30-November-2020 to 6-December-2020
Case Reports: Courts of India
The Data has been updated from the official website of National Judicial Data Grid
COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFAMATION OF DECEASED PERSON PERSON CAN BE MADE ONLY BY ‘FAMILY MEMBERS’: P&H HIGH COURT
Raj Kumar Saini vs. Sant Kanwar
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed in the recent case that only the ‘family members’ or ‘near relatives’ of the deceased person, against whom defamatory statement have been made, can claim to be ‘persons aggrieved’ to file complaint under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
The complainant-respondent is the follower of late Matu Ram Hooda,an Arya Samajist and freedom fighter. In his complaint he stated that a defamatory statement has been made by a petitioner against Late Matu Ram Hooda and the court in present case has held that respondent is not an aggrieved person as he is not a member of the family of Late Matu Ram Hooda but the follower of deceased person. Referring to the provisions of Section 199 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the court noted that a defamation complaint can be made by a ‘person aggrieved’ only.
In Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh v. State of Bihar, 1986, It was observed that though generally, the person aggrieved is only the person defamed, an exception has been made in the case of a deceased person but the ‘persons aggrieved’ even in such case are limited only to members of his family or his near relatives, whose feelings would be hurt by the defamatory statement, and none else.
MARRY TO A PERSON OF CHOICE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
A division bench of Justices S Sujata and Sachin Shankar Magadum, while disposing of a habeas corpus petition has held that the Right of any major individual to marry the person of his/her choice irrespective of caste or religion is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of India and said:
“It is well settled that a right of any major individual to marry the person of his/her choice is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of India and the said liberty relating to the personal relationships of two individuals cannot be encroached by anybody irrespective of caste or religion.”
Also in the Salamat Ansari v state of U.P,2020, recent judgement of the Allahabad High Court, the court said that, the right to live with a person of his or her choice irrespective of religion is intrinsic to the right to life and liberty and also observed that, Interference in a personal relationship would constitute a serious encroachment into the right to freedom of choice of two individuals.
FARM LAWS DETRIMENTAL TO LEGAL PROFESSION: BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI
The Bar Council of Delhi has written a letter to PM Narendra Modi requesting for the immediate withdrawal of the three Farm legislations pertaining to farmers and to give an audience to the leaders of the farmers in order for an amicable solution to be reached.The letter raises the issue of how the same will substantially affect District Courts and High Courts as the vast nature of the subject matter will lead to matter being adjudicated by SDMs/ADMs instead.
The letter stated that, “How can any litigation having civil consequenses be given for adjudication to structure involving administrative agences, controlled and run by executive authorities?”
And pointed out that, “It will substantially damage the district courts and in particular and uproot the lawyers” . “SDMs/ADMs are always under the command of their bosses, which is antithesis to judicial independence and discipline. The rule of separation of power cannot be compromised”,The letter stated by referring to the Constitutional provision for Separation of Judiciary.
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT DIRECTED THE STATE TO COMPUSORILY INSTALL CCTV CAMERAS IN EVERY POLICE STATION
Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgement ordered the centre to compulsory install CCTV cameras and recording equipments in the every police station and also in the offices of central agencies like National Investigation Agency(NIA), CBI, etc. which have the power to carry out ‘Interrogations’. The court said that, the CCTV’s and recording equipment, would be used as a measure to protect the fundamental right to dignity and life.
In the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal,2015, the court held that there was a need for directions that in every State an oversight mechanism be created whereby an independent committee can study the CCTV camera footages and periodically publish a report of its observations thereon.
In Shafhi Mohammad v. State of HP, 2018, the court directed in that a Central Oversight Body(COB) to be set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs to implement the plan of action with respect to the use of videography in the crime scene during the investigation while considering the directions given under DK Basu case.