Supreme Court says Patanjali apology in newspapers should be of same size as its advertisements
Hearing a case on misleading advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday said that the Ramdev-owned company’s public apology in newspapers should be of same size in which it advertises its products. Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Ramdev, said that an apology has been published in newspapers. But the Supreme Court reprimanded him on why the apology was published yesterday only.
The SC said that FMCG firms cannot be allowed to take people of this country – particularly babies, children and senior citizen – for a ride as they are influenced by misleading advertisements and the Union government must wake up to this. Expanding the ambit of its proceedings on misleading advertisements which was earlier confined only to Patanjali Ayurveda products, the SC asked Centre on action it has taken against other FMCG companies for giving misleading advertisements
The SC said that it was asking questions to the ministry of consumer affairs, ministry of information and broadcasting as co-respondents (in the case). State licensing authorities across the country will also be added as parties and they too need to answer certain questions, says Supreme Court. The SC also told Indian Medical Association (IMA) that while it was pointing fingers at Patanjali, four fingers were pointing at them. “Your doctors also endorsing medicines in the allopathic field. If that’s happening, why should we not turn the beam at you?” The SC deferred hearing on contempt proceedings against Patanjali founders Ramdev and Balkrishna as they could not file affidavit on public apology published in newspapers. The apex court will now hear the case on April 30 and directed them to be present in court on that day also.
(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 23 April 2024)
Childcare leave for women is a constitutional mandate: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday said that two-year childcare leave, apart from mandatory maternity leave of 180 days, for a woman employee is a constitutional mandate and denial of such leave is akin to asking her to quit her job. This strong remark came from a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala when petitioner Shalini Dharmani, an assistant professor in a govt college in Himachal Pradesh, complained that she has a child with rare genetic disorder that requires multiple surgeries and constant care. Dharmani, through her counsel Pragati Neekhra, told the court that she has exhausted her leaves and that the HP govt had refused to grant her childcare leave as the state service rules do not have a provision akin to Section 43-C of the Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, which in 2010 was modified to allow women employees to take childcare leave of 730 days till their disabled children attain 22 years of age, and women with normal children can avail till the kids reach 18 years of age. Taking exception to the absence of such a rule in Himachal, the CJI-led bench said, “Participation of women in the work force is not a privilege but a constitutional mandate. Childcare leave subserves an important constitutional objective to make women be part of the work force. Otherwise, mothers will be left with no option but to quit their jobs to look after their children in critical phases of their lives.”
The bench directed the Himachal Pradesh govt to forthwith constitute a high-level committee chaired by the chief secretary and comprising secretaries of social welfare and women and child welfare departments to reconsider the entire issue of child care leave to women employees. It asked the committee to engage with Union ministries concerned and file a report, recommending appropriate policy decision on inserting child care leave for women in the state service rules, before the court by July 31. In the meantime, the court asked the HP govt to consider granting her extraordinary leave to attend to her son, who suffers from a rare genetic disorder, osteogenesis imperfecta (brittle bone disease).
(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 23 April 2024)
Caltech ends patent lawsuit against HP
The California Institute of Technology (Caltech) has dropped its lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard Inc. (HP), according to a filing in a Texas federal court. The lawsuit accused HP of infringing on
Caltech’s patents related to wireless communication technologies. Both parties informed the court of their decision to dismiss the case “with prejudice,” meaning Caltech cannot refile the lawsuit.
No official comment was received from either Caltech or HP regarding the dismissal, including whether a settlement was reached.
Settled lawsuits against Apple and Broadcom This dismissal follows Caltech’s previous legal actions concerning similar patents. The institute won a $1.1 billion jury verdict against Apple and Broadcom in a related case, but a retrial was ordered to determine the final damage amount. Caltech subsequently settled that case, along with similar lawsuits against Samsung and Microsoft. A lawsuit against Dell for patent infringement is still ongoing.
The original lawsuit, filed in 2020, accused HP of infringing on Caltech’s patents in several lines of their personal computers. HP denied the allegations and requested the court dismiss the case.
