(7-09-2020 to 13-09-2020)
Rishabh Duggal & Anr. v The Bar Council of India & Anr.
The 77 year old woman moved the apex court and challenged the validity of clause 28 of schedule 3 of Rules of Legal Education 2008, on grounds of being in violation of Article 14 and 21 as she was denied admission based on her age. She avers that the Right to Life includes the right to read, be educated in a medium of instruction, pursue a degree or a course of her choice, notwithstanding the limitation of age.
CLAUSE 28, SCHEDULE 3:
Age on admission: (a) Subject to the condition stipulated by a University on
this behalf and the high degree of professional commitment required, the
maximum age for seeking admission into a stream of integrated Bachelor of law degree program, is limited to twenty years in case of general category of applicants and to twenty two years in case of applicants from SC, ST and other
(b) Subject to the condition stipulated by a University, and the general social
condition of the applicants seeking legal education belatedly, the maximum age for seeking admission into a stream of Three Year Bachelor Degree Course in Law, is limited to thirty years with right of the University to give concession of 5 further year for the applicant belonging to SC or ST or any other Backward Community.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rajan sharma v. Bar Council of India and anr, 2010 declared the clause 28, schedule 3 of Rules of legal education as unconstitutional. In view of which BCI formed Prabhakaran Committee, which also recommended clause 28 to be repugnant of Fundamental Rights and recommended BCI to withdraw such clause.
Red Lynx Confederation v Union of India
The plea in SC challenged the validity of Section 309 of IPC. Where, in the plea, petitioner sought for directions to ensure the prevention of attempts to commit suicide by persons who threw themselves in animal enclosures in Zoo. After which the court has issued notice to the Attorney General of India, sought for an explanation from the Centre on the conflict between Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and Section 309 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Section 115(1) of the Mental Healthcare Act enacted in the year 2017 provides that ‘notwithstanding anything contained in section 309 of the Indian Penal Code any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the said Code.
Section 309 of IPC provides that, Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
The constitutionality of section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been the subject matter of challenge several times before the Supreme Court and High Courts. In Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra the Bombay High Court held that section 309, IPC is ultra vires the Constitution being violative of Articles 14 and 21 thereof and must be struck down. In P. Rathinam v. Union of India, Supreme Court also held that section 309, IPC violates Article 21. However a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab , overruled the decisions in Maruti Shripati Dubal and P.Rathinam , holding that Article 21 cannot be construed to include within it the ‘right to die’ as a part of the fundamental right guaranteed therein, and therefore, it cannot be said that section 309, IPC is violative of Article 21
Stalin vs. State
The bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, R.Subhash Reddy and M.R Shah while disposing a criminal appeal has observed that even in cases when death occurs due to single stab injury, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code can be attracted and there is no hard and fast rule that in case of single injury Section 302 IPC would not be attracted.
Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
In Kunhayippu v. State of Kerala (2000) and Musumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (2000) held that the death cause because single stab injury shall not attract section 302 of IPC.
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAS PERMITTED SUDARSHAN NEWS TV TO TELECAST ITS CONTROVERSIAL PROGRAMME “BINDASS “
Syed Mujtaba Athar & Anr. v Union of India
As the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting gave a green signal to the news channel, the show, allegedly about ‘Muslim infiltration’ in civil services. The Ministry took note of the channel’s submission that the show does not violate any law and that if at all any of its content is found to be e violative, action as per law may be taken.
Sudarshan TV’s Bindass bol was scheduled for telecast on August 28. A 49- second trailer posted on twitter claimed the show would contain a “big expose on conspiracy to infiltrate Muslims in government services”, refering the Jamia Milia Islamia University alumni who cleared the civil services exam this year.
On August 28, the Supreme Court refused to stay the broadcast, while the Delhi High court bench of Justice Navin Chawla granted an interim injunction restraining the telecast. A day later, the same High Court Bench refused to vacate its stay order. The Delhi High Court issued an injunction after noting that the proposed telecast on Sudarshan TV violated the code prescribed in the section 15 and 19 of Cable Television Network Act, 1995. However, Imposition of pre-censorship or pre-restraint on speech is a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of constitution. But in KA Abbas v The Union of India & Another, (1970), it was held by the Supreme Court that censorship of films in India, including prior restraint i.e., pre-censorship, is justified under the Constitution.
Shashi Tharoor v. Arnab Goswami
Delhi High Court has directed Arnab Goswami to exercise restraint and ‘bring down the rhetoric’, till the plea moved by Tharoor seeking injunction against allegedly defamatory broadcasting on Sunanda Pushkar case is disposed of. While issuing notice to Goswami to file a reply, the Single Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta highlighted that during the pendency of an investigation in a criminal case, media should refrain from running a parallel trial, or from calling someone guilty, or from making unsubstantiated claims.
Responsible journalism is the need of the timeDelhi High Court
Shashi Tharoor, who was a husband of Sunanda Pushkar, the sole accused in the criminal case pertaining to death of her in January 2017 had filed a suit against Goswami and his channel seeking compensation and damages for making allegedly defamatory remarks during their reportage of Sunanda Pushkar’s death.