of the advocate already on record for the appellant.

3. We have heard Sri Ajith Anand Shetty, learned counsel, on the objection raised by the Registry. The learned counsel submitted that a party to a litigation has an absolute right to appoint an advocate of his choice, to terminate his services, and to appoint a new advocate. Hence, a party cannot be compelled to obtain 'no objection' from the advocate already on record. Insisting for 'no objection' from the previous advocate will amount to putting a restriction on the right of a party to appoint an advocate of his choice. He sought for an overruling of the objection raised by the Registry. In support of his submission, he relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court in R.D. Saxena v. Balaram Prasad Sharma [MANU/ SC/3273/2000: AIR 2000 SC 2912], and in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. A.K. Saxena [MANU/SC/0913/2003 : AIR 2004 SC 311], and also a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sri C.V. Sudhindra & Ors. vs. M/s. Divine Light School for Blind & Ors. [MANU/ KA/0284/2008: ILR 2008 KAR 3983].

4. To examine the question raised, it is relevant to refer to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in R.D. Saxena v. Balaram Prasad Sharma [MANU/SC/3273/2000 : AIR 2000 SC 2912]:

"15. A litigant must have the freedom to change his advocate when he feels that the advocate engaged by him is not capable of espousing his cause efficiently or that his conduct is prejudicial to the interest involved in the list, or for any other reason. For whatever reason, if a client does not want to continue the engagement of a particular advocate it would be a professional requirement consistent with the dignity of the profession that he should return the brief to the client. It is time to hold that such obligation is not only a legal duty but a moral imperative.

17. If a party terminates the engagement of an advocate before the culmination of the proceedings that party must have the entire file with him to engage another advocate. But if the advocate who is changed midway adopts the stand that he would not return the file until the fees claimed by him is paid, the situation perhaps may turn to dangerous proportion. There may be cases when a party has no resource to pay the huge amount claimed by the advocate as his remuneration. A party in a litigation may have a version that he has already paid the legitimate fee to the advocate. At any rate, if the litigation is pending the party has the right to get the papers from the advocate whom he has changed so that the new counsel can be briefed by him effectively. In either case, it is impermissible for the erstwhile counsel to retain the case bundle on the premise that fees is yet to be paid.

18. Even if there is no lien on the litigation papers of his client an advocate is not without remedies to realize the fee which he is legitimately entitled to. But if he has a duty to return the files to his client on being discharged the litigant too has a right to have the files returned to him, more so when the remaining part of the list has to be fought in the court. This right of the litigant is to be read as the corresponding counterpart of the professional duty of the advocate.

23. We, therefore, hold that the refusal to return the files to the client when he demanded the same amounted to misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. Hence, the appellant in the present case is liable to punishment for such misconduct.

42. ........It is true that an advocate is competent to settle the terms of his engagement and his fee by private agreement with his client but it is equally true that if such fee is not paid he has no right to retain the case papers and other documents belonging to his client. Like any other citizen, an advocate has a right to recover the fee or other amounts payable to him by the litigant by way of legal proceedings but subject to such restrictions as may be imposed by law or the rules made in that behalf. ......."

(Emphasis and underlining supplied)

5. In the context of the question raised, the following observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Sri C.V. Sudhindra & Ors. vs. M/s. Divine Light School for Blind & Ors. [MANU/ KA/0284/2008: ILR 2008 KAR 3983] are also apposite:

"7. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the contract of vakalathnama can be withdrawn by the client at any time. There is nothing known as irrevocable vakalathnama. Precisely the same right has been exercised by respondent No. 1 herein (defendant No. 7 in the suit) who had earlier engaged the petitioners on their behalf as Advocates to represent them. ......

8. ......if the Advocate feels that he has any genuine claim or grievance against his client, the appropriate course is to return the brief with an endorsement of no objection and agitate such right in an appropriate forum, in accordance with law and not indulge in arm-twisting methods by holding on to the brief."

(Underlining supplied)

6. As could be seen from the observations made in the two decisions extracted above, a party to a litigation has an absolute right to appoint an advocate of his choice, to terminate his services, and to appoint a new advocate. A party has the freedom to change his advocate any time and for whatever reason. However, fairness demands that the party should inform his advocate already on record, though this is not a condition precedent to appoint a new advocate.

