September 30, 2022

The Lawmatics Bulletin: 18

Till 8th March, 2021

Case Reports: Courts of India


dash div.dash1{ display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; width: 70%; height: auto; } div.dash2{display: none;} @media screen and (max-width:800px){ div.dash1{ display: none; } div.dash2{ display: block; width: 100%; }

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


VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL IS A GROUND FOR CONSTITUTIONAL COURT TO GRANT BAIL IN UAPA CASES: SC

UOI v K.A Najeeb

The hon’ble Supreme Court in this case ruled that even if a person is charged under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), they still have the fundamental right to a speedy trial and are eligible for bail if this right is violated.
The court observed that, the provision of Section 43D (5) of UAPA is being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial and presence of such statutory restrictions per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution.


CENTRE HAS DUTY TO ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL COURTS FOR BETTER ADMINISTRATION OF LAW MADE BY THE PARLIAMENT: SC

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat observed that the Union Government has a duty to create additional courts for the better administration of the laws as provided under Article 247 of the Constitution of India.
The bench made this significant observation while considering the suo moto case taken to evolve measures to expedite trial of cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The bench noted that cheque dishonour contributes to nearly 30% of the pending cases at trial stage.
Thus, the court ordered the central government to create Additional courts under the Negotiable Instruments Act for speedy disposal of cases mostly related to dishonor of cheques.
Article 247 provides that,”Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, Parliament may by law provide for the establishment of any additional courts for the better administration of laws made by Parliament or of any existing laws with respect to a matter enumerated in the Union List”


ONCE THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL IS GRANTED DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY ENDS WITH FILING OF THE CHARGESHEET: SC

Dr. Rajesh Pratap Giri V. State Of U.P

The hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement held that, Anticipatory bail once granted does not automatically end with the filing of the chargesheet against the accused. In this case, the apex court quashed the decision of the Allahabad High Court where the latter refused the application of the accused and held that anticipatory bail ends at the filing of chargesheet and directed the accused to surrender and apply for regular bail.
In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 it was held by the hon’ble Supreme Court that there is no principle of law which required that anticipatory bail once granted automatically comes to an end on the filing of the charge­sheet.


INSULTS TO RELIGION WITHOUT ANY INTENTION TO OUTRAGE RELIGIOUS FEELING WILL NOT FALL UNDER SECTION 295A IPC: TRIPURA HC

Dulal Ghosh v. State of Tripura & Ors.

The Hon’ble court ruled that insults to religion or religious beliefs made thoughtlessly or carelessly without any calculated or spiteful intention to outrage the religious feelings of any specific class, would not amount to an offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
SECTION 295A: Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.


AIDED SCHOOL TEACHERS CANNOT CONTEST IN ELECTION: KERALA HC

Moosa v. State of Kerala

The Kerala High Court held that the Teachers of aided schools cannot contest in the election to the local bodies, including State Legislative Assembly and Parliament.
The court observed that the Political Right Of Teachers Cannot Override Children’s Fundamental Right To Education guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution of India. The court also said that the role of a teacher is to shape the minds of the younger generation for the development of the nation is very important, therefore, during the election period devoting attention to the cause of the students is not possible for any teacher contesting to election.


“HEART AILMENT” IS NOT COVERED UNDER DISABILITY AS PER RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITY ACT: SC

Nawal Kishore Sharma v. UOI

The hon’ble Supreme Court held that the definition of ‘Disability’ under the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 does not cover ‘Heart ailment’ as a disability. Hence, the person suffering from heart ailment is not entitled to claim disability compensation under the said Act.
As per Section 2(s) of the act, “person with disability” means a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others.”


CONTRACT IS VOID IF PROHIBITED BY STATUTE UNDER THE PENALTY EVEN IF NOT EXPRESSLY DECLARED IT VOID: SC

Asha John Divianathan vs. Vikram Malhotra

The Supreme Court observed that a contract is void if prohibited by a statute under a penalty, even without express declaration that the contract is void. Referring to Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, bench held that the requirement of taking “previous” permission of the RBI before executing the sale deed or gift deed is the quintessence; and failure to do so must render the transfer unenforceable and void in law.
Section 31provides that, a person, who is not a citizen of India, is not competent to dispose of by sale or gift, as in this case, any immovable property situated in India without previous general or special permission of the RBI.


THE UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS RAISED CONCERN OVER INDIAN SEDITION LAWS EXISTENCE

Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights raised concern over the passing of farm laws and the use of sedition laws by the government of India against its citizens, during the 46th session of the Human Rights Council.
She remarked that,”the Charges of sedition against journalists and activists for reporting or commenting on the protests, & attempt to curb freedom of expression on social media are disturbing departures from essential human rights principles.”