Weekly Legal Updates (8 October to 14 October 2023)

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 directs all State Information Commissions to provide hybrid hearings

The Supreme Court on Monday issued directives to all State Information Commissions to offer hybrid hearings for complaints and appeals, emphasising the essential role of technology in ensuring access to justice for the general public.

A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stated, “The use of technology is no longer an option. Properly deployed for the purpose of hybrid or virtual hearings, technology has the potential to ensure access to justice by eliminating the need for citizens to travel long distances to secure their right to be heard. Access to justice is a fundamental right under Article 21 and a necessary commitment to freedom of speech.”

The bench also stressed the importance of technology in ensuring access to justice by reducing the necessity for citizens to travel great distances to be heard. Furthermore, the bench instructed state information commissions to streamline e-filing for all litigants.

The court further directed that links for hybrid hearings must be included in the daily cause list.

The court directed all state and central ministries to compile the email addresses of the Central and State Public Information Officers (PIOs) within one month and provide them to all State Information Commissions and the Central Information Commission (CIC).

The order stated, “The Department of Personnel and Training shall convene a meeting within a month of all State and Central Information Commissioners to prepare a timeline to adhere to these directives. State governments shall provide funds wherever required.”

Last week, the Supreme Court urged all high courts and tribunals to embrace technology and emphasised that online hearings should continue. Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasised the importance of judges being tech-friendly and receiving training in technology. He stated, “Technology is no longer a matter of choice; it is as essential as law books. Without technology, how would the courts function?”

(Courtesy:- India Today, 9 October 2023)

In Big Relief, Supreme Court Allows NCP’s Mohammed Faizal To Continue As MP

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Kerala High Court order refusing to suspend the conviction of Lakshadweep politician Mohammed Faizal in an attempt to murder case and also permitted him to continue his membership as a parliamentarian.

A bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol also issued notice to the concerned respondents on the Mohammed Faizal plea.

The Supreme court while staying the Kerala HC order dated October 3 this year said, “The interim order passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner in remand order is made operational.”

On August 22, the Supreme court remanded the matter to the High Court to reconsider Mohammed Faizal’s plea again but with a clarification that the benefit of the suspension of conviction order would continue for Mohammed Faizal till the High Court decides it again. Hence the Supreme court has permitted Mohammed Faizal to continue as a Lakshadweep MP.

Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) Member of Parliament Mohammed Faizal has moved the Supreme Court against the Kerala High Court order rejecting his plea seeking suspension of his conviction in an attempt to murder case.

Kerala High Court on October 3 dismissed his plea seeking suspension of his conviction in the attempt to muder case. Mohammed Faizal now challenged said High Court’s order in the Supreme Court.

In consequence of the Kerala HC order, Mohammed Faizal has been disqualified from the Lok Sabha after the Kerala High Court rejected his plea in an attempt to murder case.

This is the second time for the NCP MP that his Lok Sabha membership has been disqualified. In January this year, he was disqualified from the lower house of Parliament, over his conviction in a case along with four others for an attempt to murder, 

However, his disqualification was revoked in March after the Kerala High Court stayed his conviction in a criminal case. But the Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the High Court to consider it afresh.

Earlier, the Kavaratti Sessions Court had convicted four persons, including Mohammed Faizal. Thereafter, The UT Administration of Lakshadweep moved the Supreme Court challenging the Kerala High Court order, which suspended the conviction of Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal in the attempt to murder case.

According to the prosecution, Mohammed Faizal led a group of people to attack and grievously injure Salih over an argument about constructing a shed. The victim had been flown to Kerala where he remained hospitalised for months.

(Courtesy:- NDTV, 10 October 2023)

Mere Registration of Will Not Enough to Assign It Validity: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said mere registration of a will would not be sufficient to prove its validity, as its lawful execution necessarily has to be proved in accordance with section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar said it is well settled that mere registration would not sanctify a document by attaching to it an irrebuttable presumption of genuineness.

The court cited the SC’s judgement in the case of Janki Narayan Bhoir vs Narayan Namdeo Kadam (2003), wherein it was held that, to prove that a will has been executed, the requirements in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 63 of the Succession Act have to be complied with.

It was pointed out that the most important point is that the will “has to be attested by two or more witnesses and each of these witnesses must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or must have seen some other person sign the document in the presence of and by the direction of the testator or must have received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark or of the signature or mark of such other person and each of the witnesses has to sign the will in the presence of the testator”.

It was further held that a person propounding a will has to prove that it was duly and validly executed and that cannot be done by simply proving that the signature on the will was that of the testator, as the propounder must also prove that the attestations were made properly, as required by section 63(c) of the Succession Act, the bench added.

The top court dismissed an appeal filed by Dhani Ram through legal representatives and others against the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s judgement of 2009 restoring the trial court’s decision which disbelieved the will put forth by the appellants.

