October 2, 2022

The Lawmatics Bulletin- 17

6-January-2021 to 24-January-2021

Case Reports: Courts of India


dash

The Data has been updated from the official website of National Judicial Data Grid


WITHOUT CERTIFICATION UNDER EVIDENCE ACT, WHATSAPP TEXTS HAVE NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE: P&H HC

Rakesh Kumar Singhla v. UOI

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in its judgement made observation that whatsapp messages have no evidentiary value without its certification under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Also in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, 2020 has held that a certificate Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is required when reliance is being placed upon electronic records. Therefore, the said message would be of no evidentiary value as on date.


PRIOR NOTICE FOR 30 DAYS UNDER SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT IS NOT MANDATORY: ALLAHABAD HC

Safiya Sultana v. State Of U.P.

The bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary recently in its decision held that the prescribed limit of 30 days prior notice for solemnization of intended marriage is not mandatory in nature as given in Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, 1956 and also said the publication of notice by the Marriage officer without request of the parties violates Fundamental Right to Privacy of parties to intended marriage.
Section 5: Notice of intended marriage:—When a marriage is intended to be solemnized under this Act, the parties to the marriage shall give notice thereof in writing in the form specified in the Second Schedule to the Marriage Officer of the district in which at least one of the parties to the marriage has resided for a period of not less than thirty days immediately preceding the date on which such notice is given.


ONLY INTENTIONAL DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT’S ORDER AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT OF COURT: SC

Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang

The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and BR Gavai has been held that before punishing the contemnor for non-compliance of the decision of the Court, the Court must be satisfied about that the disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, writ or other process was wilful and intentional. The bench said if the disobedience is due to some compelling circumstances then the alleged contemnor is not liable for the punishment of contempt of court.


FIVE JUDGE BENCH CANCELLED REVIEW PETITIONS WHICH CHALLENGED AADHAAR JUDGEMENT

Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)

The hon’ble apex court in its majority decision dismissed the batch of petitions seeking the review of KS Puttaswamy judgement which uphold the certification of Aadhaar Act, 2016 as Money bill by the speaker of Lok Sabha. The first issue raised was whether the speaker’s decision to declare a proposed law as Money Bill was ‘Final’ and cannot be challenged in court? and, the second issue raised was whether the Aadhaar(Targeted delivery of Financial and other subsidies, benefit and services)Act, 2016 was correctly certified as a Money Bill under Article 110(1) of the constitution or not? By considering such issues the bench of 4:1 majority held the judgement of Aadhaar law as valid.


GROPING CHILD’S BREAST WITHOUT DISROBING IS NOT A SEXUAL ASSAULT: BOMBABY HC

Satish v. State of Maharashtra

In the recent judgement of Bombay High Court, the hon’ble Court held that pressing of breasts without ‘skin to skin’ contact would not amount to sexual assault as per Section 7 of POCSO Act. The court said such groping without touching skin amounts to conviction under section 354 of Indian Penal Code.
SECTION 354: Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with impris­onment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.