7. There is nothing known as irrevocable vakalatnama. The right of a party to withdraw vakalatnama or authorization given to an advocate is absolute. Hence, a party may discharge his advocate any time, with or without cause by withdrawing his vakalatnama or authorization. On discharging the advocate, the party has the right to have the case file returned to him from the advocate, and any refusal by the advocate to return the file amounts to misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. In any proceeding, including civil and criminal, a party has an absolute right to appoint a new Advocate. Under no circumstance, a party can be denied of his right to appoint a new advocate of his choice. Therefore, it follows that any rule or law imposing a restriction on the said right can't be construed as mandatory. Accordingly, Courts, Tribunals or other authorities shall not ask for 'no objection' of the advocate already on record, to accept the vakalatnama filed by a new advocate.
8. As observed in the decisions referred to above, if an Advocate is discharged by his client and if he has any genuine claim against his client relating to the fee payable to him, the appropriate course for him is to return the brief and to agitate his claim in an appropriate forum, in accordance with law.

9. As stated above, under no circumstance, a party can be denied of his right to appoint a new advocate of his choice. The right is absolute and not conditional. Hence, the objection raised by the Registry on the vakalatnama is overruled. Hereafter, the Registry shall not ask for 'no objection' of the advocate already on record, to accept the vakalatnama filed by a new Advocate. 

Thursday, 5 April 2018

Supreme Court of India dismisses all Petitions Regarding the CBSE Examination paper Leak case

April 05, 2018
Supreme Court of India dismisses all Petitions Regarding the CBSE Examination paper Leak case  

The Supreme Court of India bench headed by Justice S. A. Bobde and Justice L. Nageswara Rao on 04.04.2018 dismissed a bunch of writ petitions filed by the CBSE students in the stir of the latest event of the leak of the Economics and Mathematics question papers for class 10 and 12 examinations correspondingly.
It was on the basis of a notification issued by the Controller of Examination, the CBSE made the statement against the re-test of class X mathematics examination

Following petitions were filed in the Supreme Court of India:-

In the case of Rohan Mathew v. CBSE

A student of Class 10 had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against the resolution of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE in short) to terminate and re-conduct the Math exam held on March 28 on distrust of question paper leakage. According to the petitioner, around 16 lakh students appeared in the exam in 11 regions across the country. The unverified distrust is that the question papers seeped in certain parts of the Delhi Region of the CBSE.  Therefore, the petitioner stated that to punish the whole student community for an incident which supposedly took place in one center is illegal and arbitrary in the non-appearance of any evidence to show that the whole examination process was abased.

Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, withdrawn the writ petition on the basis of the notification dated 3rd April of the CBSE by which the Board had decided to not re-conduct the Math examination for class 10.

In the case of Reepak Kansal v. UOI

In this petition filed by Counsel Reepak Kansal, it was stated before the Hon’ble bench that on March 28, the CBSE had decided to re-conducting the examinations for the Economics and Mathematics papers for classes XII and X respectively “without considering the impact of the leak”. “The resolution of re-examination controverts the test of proportionality and fairness (as provided under Article 14)”, it was pleaded. Dismissing the petition, the Hon’ble bench stated, “it is not a part of the jurisdiction of this court to see if the paper was writ jurisdiction, we cannot examine the impact of the leakage...this falls within the power of the authorities...”

In the case of Mahendra Pratap Singh v. CBSE

Through this petition, the petitioner sought directions to the CBSE to not conduct an Economics paper re-test for class XII students subsequent to the question paper leak issue. It was also stated in the petition that if at all the test will be held, it should be made non-compulsory.

While dismissing the petition, the bench observed, “It is not a moral concept that an examination is made optional”. Alakh Alok Srivastava v. UOI

The petitioner-in-person had prayed that re-examination be conducted of all subjects for Class 12 within four weeks and not only of the Economics paper. Further, he had sought an independent investigation by the CBI into the matter. Also, he requested that the CBSE and the HRD Ministry be directed to pay damages and compensation of Rs. 1 lakh each to the students of Class 12 appearing in the re-examination “towards the mental agony, mental stress and inconvenience caused”.

The Hon’ble bench on 04.04.2018 declined to inherit to any of the above prayers. 

Monday, 2 April 2018

Centre Govt. has filed Review Petition in Supreme Court against Supreme Court judgment diluted SC/ST Act

April 02, 2018

Centre Govt. has filed Review Petition in Supreme Court against Supreme Court judgment diluted SC/ST Act

The Centre govt. today has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against the March 20 judgment of a two-judge bench which 'diluted" the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by laying down stringent ‘protections’ before registration of a case under it and barred automatic arrests.