(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 24 2024)
Dangerous to suggest material resources of community don’t cover pvt property: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court Wednesday said “it will be a little extreme to suggest that material resources with the community will only mean resources which do hot have their origin in the private property of an individual”.
The remarks came from Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud who is presiding over a nine-judge Constitution bench that is answering a reference to it on the question whether the phrase “material resources of the community” in Article 39(b) of the Constitution covers what is privately owned. The bench also comprises Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih.
Explaining his stand, the CJI said “why it would be dangerous to take that view? Take for example mines, forests or private forests. For us to say the moment a forest is a private forest, 39(b) will not apply and therefore its hands off would be extremely dangerous a proposition”. He added that it would all “depend upon context”.
Pointing out that the constitution was intended to bring about a social transformation, he said “so we must put ourselves back in the 1950s when the Constitution was made…You can’t say that 39(b) has no application once the property is privately held property”.
“Because the societal demands, the need for redistribution considering the societal perspective. So it may be airwaves, it may be water, it may be forests, it may be mines. In some areas probably the dividing lines become very clear. Just taking somebody’s flat…”
The CJI added, “but you must understand that 39 (b) has been drafted in a certain constitutional ethos, that the Constitution was intended to bring about a social transformation. Therefore we shouldn’t go as far as to say that the moment private property is private property, 39 (b) and (c) will have no application”.
Article 39(b) in the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) says that “the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good”. Article 39(c) states that “the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment”.
The reference to the nine-judges had arisen in the context of a 1978 judgement in ‘State of Karnataka vs Ranganatha Reddy and Another’ wherein Justice V R Krishna Iyer said that material resources of the community would include both natural and man-made, publicly and privately owned resources.
Elaborating on this, the CJI said the “philosophical approach of Justice Krishna Iyer is this: If you look at the purely capitalist concept of property, it attributes a sense of exclusiveness to property… The socialist concept of property is the mirror image which attributes to property a notion of commonality. Nothing is exclusive to the individual. All property is common to the community. that’s the extreme socialist view”.
He said the Justice Krishna Iyer ruling deals with two aspects when they deal with 39(b) — the origin and the beneficiary. “The argument before the bench in Ranganath Reddy was that the origin must be in the community for 39 (b) and (c) to apply. If something does not originate in the community, then 39(b) can never apply. Second argument was that distribution postulates that you distribute it to individuals. If you are not distributing it to individuals, then 39(b) will not apply. They deal with both these arguments at the philosophical level by saying that even if something that does not originate in the community, if it is a property of Nature, which has a bearing on the community, 39b is capable of application”.
The CJI also said it will be better if the 9-judge bench look into the question whether Article 31(c) continues to exist despite the ruling in the landmark ‘Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala’ case.
(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 25 April 2024)
Husband has no control over wife’s ‘stridhan’, rules Supreme Court
A husband has no control over his wife’s ‘stridhan‘ (woman’s property) and while he may use it during the time of his distress, he has a moral obligation to return it to his wife, the Supreme Court has reiterated while directing a man to pay Rs 25 lakh to a woman in return for her lost gold.
The woman, in this case, claimed that 89 sovereigns of gold were gifted to her by her family at the time of marriage. Additionally, after the wedding, her father gave a cheque for Rs 2 lakh to her husband.
According to the woman, on the first night of their marriage, the husband took custody of all her jewellery and entrusted the same to his mother under the garb of safekeeping. She alleged that all the jewellery was misappropriated by the husband and his mother to discharge their pre-existing financial liabilities.
The family court, in 2011, held that the husband and his mother had indeed misappropriated the appellant’s gold jewellery and that she was entitled to recoup the loss caused to her by the said misappropriation.
The Kerala High Court, while partly setting aside the relief granted by the family court, held that the woman had not been able to establish misappropriation of gold jewellery by the husband and his mother.
The woman then moved the Supreme Court against the high court order.
