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 blasts yoga guru Ramdev over apology affidavit: ‘Lip service’
The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on Baba Ramdev for violating its directives on misleading advertisements of Patanjali’s medicinal products even as the yoga guru, who was present in court, tendered an unconditional apology.
Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved managing director Acharya Balkrishna were directed to appear in person in the Supreme Court in the contempt proceedings related to the misleading advertisements case.
“We are tendering an unconditional apology. He (Baba Ramdev) is here personally present to apologise,” the advocate representing Patanjali told the court.
The court, however, called it “lip service” and said that Patanjali “owes an apology to the whole nation” for their false claims about the efficacy of its products like Coronil and denigrating allopathy during the Covid pandemic. “You have broken every barrier… Now you say that you are sorry,” the court said.
The Supreme Court also pulled up the Centre. “Wondering why the Union chose to keep its eyes shut when Patanjali was going to town saying there was no remedies for Covid in allopathy,” the court said.
The Supreme Court granted a “last opportunity” to Baba Ramdev and Balkrishna, asking them to file fresh affidavits within a week.
The court also warned Ramdev and Balkrishna of perjury charges while noting that the documents submitted with the affidavit by Patanjali were created later on. “This is a clear case of perjury. We are not closing the doors on you, but we are telling you all that we have noted,” the court further said.
In the last hearing, the Supreme Court had pulled up Patanjali for failure in filing replies to the court’s notices on why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for prima facie violating the undertaking given to the court.
The Supreme Court had expressed its anger over Patanjali continuing to publish “false and misleading” advertisements on medicinal cures despite an undertaking that it would halt doing so.
A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had also issued a notice to Ramdev to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.
The top court had also directed Patanjali to stop all advertisements of its products that it claimed to treat ailments and disorders specified in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
“How can you be in teeth of our orders?… We had our hands tied earlier but not now (with initiation of contempt proceedings),” the court had told senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Patanjali Ayurved.
The top court made the remarks while hearing a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) seeking action against Baba Ramdev for criticising modern medicine.
After the Supreme Court rap, Patanjali Ayurved, in an affidavit, tendered an unconditional apology, stating that Patanjali’s intention was only to exhort the citizens of this country to lead a healthier life by using its products.
In November 2023, the Supreme Court asked Patanjali Ayurved to stop misleading claims and advertisements against the modern system of medicine. Patanjali had assured the court that it would not make any statements or unsubstantiated claims.
(Courtesy:- India Today, 2 April 2024)
AAP’s Sanjay Singh gets bail, ED tells Supreme Court it has no objection
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Sanjay Singh, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) last October in an alleged money laundering case linked to the now-scrapped Delhi liquor policy scam, was on Tuesday granted bail by the Supreme Court.
The court, however, said the “bail can’t be treated as precedent” as it heard the Rajya Sabha MP’s pleas seeking bail in the money laundering case, and also his arrest and subsequent ED remand.
The probe agency noted that it did not object to granting bail to the AAP leader during the pendency of proceedings arising out of an investigation report under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
His bail terms will be set by a trial court.
During the hearing today, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and PB Varalesaid that Sanjay Singh can also “continue with his political activities” during the bail period.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing on behalf of the ED, told the court that he has an “arguable case, but we can give a concession”.
“Without going into merits, I will make a concession in the bail matter…,” he added.
The bail order came hours after the court sought a reply from the probe agency after hearing arguments by senior lawyer, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared on behalf of Sanjay Singh. It noted that there were exculpatory statements by accused-turned-approver Dinesh Arora and no money had been recovered.
The bench observed that “nothing has been recovered, there is no trace” against Sanjay Singh in the money laundering case.
Sanjay Singh’s bail order came a day after Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was also arrested by the ED on Monday in connection to the same money laundering case linked to the now-scrapped liquor policy, was sent to 14-day custody until April 15 and is currently being held in Tihar Jail.
Kejriwal has been allotted Jail No. 2 in Tihar, where Sanjay Singh was earlier lodged following his arrest on October 4, 2023 after Dinesh Arora, the ED’s star witness, named the Delhi MP in his statement.
