Weekly Legal Updates main objective is to update the legal knowledge of law students, lawyers, academicians and other professionals. If we do not update our legal knowledge regularly, our knowledge become redundant.
Supreme Court dismisses challenge to delimitation in Jammu & Kashmir
[Case Details:-Haji Adbul Gani Khan And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors.WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.237 OF 2022; February 13, 2023]
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition which challenged the delimitation exercise carried out for redrawing the Legislative Assembly and Lok Sabha constituencies in the Union Territory of Jammu & KashmirA Bench comprising Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice A.S. Oka passed the order in a plea, inter alia, challenging the delimitation exercise undertaken in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir pursuant to the recent notifications. Justice Oka, reading out the operative portion of the judgement, said that the judgement has clarified that the dismissal of the petition should not be construed as giving imprimatur to the decisions taken in relation to Article 370 as the said issue is pending before a Constitution Bench. Senior Advocate, Mr. Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, representing the petitioners had contended that the delimitation exercise was in violation of the scheme of the Constitution of India, especially Article 170(3), which had frozen delimitation till the first census after 2026. He had argued that the delimitation exercise was being carried out in the teeth of constitutional and statutory provisions. He had further submitted that after the delimitation order was passed in the year 2008, no further delimitation exercise could have been undertaken. The Senior Counsel had emphasised that post 2008, all delimitation related exercise can be carried out only by the Election Commission and not a Delimitation Commission.( Courtesy – 13 February 2023 https://www.hindustantimes.com/ )
‘No fundamental right to bear arms in India’ : Supreme Court takes suo motu case on unlicensed firearms
Terming the trend as “disturbing”, a Bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna registered the case while hearing the bail application of a murder accused. “According to prosecution, an unlicensed firearm was used and offences under Sec 302 along with 307 of the Indian Penal Code were registered. We have come across several cases where this phenomenon of unlicensed arms and this trend is very disturbing”. Justice BV Nagarathna said, “It’s the feudal mindset…using knives and guns”.(Courtesy – 13 February 2023 https://www.deccanherald.com/ )
Supreme Court closes petition seeking to ban ‘Zoom’ Software
[Case Title: Harsh Chugh v. Union of India And Ors. WP(C) No. 886/2020 PIL]
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court closed proceedings in a petition filed in 2020 seeking to ban the usage of the software application “Zoom” over security and privacy concerns. During the hearing, a Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and MM Sundresh was told by Senior Advocate Arvind Datar that an inter-ministerial meeting was held to assess the safety features of zoom. “Nothing really survives in this plea. Your Lordships had asked us to file additional documents. There’s nothing wrong with Zoom. We had an inter-ministerial meeting. They are asking to ban Zoom. Why only Zoom? Why not Webex, Meet?”, Datar argued. “We have considered the minutes of the meeting of the National Security Council Secretariat held on December 28, 2020 regarding the security features of Zoom, VC platform. In our opinion, nothing survives in the present writ petition in view of the said document. Accordingly, the proceedings are closed”.(Courtesy – 14 February 2023 www.dailyguardian.com )
Review provision is not to scrutinise the correctness of decision : Supreme Court
[Case Details:- PANCHAM LAL PANDEY versus NEERAJ KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.3329 OF 2021]
The Supreme court reiterated that the provision of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of the decision. It is to correct the error, if any, which is visible on the face of the order / record without going into as to whether there is a possibility of another opinion different from the one expressed, the bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal observed. The court observed thus while setting aside a High Court order that allowed a review petition (The writ petition concerned an issue relating to the payment of salary to teachers). The bench found that the High Court dealt with the matter as it is seized of the special appeal itself and has virtually reversed the decision by taking a completely new stand.
Shiv Sena Rift : Should “Nabam Rebia” Decision Be Reconsidered By Larger Bench? Supreme Court Constitution Bench Reserves Judgment.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reserved judgement on whether the judgement delivered by a 5-judge bench in the case Nabam Rebia vs Deputy Speaker (2016) should be reconsidered by a larger bench.
A 5-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud was hearing a bunch of petitions relating to the political developments in Maharashtra, which resulted in a change of State Government in July 2022, following a rift within the Shiv Sena party between Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde groups. The bench, also comprising Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha, heard arguments on the need for reference for three days. Nabam Rebia had held that a Speaker will be disabled from deciding disqualification petitions under the anti-defection law (10th schedule of the Constitution) if a notice under Article 179(c) of the Constitution for removal is pending. The correctness of this view has been called into question in the present matter by the lawyers representing Uddhav group. The stand of the Shinde side is that no reference is required.(Courtesy – 15 February 2023 https://www.moneycontrol.com/)
*Disclaimer: – Always check with the original copy of judgment from the Court website.
Legal News in this Weekly Legal Update are compiled by Devesh Kumar (Team www.deepakmiglani.com