A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said stridhan property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband, and the husband has no title or independent dominion over the property as its owner.
“Properties gifted to a woman before marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of bidding farewell or thereafter are her stridhan properties. It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure,” the bench observed.
“The husband has no control over her stridhan property. He may use it during the time of his distress but nonetheless, he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to his wife,” the bench said, while referring to an earlier judgment on the issue.
The Supreme Court said matters of matrimony can rarely be said to be simple or straightforward. Hence, human reaction according to a mechanical timeline before the sacred bond of marriage is severed is not what one would expect.
“Divorce, majorly, in Indian society is still considered a stigma, and any delay in commencement of legal proceedings is quite understandable because of the attempts made to have the disputes and differences resolved; more so, in a case of the present nature, when the appellant was faced with the imminent prospect of termination of her second marriage,” the bench said.
“Even otherwise, the appellant did not present before the Family Court a time-barred claim. Doubting the bona fide of the appellant, on facts and in the circumstances, was thus not called for,” the bench added.
The Supreme Court said the very concept of marriage rests on the inevitable mutual trust of the spouses, which conjugality necessarily involves and to assume that the woman from day one did not trust the husband is rather improbable.
“The High Court, thus, failed to draw the right inference from facts which appear to have been fairly established. That apart, we have neither been shown nor do we know of any binding precedent that for a claim of return of stridhan articles or money equivalent thereof to succeed, the wife has to prove the mode and manner of such acquisition,” the court said.
“It was not a criminal trial where the chain of circumstances had to be complete and conclusively proved, without any missing link. Undisputedly, the appellant had brought to the matrimonial home sufficient quantum of jewellery, which she wore during the marriage and as is evidenced from photographs,” the bench said.
The Supreme Court said the woman had successfully initiated action towards recovery of money in lieu of 89 sovereigns of gold, which in the year 2009 was valued at Rs 8.90 lakh.
“Mere upholding of the decree of the family court at this distance of time, without anything more, would bring about injustice to her. Bearing in mind the passage of time, the escalation in cost of living, and in the interest of equity and justice, we deem it fit in the exercise of power conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of India to award to the appellant a sum of Rs 25,00,000,” the bench said.
(Courtesy:- India Today, 26 April 2024)
Supreme Court to begin sending WhatsApp updates on cases: CJI Chandrachud
Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud announced on Thursday that the Supreme Court will begin disseminating information regarding cause lists, case filings and case listings to advocates via WhatsApp messages.
“In the 75th year of its existence, the Supreme Court of India launched a small initiative. It has the potential to have a big-bang impact. Whatsapp messenger has been a ubiquitous service in our daily lives and has taken the role of a powerful communication tool. To strengthen the right to access to Justice and enhance transparency in the judicial system, the Supreme Court announces integration of Whatsapp messaging services with its IT services,” CJI Chandrachud said, as quoted by LiveLaw.
Before a nine-judge bench, headed by Justice Chandrachud, commenced the hearing on a complex legal question arising from petitions, the CJI made the announcement.
He mentioned that now advocates will receive automated messages regarding case filings. Additionally, members of the bar will also receive cause lists on their mobile phones as soon as they are published.
“This facility and service will bring in a significant change in our daily work habits. It will go a long way in saving paper and our planet Earth,” Justice Chandrachud added, as per LiveLaw.
Speaking about the move, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “This is another revolutionary step.”
Justice Chandrachud also provided the official WhatsApp number of the Supreme Court and clarified that it will not be accepting any messages or calls.
“The Chief Justice of India also provided the official WhatsApp number of the Supreme Court and clarified that it will not be accepting any messages or calls,” he said.
Under the guidance of CJI Chandrachud, the Supreme Court has been actively pursuing the digitisation of judicial operations.
The CJI noted that the government has allocated ₹7,000 crore for the e-court project.
Mehta echoed the government’s commitment to digitising the judiciary to improve accessibility for litigants and lawyers.
(Courtesy:-Hindustan Times, 26 April 2024)