The other two AAP leaders currently in Tihar are former Delhi Ministers Manish Sisodia and Satyendar Jain.
In February, the Delhi High Court had refused to grant bail to Sanjay Singh, observing that there were no grounds for bail at that stage.
About a week later, the AAP leader moved the Supreme Court challenging the High Court order.
At the time of Sanjay Singh’s arrest, the Enforcement Directorate claimed that he was a key conspirator in the Delhi liquor policy scam and received Rs 2 crore proceeds of crime. The probe agency also said that he was closely associated with a number of accused or suspects in this case, including Dinesh Arora.
(Courtesy:- India Today, 2 April 2024)
Borrowing powers: No interim relief for Kerala govt in suit against Centre; SC refers case to Constitution bench
The Kerala Government on Monday failed to get any interim relief in its suit against the Centre over the limits on its borrowing powers, with a two-judge bench saying that it was prima facie “inclined to accept the Centre’s argument that where there is over utilisation of the borrowing limit in the previous year, to the extent of over borrowing, reductions are permissible in the subsequent year…”.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and K V Viswanathan said the suit raises several important questions that require consideration by a five-judge Constitution bench, and directed that it be placed before the Chief Justice of India for this.
The state government had approached the Supreme Court against the Centre imposing a ceiling on the amount it can borrow, saying this had “brought the operation of” its “budget…to a grave crisis” and was violative of the principles of fiscal federalism.
The bench noted that since Article 293 of the Constitution (which deals with borrowing by the states) “has not so far been subjected to any authoritative interpretation by this court”, therefore the questions raised in the suit “are referred for answering by a five judge bench”.
The court said that for the purpose of interim relief, it had considered the triple test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Declining interim relief, the bench also said that the balance of convenience at this stage lies in favour of the Union of India.
The court said it cannot be oblivious to the fact that in view of the contention of the plaintiff state regarding pending financial dues, the defendant Union has already made an offer to allow additional borrowing.
The bench said that even if it assumes that the financial hardship of the state is partly a result of the Centre’s regulations, during the course of hearing the interim application, the consent has been given by the Centre to some extent so as to bailout the state from the current crisis and the state has secured substantial relief during the pendency of the interim application.
After the state government approached the Supreme Court against the borrowing ceiling, the Centre in its response blamed Kerala’s financial woes on its “poor public financial management”. It told the apex court that it had been allotted substantial resources from central taxes and duties, the highest share of post-devolution Revenue Deficit Grant, financial support over and above the recommendations of the Finance Commission, and substantial transfer of resources under centrally sponsored schemes.
(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 2 April 2024)
Delhi HC Declares Haldiram As Well Known Trademark
The Delhi High Court recently declared Haldirams as a well known trademark.
Bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh heard a suit which sought protection of its mark ‘Haldiram’, and a declaration that the said mark, along with its variations such as ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ is ‘well-known’ in terms of Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The instant suit also sought decree of permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants, from selling products under the impugned mark ‘HALDIRAM’/ ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIWALA’ or any other marks that are deceptively similar.
The plaintiff averred to not only have multiple registrations for ‘Haldiram’s’ and its label in different classes within India, as detailed in part of their documents, but also boasts over 100 trade mark registrations internationally.
The Court held that the various registrations and a demonstrable long usage of the mark ‘Haldiram’, as also the goodwill vesting in the said mark, entitles the Plaintiff to a permanent injunction.
“Thus, the Defendants, and all others acting for and on their behalf are restrained from, in any manner, using the impugned marks ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ and/or ‘HALDIRAM’s’ or any other marks that are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s marks,” the Court said.
The Court further stated that There is no doubt that the Haldiram’s brand, with its origins deeply rooted in India’s rich culinary tradition, has not only established a presence within the national market but has also extended its influence globally, transcending geographical, cultural, and national boundaries.
“As evidenced by the documents placed on record, Plaintiff’s global footprint is indicative of the brand’s robust spill-over reputation, where the authenticity of ‘HALDIRAM’S’ products resonate with a diverse audience, including in those regions where the brand does not have legal presence,” the Court noted.