Leela Devi, also referred to as Leela Wati, died on December 10, 1987. Her husband, Sohan Lal, had predeceased her. Dhani Ram, the son of Leela Devi’s brother, claimed that she executed a registered will bequeathing to him the properties left by late Sohan Lal. Shiv Singh, the son of Sohan Lal’s brother, instituted a civil suit in Solan, Himachal Pradesh, challenging the will executed by Leela Devi, under which Dhani Ram claimed entitlement to the properties that originally belonged to Sohan Lal.

The top court, however, found Dhani Ram failed to prove the execution of the will in terms of the mandatory legal requirements, so Shiv Singh would be entitled to succeed to the properties by way of intestate succession under section 15 of the Act of 1956, as rightly held by the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

Leela Devi allegedly executed the will on October 27, 1987, got it registered on November 3, 1987, and expired on December 10, 1987. Therefore, she lived for barely a month and a half after the execution of the will.

The bench said that compliance with the essential legal requirements, in terms of sections 68 and 71 of the Evidence Act and section 63 of the Succession Act, was not established in order to prove the execution of the will.

It pointed out that section 68 of the Evidence Act requires at least one attesting witness to the will to prove its execution in terms of section 63 of the Succession Act, but it is clear that neither witness Lok Nath Attri nor another witness Chaman Lal passed muster in satisfying this requirement.

In consequence, section 71 of the Evidence Act had a role to play in the matter, as one attesting witness, Chaman Lal, denied the very execution of the document in his presence while the other attesting witness, Lok Nath Attri, did not establish its execution in terms of the legal mandate. It was, therefore, incumbent upon Dhani Ram to lead other evidence to prove the execution of the will by Leela Devi. However, neither Ghanshyam Dutt Sharma, the document writer who scribed the will, nor anyone from the Registrar’s Office at Kasauli was examined to prove its execution, the bench said.

(Courtesy:- News18, 10 October 2023)

Kamduni rape case: SC issues notice on Bengal govt’s plea challenging Calcutta HC’s verdict

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices on the Bengal government’s appeal challenging Calcutta High Court’s October 6 judgment acquitting one of the death row convicts and directing the release of three other convicts in the 2013 gang rape and murder of a college student in Kamduni village.

The notices were issued to all convicts who have been let off with a lenient view by the high court.

The three-judge apex court bench of Justice Bhushan Gavai, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Prashant Mishra agreed to examine the state’s plea that the high court has not only “given a complete go-by to the nature of the offence but has proceeded to unreasonably attach undue importance to the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused persons”.

Standing counsel for the state in the apex court, Astha Sharma, submitted: “The Hon’ble High Court has not only discredited the prosecution story and chain of events that demonstrated prior concert and a conspiracy which would make each and every member of the group equally liable for all the acts committed, but has rather gone on an imprudent fact-finding mission to examine whether the brutality of the offence is severe enough to come within the definition of ‘rarest of rare’ case and thus qualify the accused persons for ‘Death Penalty’.

“Thus, the Hon’ble High Court has erroneously given a complete go-by to the nature of the offence but has proceeded to unreasonably attach undue importance to the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused persons.”

The state also said that in this case, the high court “completely failed to appreciate there is existence of circumstantial evidence, which are closely associated with the fact in issue which, taken together form a chain of circumstances from which existence of principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed, i.e. intention to rape the victim. Following chain of events cumulatively demonstrate that there was motive and conspiracy to commit the rape on the victim girl.”

It was submitted that the victim’s body was recovered by relatives and neighbours with clothes torn and gruesome injuries, displaying evident signs of sexual assault, the same evening and the accused were known to constantly harass women in the area.

“The brutal, barbaric and diabolic nature of the crime is evincible from the acts committed by the accused persons, and which shook the collective consciences of the society. Vide the Impugned Order, the Hon’ble High Court has significantly watered down the punishment of the accused persons on the following premise, i.e., (i) Absence of prior concert to murder and rape the victim girl; (ii)Nature of injuries not ‘extensive’ or ‘brutal’ on the victim. (iii)Possibility of the accused persons reforming,” the state has said.

“It is submitted that approach adopted by the Hon’ble High Court to discredit the story of the Prosecution is ultra-hyper-technical and pedantic and not in consonance with the principle of circumstantial evidence which focuses on attending circumstances or chain of events from which existence of principal fact can be reasonably inferred or presumed.”

On October 6, a division bench of the high court had acquitted a death row convict in the rape and murder case — Amin Ali — on the grounds of want of evidence.

Aminur Islam, Emanul Islam and Bholanath Naskar, who had been sentenced to life by the trial court, were also allowed to walk free after the high court remitted their sentences to seven years’ imprisonment, which they have already served.