Sources said that the petition has been filed by the Ministry of Social Justice and empowerment contends that the March 20 judgment may dilute the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which was meant at protective the socially relegated. It contends that such a dilution could decrease fear and lead to violations, making Dalit’s and tribal more defenseless.

This judgment had elicited disapprovals from Dalit MPs and outfits, with BJP MPs and the party’s associates, who met Social Justice Minister Tawar Chand Gehlot and conveyed their anxiety that the SC order may end up to disagreeing justice to SC/STs.

They had asked Gehlot to take the matter up with the Prime Minister. Main opposition party Congress also had claimed to file a review petition.

A Congress Party delegation had met the President of India on the issue.

It is to be noted that Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had also tweeted yesterday: “Review petition by the Government against the SC judgment on SC/ST Protection Act shall be filed positively tomorrow, Monday, April 2.”

Cracking the thrash on "the rampant misuse of the SC/ST Act", a bench of justices A K Goel and U U Lalit ruled that there shall be no immediate arrest of a public or no-public servant.

They also ruled that the accused can be taken into custody only after an official not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent (in case of public servant) or SSP (non-public servant) makes an inquiry and is satisfied that a prima-facie case existed.

SC also said that the accused is also entitled to grant of anticipatory bail if the complaint would found to be mala fide.

Placing down the protections against “misuse” of the Act, the Hon’ble bench had also observed in the judgment: “It has been judicially acknowledged that there are instances of abuse of the Act by vested interests against political opponents in panchayat, municipal or other elections, to settle private civil disputes arising out of property, monetary disputes, employment disputes and seniority disputes. It may be noticed that by way of rampant misuse, complaints are largely being filed particularly against public servants/ quasi-judicial/judicial officers with an oblique motive for the satisfaction of vested interests.”

Saturday, 31 March 2018

Three Law Students Written a letter to Chief Justice of India to re-examine the ban put on entry of law interns on misc. days

March 31, 2018
Three law students interning at the Supreme Court of India had written a letter to Chief Justice of India Mr. Dipak Misra requesting him to re-examine the ban put five years ago on law students and pre-enrolment interns from entering courtrooms of Supreme Court on miscellaneous days stating that it is resulting in law students getting deprived of important lessons on admission of fresh cases.

Ashwariya Aggarwal, a third-year students at Modern College of Law, along with Aman Shekhar and Nemeezia Amin, fourth-year students at Lloyd Law College, had written to Chief Justice of India Deepak Misra requesting that the notice dated 21.08.2013 be re-examined.

The notice which was issued in 2013 announced that from September 2, 2013, law students and pre-enrolment interns would not be issued passes on Miscellaneous Days and their entry to the Supreme Court.

The move was required due to congestion of courtrooms and corridors in miscellaneous days. Many lawyers complained of not being able to reach the courtroom when their cases were called out due to congestion forcing them to take a Passover.

In their letter to CJI Deepak Misra, the students said, “…notice not allowing interns to enter the courtroom would deprive the students from learning as to the admission of fresh cases”.

They said the complete ban on law students who would be part and parcel of “this valuable institution” requires re-examination and suggested measures to regulate crowd if the law students are allowed entry on miscellaneous days.

The suggestions they have placed before the Chief Justice of India are:

1.     Online application to be submitted by law interns but only 100 may be allowed entry on a given miscellaneous day with 10 in each courtroom. The selection of application may be on first come first serve basis.

2.     A certificate may be issued by the Advocate-on-record concerned in favour of the intern certifying that the intern has read the brief and is interested in witnessing the court proceedings and its outcome.

3.     Interns may be allowed after 1130 HRS inside the courtroom.

They have also sought a meeting with the CJI to explain their “mental agony and hardship” owing to the constraint in place.

Wednesday, 28 March 2018

Stay in Civil or Criminal case not be extended more than six months, it can only be extended by a speaking order

March 28, 2018

Stay in Civil or Criminal case not be extended more than six months, it can only be extended by a speaking order

In a very important judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has directed that in all pending matters where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is going, the same will be within six months from today unless in a special case by a reasoned order such stay is extended.

The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced, the Bench Said.

The Three-Judge Bench headed by Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel also held that where the stay is granted in future, the same will end on the expiry of six months from the date of such order unless a similar extension is granted by a reasoned order.