The Court granted decree of declaration declaring the mark ‘HALDIRAM’, as well as the Ovalshaped mark, as a ‘well-known’ mark in respect of food items as well as in respect of restaurants and eateries.
(Courtesy:- https://bwlegalworld.businessworld.in/, 3 April 2024)
Supreme Court upholds Amravati MP Navneet Rana’s caste certificate, sets aside Bombay HC verdict
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the caste certificate of BJP MP from Amravati, Navneet Rana, setting aside the previous verdict passed by the Bombay High Court.
The top court set aside the verdict of the Bombay High Court, which cancelled the caste certificate of Amravati MP and BJP leader Navneet Kaur Rana.
Allowing the plea of Rana, a bench comprising justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol said the high court should not have interfered with the report of the scrutiny committee on the issue of caste certificate of Rana.
Rana was accused of fabricating documents to obtain scheduled caste certificate to fight the 2019 Lok Sabha elections as an independent from reserved constituency of Amravati.
On June 8, 2021, the high court had said the ‘mochi’ caste certificate was obtained fraudulently using fabricated documents by Rana. It had also imposed a fine of ₹2 lakh on the Amravati MP, saying the records indicated that she belonged to the ‘Sikh-Chamar’ caste.
Previously, the Bombay High Court ruled that the terms ‘Chamar’ and ‘Sikh Chamar’ were not synonymous.
The High Court said in 2021, “In our view, the terms ‘Chamar’ and ‘Sikh Chamar’ are not synonymous. The terms ‘Sikh Chamar’ is also not synonymous with the term ‘Mochi’ prescribed under entry 11 to the Schedule II to the Constitution of India (Scheduled Caste), Order 1950.”
Navneet Rana won from the reserved Amravati constituency in Maharashtra in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, and recently joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). She will be contesting from the Amravati seat once again, and expressed confidence for the upcoming polls before filing her nomination.
Rana told ANI, “I have been working for the people of my region for many years. This is a big day for me and my constituency. This is the first time that voters in Amravati are getting a chance to vote for the nation-building, development and benefit of the nation.”
“The people of my constituency are happier than me. They are happy that for the first time, the lotus symbol will appear on the ballot box. The people will directly support and vote for Prime Minister Narendra Modi,” she added.
(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 4 April 2024)
Supreme Court stays Allahabad high court’s decision to scrap UP Madrassa law
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed Allahabad high court’s order striking down UP Board of Madrassa Education Act. The top court said the high court’s judgement would affect the 17
lakh students, and it is of the view that the direction of relocation of students to other schools was not warranted.
The three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud issued notices to the Centre, Uttar Pradesh government and others on the pleas against the high court order. A bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud said though the state has a legitimate interest in ensuring quality education for students to enable them earn a degree for dignified pursuit of profession, adding that the high court was prima facie wrong in striking down a legislation which was only regulatory in nature.
“The object and purpose of Madrassa board is regulatory in nature and Allahabad high court is not prima facie correct that establishment of board will breach secularism. It (High Court judgement) conflates Madrassa education with the regulatory powers entrusted with the Board… The impugned judgment shall remain stayed,” the top court said.
On March 22, the Allahabad high court had ruled that the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrassa Education Act, 2004, is “unconstitutional” and infringes upon the principle of secularism. The court directed the state government to integrate current students into the formal education system.
(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 5 April 2024)
Supreme Court grants bail to activist Shoma Kanti Sen in Elgar Parishad case
Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to Nagpur University’s former professor Shoma Sen in Elgar-Parishad case. A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih ordered her release on bail, subject to conditions deemed appropriate by the special court.
The top court allowed bail on certain conditions including she shall not leave state of Maharashtra without permission of the special court, surrender her passport, inform NIA about her residence, inform NIA officer about her mobile number and maintain that number remains active and charged.
The court mandated that the GPS on her mobile must remain active and her phone must be paired with that of the NIA officer to ascertain her location. “During this period, that is the period during which she remains on bail, the appellant shall keep the location status, that is GPS of her mobile phone, active 24 hours a day and her phone shall be paired with that of the investigating officer of the NIA to enable him at any given time to identify the appellant’s exact location,” the bench said.