The division bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Ajay Kumar Gupta also commuted the death sentences of two other convicts — Saiful Ali and Ansar Ali — to rigorous life imprisonment.

The gruesome incident occurred in the afternoon of June 7, 2013, when the student, who was returning from college, was gang-raped and murdered on an abandoned plot outside Kamduni.

(Courtesy:- The Telegraph Online, 10 October 2023)

SC junks Congress petition, says won’t cast doubts on EC’s EVM scrutiny

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea by Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee alleging irregularities in the Election Commission’s ‘tearing hurry’ in the scrutiny of Electronic Voting Machines, which were criticised postresults by opposition parties, and said it would not cast any
doubts over the process.

Appearing for DPCC president Anil Kumar, who accused EC of unwarrantedly advancing the first level checking of EVMs for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections for July 15 and 30 this year, senior advocate Narender Hooda said the EC gave a very short notice for participation of political parties in the scrutiny, thus depriving the DPCC of engaging booth level agents for the purpose.

A bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud, Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said, “It is not a case for our interference. You (Congress) decided to stay away while other parties participated in the process. If we interfere, it will delay the entire process.”

When Hooda persisted by arguing that the representations/complaints by Delhi Congress about non-furnishing of the unique identification numbers assigned to each EVMs did not evoke any response from the EC, the bench said, “We are not going to cast any doubt on the process, which is a very detailed one and parties have expressed faith in it. It is replicated across India. We will not interfere.

Referring to the Delhi high court’s order dismissing Anil Kumar’s petition, the bench said the HC had considered all the issues relating to the process in detail. “Participation of political parties in the EVM scrutiny is part of the process. If one party does not participate, it does not vitiate the process.”

Kumar’s plea had said, “The procedure for first level checking and initial preparatory meetings were commenced almost nine months before and completed. The instructions issued by EC become redundant in this regard. Parties could not prepare for the FLC and were not in position to instruct the BLAs or engage properly trained persons to participate in the FLC process.”

Supreme Court ‘respects’ 82-year-old’s wish to not die a divorcee, nixes hubby plea to split

More than two decades of legal battle for divorce sought by a former IAF officer, now 89 years old, culminated with the Supreme Court “respecting” the sentiments of the wife, 82, who contended that she did not want to die a divorcee, and rejected the plea of termination of marriage.

The couple, based in Chandigarh and married for 60 years, tied the knot in 1963 and their marital life was normal till the IAF officer got transferred to then Madras in January 1984. The acrimony in
their relationship developed when the wife did not join him, and preferred to stay initially with her in-laws and thereafter with her son.

Despite efforts by the parties, the differences and disputes could not be resolved, which ultimately led the husband to file divorce proceedings in 1996 against the wife who is a retired teacher. The legal proceedings went on for 23 years from the trial court to Punjab and Haryana high court and finally the Supreme Court.

As the husband failed to prove the charge of cruelty or that she had deserted him, he urged the court to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to allow divorce as the marriage had “broken down completely”. But the wife urged the court not to allow his plea as she did not want to leave the world with the “stigma of a divorcee”.

The court said one should not be oblivious to the fact that the institution of marriage occupies an important place and plays an key role in society.

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 12 October 2023)

Pregnancy termination: Pro-life or pro-choice? Split in Supreme Court bench of 2 women judges

The Supreme Court, which has traditionally been pro-life, was split Wednesday over choosing between stopping the heart of an over 26-week-old healthy fetus and the choice of its carrier, a married woman, to terminate the pregnancy which is impermissible under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and B V Nagarathna, which on Monday had unanimously agreed to permit termination of the pregnancy, reconvened on Wednesday after ASG Aishwarya Bhati
conveyed an email from an AIIMS professor, a member of the board constituted at the court’s instance, seeking clarity on whether the doctors were to stop the heart of the viable fetus, or
deliver the premature child who would grow up with multiple health complications.

The woman, who had petitioned the SC to allow termination of her pregnancy as it was impermissible because of the 24-week rule under the MTP Act, remained firm before the bench that she did not want to continue with her pregnancy citing her own ill-health, inability to take care of her two children and the financial situation at her home.

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 12 October 2023)

SC doubts arbitration judgment on stamping

A seven-judge bench on Wednesday expressed its doubt on the correctness of a Supreme Court ruling in April that held an arbitration clause is void and not enforceable in law if the agreement is unstamped or insufficiently stamped, observing that stamping has nothing to do with validity of an agreement.

“The requirements under the Stamp Act have nothing to do with validity of a contract but it’s only on enforceability… An unstamped agreement is not invalid. The law is clear that a non-stamped or an insufficiently stamped agreement cannot be called in evidence…that’s all,” said the bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud. The bench also comprised justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Bhushan R Gavai, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

It added that provisions of the Contract Act will make it clear that any lacuna in stamping of an agreement does not render the document invalid but it can only impact its admissibility as evidence and consequently, its enforceability.