The Bench also made this opinion while responding a reference to it by a two-judge bench in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. VS. Central Bureau of Investigation, with respect to the Jurisdiction of the High Court, to consider the challenge against an order framing of charge under Prevention of Corruption Act, and also to grant the stay in such cases.

In the judgment, Justice AK Goel, also speaking for Justice Navin Sinha, held that the High Court has jurisdiction but further explained about how such power is to be exercised and when stay ought to be granted.

The Bench opined: “Even while reiterating the view that there is no bar to jurisdiction of the High Court to consider a challenge against an order of framing charge in exceptional situation for correcting a patent error of lack of jurisdiction, exercise of such jurisdiction has to be limited to rarest of rare cases. Even if a challenge to order framing charge is entertained, decision of such a petition should not be delayed. Though no mandatory time limit can be fixed, normally it should not exceed two-three months. If stay is granted, it should not normally be unconditional or of indefinite duration. Appropriate conditions may be imposed so that the party in whose favour stay is granted is accountable if court finally finds no merit in the matter and the other side suffers loss and injustice. To give effect to the legislative policy and the mandate of Article 21 for speedy justice in criminal cases, if stay is granted, matter should be taken on the day-to-day basis and concluded within two-three months. Where the matter remains pending for longer period, the order of stay will stand vacated on expiry of six months, unless extension is granted by a speaking order showing extraordinary situation where continuing stay was to be preferred to the final disposal of trial by the trial Court. This timeline is being fixed in view of the fact that such trials are expected to be concluded normally in one to two years.”

It is in this regard, the bench issued the directions to remedy the condition of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay granted by the court. It held: “Remedy is required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings are held up. At times, proceedings are adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after stay is vacated, intimation is not received and proceedings are not taken up.”

Explaining about ‘speaking order’, the bench said: “The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced.”

Judgment concluded as: “Order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter. Even where such challenge is entertained and stay is granted, the matter must be decided on day-to-day basis so that stay does not operate for an unduly long period. Though no mandatory time limit may be fixed, the decision may not exceed two-three months normally. If it remains pending longer, duration of stay should not exceed six months, unless extension is granted by a specific speaking order, as already indicated”

Monday, 26 March 2018

Bombay Bar Association established a trust for financial support to the advocates who need it.

March 26, 2018
The Bombay Bar Association (BBA) has made a trust for providing monetary care and support to advocates and their clans who need it.
At the festival of the bar association, BBA President Milind Sathe had announced that the donations received from members will be used for welfare activities.
BBA secretary Birendra Saraf published the scheme on March 5 and invited applications from members for the welfare activities.


The scheme puts a determined yearly income cap of Rs. 4 lakh for members or individuals to be eligible. Following are the assistances divided into 4 different categories:

Category 1
(a) Medical expenses of members/individual practicing lawyers in the Bombay High Court & other Courts or Tribunals in Mumbai having a minimum practice of 3 years;

(b) Medical assistance in terms of hospitalization expenses for family members, i.e. wife, children, dependent parents and unmarried brothers and sisters.
Category 2

(c) Scholarship and/or expenses for attending events related to law study for law students studying in Law Schools;

Category 3
(d) Donation/ financial aid to any person or NGO or state agency for the benefit of persons who are affected by natural calamities or disasters or war or armed conflict.

Category 4

(e) Financial aid to non-political organizations working for human rights, access to Justice, legal education, environmental protection;
For receiving assistance under all 4 categories, certain eligibility criteria have also been specified in the scheme as every category has its own criteria.
The scheme states that the applications as far as possible will be processed within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt and on expiry of 20 days from the date of submission, the status of the application shall be informed to the applicant.

Assistance by the Trust:

(i)  For medical expenses in any category, the amount to be disbursed shall not exceed Rs. 25,000 per application.

Friday, 23 March 2018

Supreme Court of India issued directions to the govt. authorities that RTI application fee should not exceed Rs. 50.

March 23, 2018
Supreme Court of India issued directions to the govt. authorities that RTI application fee should not exceed Rs. 50. The Supreme Court of India on 20.03.2018 directed all government authorities to make sure that the fee for an application under Right to Information (RTI) should not exceed Rupees. 50 and the fee for one page information should not be more than Rupees. 5.

The order had passed by a Bench headed by Justice A.K. Goel and Justice U.U. Lalit on a bundle of Petitions challenging the Right to Information Rules framed by several authorities.

The Hon’ble Bench had issued the following directions to the govt. authorities.