Sen, a professor of English literature and a prominent advocate for women’s rights, was detained in connection with a case concerning alleged inflammatory speeches delivered during the Elgar Parishad gathering at Shaniwarwada in Pune on December 31, 2017.
The police asserted that these speeches incited violence near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial on the outskirts of the city the following day. The investigation into the matter, which has named over a dozen activists and scholars as suspects, was later transferred to the National Investigation Agency.
(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 5 April 2024)
Supreme Court stays order cancelling MBBS admission of panipuri seller’s son
In an interim relief, the Supreme Court Friday temporarily stayed an order that cancelled the admission of a panipuri seller’s son at a medical college following a dispute over his caste certificate. With the stay, the MBBS student can be readmitted to the course and can continue with his studies for the time being.
A division bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra granted interim relief to MBBS student Alpeshkumar Rathod and issued notice to the state and college authorities.
On March 26, a division bench of the Gujarat High Court had cast aspersions on the validity of the student’s Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC) category certificate and had upheld the cancellation of admission by the Admission Committee for Professional Medical Educational Courses and the Government Medical College at Vadodara. The HC had then observed that an exception cannot be made out for a student and rule of law has to prevail.
Rathod, an Uttar Pradesh native but now with domicile status of Gujarat, was granted provisional admission subject to verification of documents. Claiming to be from ‘Teli’ sub-caste, which is classified as an SEBC category in Gujarat, the student had submitted a caste certificate dated August 20, 2018. However, following a scrutiny, the admission committee had cancelled the caste certificate terming it to be “incorrect” as he did not belong to the Teli caste of SEBC community in Gujarat, but rather to Teli — an OBC category in Uttar Pradesh. The cancellation was not challenged by Rathod.
With the caste certificate cancelled, his admission, too, was discontinued by the Government Medical College at Vadodara, affiliated to MSU, in September 2023.
The student then moved the High Court seeking his admission be reinstated by shifting his category from SEBC to general category as he had secured a good rank in the open category of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Undergraduate) and hence, was eligible to be admitted to a medical college.
A single judge order of the High Court had permitted the same by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, on grounds of equity. The single judge’s order was then challenged by the admission committee of the college before a division bench of the HC. The High Court overturned the single judge’s order and upheld the cancellation.
(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 5 April 2024)
Police tutoring witnesses shocking, says Supreme Court, asks Tamil Nadu DGP to take action against erring cops
Terming “teaching” of witnesses in a criminal case inside a police station as “shocking”, the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Tamil Nadu police chief to conduct an enquiry and initiate action against the erring officials.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, which set aside the order of conviction and life sentence to two accused in a murder case, said it is surprising that both the trial court and the high court overlooked the critical aspect of tutoring of the witnesses in the case.
“One can reasonably imagine the effect of ‘teaching’ the witnesses inside a police station. This is a blatant act by the police to tutor the material prosecution witnesses. All of them were interested witnesses.
“Their evidence will have to be discarded as there is a distinct possibility that the said witnesses were tutored by the police on the earlier day. This kind of interference by the police with the judicial process, to say the least, is shocking,” the bench said in an order.
It added police cannot be allowed to tutor prosecution witnesses as it amounts to gross misuse of power by the police machinery.
“The Director General of Police of the state of Tamil Nadu shall cause an enquiry to be made into the conduct of the police officials of tutoring PW-1 to PW-5 (prosecution witnesses) at the concerned police station. Needless to add, appropriate action shall be initiated against the erring officials in accordance with the law,” the bench ordered.
It added the conduct of police officials became more serious as other eyewitnesses in the case, though available, were withheld.
“We are surprised that both the courts overlooked this critical aspect. It is pertinent to note that the defence of the accused, as can be seen from the line of cross-examination, was that they were not present at the place of the incident at the time of the incident,” it noted.
The bench said a prosecution witness has admitted that one of the two accused was working in another village called Tirrupur, and although independent witnesses in the case were available, they were not examined by the prosecution.
“Therefore, adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution. Hence, there is a serious doubt created about the genuineness of the prosecution case. The benefit of this substantial doubt must be given to the appellants,” it said.
