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.
‘Hare-Brained Petition’ : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Registration Of Live-In Relationships
(Case Details:- Mamta Rani v. UoI WP(C) No. 315/2023 PIL)
The Supreme Court on Monday i.e. 20 March 2023 expressed surprise at a PIL which was filed seeking mandatory registration of live-in relationships.
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala wondered if the petitioner was actually trying to prevent live-in relationships under the guise of fostering their security by seeking mandatory registration.A petition seeking rules to “register live-in relationships” was dismissed today by the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice DY Chandrachud calling it a “harebrained idea”.
A lawyer had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) calling for guidelines for the mandatory registration of every live-in relationship in the country. The petition also sought social security of couples living together.
The idea, said the petitioner, was to reduce crimes caused by live-in partners.
“What is this? People come with anything here. We’ll start imposing costs on such cases. Registration with whom? The central government? What does the central government have to do with people in live-in relationships?” Chief Justice Chandrachud snapped. (Courtesy:- NDTV, 20 March 2023)
Air India urination incident | Victim moves Supreme Court seeking clear, zero-tolerance guidelines to deal with such “traumatic” instances
A 72-year-old woman on whom a drunk passenger allegedly relieved himself on her, inside a New York-New Delhi Air India flight, has moved the Supreme Court seeking clear and zero tolerance guidelines for civil authorities and airlines to deal with such “traumatic” incidents.
The senior citizen, represented by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Rahul Narayan, said Air India and Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), both, failed to treat her with “care and responsibility” after the “unruly” passenger “urinated” on her during the flight on November 26, 2022.
In fact, the woman said the cabin crew “facilitated” the handing over of her mobile phone number to the man in order for him to “reimburse the cost of shoes, dry-cleaning, etc”. The petition said she was made to sit on the “very same seat that was wet and smelled of urine”. Her suffering was compounded when the crew “coerced her to enter into a settlement with the passenger who urinated on her”. “She continues to deal with the trauma of the incident,” the petition said. (Courtesy:- The Hindu, 20 March 203)
Supreme Court turns down Centre’s request on OROP note in ‘sealed cover’
The Supreme Court on Monday i.e. 20 March 2023 refused to accept the central government’s sealed cover note about its views on the payment of One Rank One Pension (OROP) arrears to ex-service personnel. “We need to put an end to this sealed cover practice in the Supreme Court. This is fundamentally contrary to the basic process of fair justice,” a bench led by CJI D Y Chandrachud said. “I am personally averse to sealed covers. There has to be transparency in court… This is about implementing orders. What can be secret here,” the CJI said. Last month, the apex court turned down the government’s move to submit in a sealed envelope suggestions about an expert panel in the Adani Group-Hindenburg row.(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 21 March 2023)
Supreme Court agrees to review validity of hanging as mode of execution
Four decades after validating execution of death-row convicts through hanging by the neck, the Supreme Court on Tuesday i.e. 21 March 2023 agreed for a fresh scrutiny of the method’s legality on two counts — non-application of ‘test of proportionality’ in the 1983 judgment and considerable scientific development in 40 years to warrant search for a less painful method of execution.
Taking up a six-year-old PIL by advocate Rishi Malhotra, a bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha said, “We will look at two perspectives: first, is there any alternative method, far more consistent with human dignity, to render ‘hanging by the neck’ unconstitutional; and second, even if there is no alternative method, does ‘hanging by the neck’ method satisfy the test of proportionality so as to render it valid, an issue issue that was not addressed in the Deena judgment at all.” In Deena vs Union of India judgement on September 23, 1983, a three-judge bench of then CJI Y V Chandrachud and justices RS Pathak and Sabyasachi Mukharji (both went on to become CJIs) had validated Section 354(5) of Criminal Procedure Code, which provided that “when any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead”.
Over the years, through a series of judgments starting with the Bachan Singh case in 1980, the SC has narrowed the scope for imposition of death penalty and ruled that even in “rarest of rare” cases of gruesome murders, it is a must for courts to evaluate chances of reform before sending a convict to the gallows. In most cases where death penalty is awarded by trial courts, the constitutional courts — the HCs or the SC — generally commute it to life sentence. The SC’s decision on Tuesday to take a fresh look at the validity of the ‘hanging by neck’ method of execution could possibly be a step towards virtual abolition of the death penalty from CrPC, which came into existence in 1888, and was amended in 1898 and again in 1973. (Courtesy:- The Times of India, 22 March 2023)
Supreme Court To Hear Petitions For Criminalisation Of Marital Rape In May
The top court on January 16 had sought a response of the Centre on a batch of petitions pertaining to criminalisation of marital rape.
The Supreme Court today fixed May 9 for a detailed hearing on a batch of petitions pertaining to criminalisation of marital rape. Senior advocate Indira Jaising mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud.
She told the bench that the order of arguments and common compilation in the case is ready.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the Centre’s reply is ready and has to be vetted.
“List this on May 9, 2023,” the bench said.
The top court on January 16 had sought a response of the Centre on a batch of petitions pertaining to criminalisation of marital rape.