As a normal Rule, the charge for the application should not be more than Rs.50/- and for per page information should not be more than Rs.5/-. However, exceptional situations may be dealt with differently. This will not debar revision in future if the situation so demands”

No motive needs to be disclosed in view of the scheme of the Act
The third objection is to the requirement, in the Allahabad High Court Rules, for permission of the Chief Justice or the Judge concerned to the disclosure of information. The Bench has made it clear that the said requirement will be only in respect of information which is exempted under the scheme of the Act.

As regards the objection that under Section 6(3) of the Act, the public authority has to transfer the application to another public authority if information is not available, the said provision should also normally be complied with except where the public authority dealing with the application is not aware as to which other authority will be the appropriate authority.

As regards Rules 25 to 27 of the Allahabad High Court Rules which debar giving of information with regard to the matters pending adjudication, it is clarified that the same may be read consistently with Section 8 of the Act, more particularly sub-section (1) 3 in Clause (J) thereof.

 Wherever rules do not comply with the above observations, the same be revisited as per this order since it is based on the mandate of the Act which must be complied with.

One of the Petitions, filed in the year 2012 by Common Cause through Advocate Prashant Bhushan, and had challenged the Allahabad High Court (RTI) Rules, 2006, challenging that these were ultra vires the Right to Information Act, 2005. It had pointed out numerous inconsistencies in the Rules compared with the Act.

For example, it had pointed out that Rule 3 constrained the information that could be sought on a subject, by laying down that "every application shall be made only for one particular item of information only". Further, Rule 4 had demanded that each application is accompanied by cash, draft or pay order of Rs. 500, drawn in favor of the High Court Registrar General or the District Judge of the concerned District Court.

The Petition had emphasized the fact that this fee was 50 times the fee prescribed by the Centre govt. authorities, which had fixed it at Rs. 10. In reply, the High Court Allahabad had modified the Rules to lower the fees of Rs. 250 per application.

In the same way, the Petition stated that Rule 5 "impedes the common man's access to information" by prescribing Rs. 15 per page as the cost of spreading of information. In a similar manner, it had challenged Rules 5, 20, 25, 26 and 27 of the Rules, stating that these were in clear violation of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India as well.

While this petition was pending, another Petition was filed challenging the Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Secretariat Right to Information (Regulation of fees and costs) Rules, 2011. Filed by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Soni, the Petition had contended that the Rule requiring an applicant to pay Rs. 300 was ultra vires the Act.

The Rule, it had contended, had the "effect of abridging and infringing the right to information, thus, subverting the very object of the Act".

Monday, 19 March 2018

Arushi and Hemraj double murder: Supreme Court issue notices on acquittal order of Tarlwars

March 19, 2018

The Supreme Court of India today admitted an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order of acquittal of dentist couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar in famous 2008 double murder case of their daughter Aarushi and domestic helper Hemraj.

A bench headed by Ranjan Gogoi and R Banumathi issued a notice to the dentist couple on the plea preferred by Khumkala Banjade, the wife of Hemraj.

This appeal was filed in December 2017. On March 8, the Central Bureau of Investigation had also filed an appeal against Allahabad High Court’s order dated October 12, 2017 decision acquit the the couple.

The Central Bureau of Investigation said in their plea that the High Court order was inaccurate on various factors.

Vide order dated 12th October, 2017, a bench headed by Justice B K Narayana and Justice A K Mishra of the Allahabad High Court had acquitted the dentist couple by giving them the “benefit of doubt” in the murder which happend in Jalvayu Vihar in Noida on 16.05.2008.

Allahbad High Court had acquitted Talwars against a Ghaziabad CBI court order giving them the sentence of life imprisonment on 26.11.2013, bringing an end to a nine-year torment of the couple.

After Aarushi Talwar was found murdered in her bedroom, Hemraj was primarily considered a suspect of the murder.

However, later on his body too was discovered in a pool of blood a day later on the terrace of the house.

The UP Police accused Rajesh Talwar of murdering his daughter in a fit of temper. Rajesh Talwar was arrested by the police on May 23, 2008.

On 31.05.2008, the Central Bureau of Investigation took over the case and primarily freed the parents but later alleged them guilty for the two murders. On 13.06.2008, Rajesh Talwar's compounder, Krishna was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

10 days later, Raj Kumar, a servant of a doctor friend of the Talwars, and Vijay Mandal, the domestic help of the Talwars' neighbour, were also pinched.

The three of them were later release after no evidence was found against them.