The bench noted that before the appellants were enlarged on bail by the top court, they had undergone incarceration for more than 10 years.
The two accused, Manikandan and Sivakumar, were alleged to have killed a person named Balamurugan on October 4, 2007.
Balamurugan was killed after a scuffle which arose over the delivery of idlis at his home by Manikandan.
(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 5 April 2024)
SC rejects plea seeking reburial of Pak sufi saint buried in Bangladesh
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea seeking its intervention to transport the mortal remains of a Sufi saint — a Pakistani citizen who died in Bangladesh — for reburial to India where he was born.
A three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said there was no constitutionally enforceable right to demand that the remains of a foreign citizen be brought to a country of which he or she is not a citizen, for the purpose of reburial.
“There are difficulties which lie in the path of entertaining a petition under Article 32 of this nature. He was admittedly a Pakistani citizen. There is no enforceable constitutional right which the petitioners can claim for the transport of the mortal remains from Dhaka, where he is buried, to India. Apart from the practical difficulties and issues such as exhumation, we are of the view that as a matter of first principle, it would not be either appropriate or lawful for this court to direct that the body of a person who admittedly was a citizen of a foreign state be brought for… ceremonies to India,” the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said in its order..
The counsel appearing for the petitioners told the bench that Hazrat Shah Muhammad Abdul Muqtadir Shah Masood Ahmad was born in Prayagraj, but migrated to Pakistan in 1992 and was conferred with Pakistani citizenship. He was elected Sajjada Nasheen of the Dargah Hazrat Mulla Syed Mohammad Shah in Prayagraj in February 2008. He executed a will on March 8, 2021 expressing A desire to be buried at the shrine. He died on January 21, 2022 during a visit to Dhaka and was buried there. The counsel added that the grave of the saint in Dhaka is not tended to.
She contended that if the Pakistan government is not raising any objection and if the government of Bangladesh allows the exhumation, the question is whether the Central government would permit the transportation of the body to India for the purpose of reburial.
The counsel said she had been writing to the government of India for two years but had not received any response and urged the SC to direct the authorities to furnish a reply to the representation.
“But there is no substance in it. How can anybody who is not a citizen of India either his family or followers of the group say that we want him to be buried here? That person is a foreign citizen,” the CJI reiterated adding the court would have still understood it if the deceased was an NRI.
(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 6 April 2024)
Chandigarh mayoral poll returning officer tenders apology to Supreme Court
Facing the prospect of being prosecuted for unlawfully invalidating eight AAP votes to rig the elections in favour of BJP candidate in Chandigarh mayor election, the polling officer Anil Masih on Friday tendered “unconditional apology” to the Supreme Court and “surrendered to the court’s magnanimity” while requesting for reprieve.
For Masih, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said the person has tendered unconditional apology and is surrendering to the court’s magnanimity to seek reprieve from prosecution. But, this was
stoutly opposed by AAP’s senior advocate A M Singhvi, who said it is easy to apologise after defiantly breaching the SC order and even justifying the action polluting free and fair elections.
The bench appeared to be in a mood to forgive, but with Singhvi insisting, it simply adjourned the hearing to next week. The SC on February 20 had declared AAP’s Kuldeep Kumar elected as mayor of Chandigarh and struck down the election of BJP’s Manoj Sonkar. For the unlawful invalidation of eight AAP votes, the SC has initiated prosecution proceedings against Masih. Masih also said he would withdraw the earlier affidavit which stated that he was reeling under depression and anxiety, and wherein he denied allegations of tampering with ballots.
The apex court had earlier issued a notice to Masih to show cause as to why proceedings should not be initiated against him under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for allegedly making false statement before the court.
(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 6 April 2024)
*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
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 31 December to 6 January 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 7 January to 13 January 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 14 January to 20 January 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 21 January to 27 January 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 28 January to 3 February 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 4 February to 10 February 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 11 February to 17 February 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 18 February to 24 February 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 25 February to 2 March 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 3 March to 9 March 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 10 March to 16 March 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 17 March to 23 March 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 24 March to 30 March 2024)