One of the pleas has been filed in relation to the Delhi High Court’s split verdict on the issue. This appeal has been filed by Khushboo Saifi, one of the petitioners before the Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court on May 11 last year had delivered a split verdict on the issue. (Courtesy:- NDTV, 22 March 2023)
Bilkis Bano case: Supreme Court to constitute special bench to hear plea challenging release of 11 convicts
All the 11 convicts, sentenced to life imprisonment, were granted pre-mature release after a panel set up by the BJP-ruled Gujarat government approved their application for remission of the sentence in August last year.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday i.e. 22 March 2023 agreed to constitute a special bench to hear pleas challenging the order of Gujarat government allowing the premature release of 11 convicts sentenced to life in the Bilkis Bano case, reported Live Law. Bilkis Bano is a gang-rape survivor in the communal violence that followed the Godhra train burning incident in Gujarat in 2022. Bano was 21 years old then and was pregnant at that time. Seven members of her family were also killed during the riots.
The CJI replied that a bench will be constituted. “I will have a bench constituted. Will look at it this evening,” he said.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had said on February 7 as well that he will constitute a special bench to hear the matter. Bano’s counsel Advocate Shobha Gupta claimed that the matter was mentioned four times earlier, but it was yet to be taken up for preliminary hearing and notice, reported Live Law.
On August 15, all the 11 convicts, sentenced to life imprisonment, were granted pre-mature release after a panel set up by the BJP-ruled Gujarat government approved their application for remission of the sentence.
Earlier, on January 24, the hearing on Bano’s plea challenging the remission by the Gujarat government could not be held in the top court as the judges concerned were hearing a matter related to passive euthanasia as part of a five judge Constitution bench. (Courtesy:- Financial Express, 22 March 2023)
Enforcement Directorate Director’s Tenure Extension: Supreme Court Rejects Centre’s Submission
The top court said even if the petitioners are facing cases, they have the right to approach the judiciary for redressal of their grievances.
The Supreme Court on Thursday disagreed with the Centre’s submission that petitions challenging the amended law allowing tenure extension of the Enforcement Directorate director up to five years should not be entertained as they have been filed by political entities facing serious money laundering charges.
The top court said even if the petitioners are facing cases, they have the right to approach the judiciary for redressal of their grievances.
“Even if they are accused, they would still have a locus. If these people do not have a locus, who else will?” a three-judge bench headed by Justice B R Gavai observed.
The remark came after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that he never used the word ‘victim’ for the petitioners.
The clarification was made after senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for one of the petitioners, submitted that the Centre’s objection was that the petitions have been filed by political parties, who are ‘victims’ of the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on April 20. (Courtesy:- NDTV, 23 March 2023).
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Elevating 4 Judges To Madras High Court
The Supreme Court collegium has recommended to the centre the names of four district judges for appointment as judges of the Madras High Court. The four judges, whose names were recommended for elevation to the high court by the Supreme Court collegium for the first time, are R Sakthivel, P Dhanabal, Chinnasamy Kumparappan and K Rajasekar.
The collegium also told the centre to notify the names of R John Sathyan and Ramaswamy Neelakandan, whose names were given in the collegium’s previous recommendations in January this year, for appointment to the high court.
The Supreme Court said the names who it has already recommended and reiterated should not be “withheld or overlooked” as any delay disturbs the seniority of candidates.
“The names which have been recommended earlier in point of time including the reiterated names ought not to be withheld or overlooked as this disturbs their seniority whereas those recommended later steal march on them. Loss of seniority of candidates recommended earlier in point of time has been noted by the collegium and is a matter of grave concern,” the collegium said in its communication to the centre. (Courtesy:- NDTV, 22 March 2023).
Supreme Court protects members of Christian community from coercive action by U.P. Police under anti-conversion law
The Supreme Court on March 24, 2023 protected members of Christian community from coercive action by the Uttar Pradesh Police on the basis of an FIR registered under the State’s anti-religious conversion law.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud issued notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh after senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the petitioners, said the FIR was a “cock-and-bull story” of “mass conversion”. He said the police action amounted to the “abuse of the process of law”.
“I want to share something with Your Lordships… If I may be permitted… What is happening? Things are going completely out of control… Your Lordships are the only forum before which we have come. We are not protected by the police or the Magistrates. You alone can save us… They are saying forcible conversions… Children were arrested and released only at midnight,” Mr. Dave made an emotional appeal on behalf of the petitioners led by Dr. Mathew Samuel.
He said the police have filed multiple FIRs against the same persons in the same incident, violating their fundamental right under Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which mandates that “no individual shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once”. (Courtesy:- The Hindu, 24 March 2023)
*Disclaimer: – Always check with the original copy of judgment from the Court website.
Legal News in this Weekly Legal Update are compiled by Team www.deepakmiglani.com
Read Also Weekly Legal Updates (1 January 2023 to 7 January 2023)
Read Also Weekly Legal Updates (8 January 2023 to 14 January 2023)
Read Also Weekly Legal Updates (22 January 2023 to 28 January 2023)
Read Also Weekly Legal Updates (29 January 2023 to 4 February 2023)
Read Also Weekly Legal Updates (5 February 2023 to 11 February 2023)
Read Also Weekly Legal Updates (12 February 2023 to 18 February 2023)
Read Also Weekly Legal Updates (19 February to 25 February 2023)
Read Also Weekly Legal Updates (26 February to 4 March 2023)
Read Also Weekly Legal Updates (5 March to 11 March 2023)
Read Also Weekly Legal Updates (12 March to 18 March 2023)