“It will be directly contrary to the statute (Contract Act) to hold otherwise. The statute makes it clear that non-stamping won’t make it invalid. The cloud on its admissibility can be lifted by paying a penalty or under the procedure prescribed under law,” the bench further remarked.

The larger bench is considering a curative petition to overrule the April 25 judgment by a five-judge bench. The April verdict, by 3:2 majority, relied on the 1899 Indian Stamps Act that required certain agreements to be compulsorily registrable or chargeable to stamp duty when it held that a court could go into the aspects of stamping and other compliances before the arbitrator is appointed. According to the majority view, a court is bound to examine the instrument at a pre-appointment stage, and if it is found to be unstamped or insufficiently stamped, the instrument is to be impounded at that stage, declaring the arbitration agreement to be void.

The ruling sparked serious concerns over causing further delays in the appointment of arbitrators by adding one more layer of scrutiny, besides being contrary to India’s pro-arbitration stance.

Experts welcomed the Supreme Court’s intervention. “First, an arbitration agreement is not an instrument included in the Schedule to the Stamp Act as being chargeable to stamp duty. Second, insufficient stamp duty or non-payment of stamp duty is a curable defect. Therefore, if two parties have recorded in writing their intention to solve disputes by way of arbitration, it should not be blockaded solely on grounds of an alleged defect, which too is curable in nature,” Divyam Agarwal, partner, J Sagar Associates (JSA), said.

Agarwal added that holding this to be the position would be detrimental to India’s push to project itself as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction, by presenting arbitration as being a faster and credible alternative to the traditional court-based justice delivery system.

On September 26, the top court preferred a seven-judge bench, citing the “limitless uncertainty in the area of arbitration” triggered by its April ruling. “Having regard to the larger ramifications and consequences of the view of the majority in the NM Global case, these proceedings should be placed before a seven-judge bench to reconsider the correctness of the view of the five-judge bench,” the order of reference to the seven-judge bench had stated.

Opening the arguments on behalf of the petitioners seeking review, senior counsel Arvind Datar on Wednesday contended that the majority in the NM Global Case erred in conflating the issue of an agreement being unenforceable with its being void.

“The parliamentary mandate under the Arbitration Act is clear that a court does not need to worry about the validity of an agreement but has to only see whether there is an arbitration agreement or not. The purpose of such a provision is to expedite arbitration. Judicial pit stops have to be very limited. The court need not go into the stamping of the agreement at all. It is contrary to the legislative mandate of the arbitration law as well as the Contract Act,” Datar argued.

During the proceedings, the top court also clarified that its review of the matter will confine to the stage and the correct forum for deciding the validity and enforceability of an arbitration agreement. “The real issue is the stage and the forum where the question of stamping of an arbitration agreement needs to be decided. We are not on whether such an agreement should or should not be stamped,” observed the seven-judge bench that will continue hearing the matter on Thursday.

The court ruling on April 24 had come while deciding a bundle of judgments since 2011, taking divergent views on the enforceability of arbitration clauses contained in unstamped or insufficiently stamped agreements.

The majority judgment cited the mandate of the Stamps Act to hold that “an instrument which is chargeable to stamp duty may contain an arbitration clause and which is not stamped cannot be said to be a contract enforceable in law”.The two other judges on the bench, comprising the minority, flagged concerns that the view taken by the majority in the judgment has the propensity of frustrating the objective of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as a scrutiny on the stamp duty at the threshold can stall the process and will lead to procedural complexity and delay in litigation before courts.

(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 12 October 2023)

Supreme Court extends interim bail of former Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik in money laundering case

The Supreme Court Thursday extended by three months the temporary bail granted to former Maharashtra minister and NCP leader Nawab Malik on medical grounds in a money laundering case, pending his plea seeking bail on health grounds. A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Dipankar Datta passed the order on Thursday.

On August 11, a bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi granted temporary bail on medical grounds for two months after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), did not object to it. “We are passing the order strictly on medical conditions and have not entered into merits,” the SC had clarified.

The Bombay High Court on July 13 rejected a plea by Malik seeking bail on health grounds in the money laundering case. His plea seeking bail on merits is pending before the court.

Malik had sought relief from the HC, claiming he was suffering from a chronic kidney disease apart from various other ailments. The HC had held that since there were no compelling reasons warranting interim medical bail, it was denied to him.

Malik thus approached the SC seeking medical bail.The ED arrested the former minister in February last year in a money laundering case registered over the Goawala compound property in Kurla, allegedly linked to fugitive gangster Dawood Ibrahim. Malik had been in judicial custody since March 2022. He was admitted to Criticare Hospital in Kurla, Mumbai, in May 2022 and continued to be in hospital till his release as per SC order.

The ED has been investigating Malik for a property deal that he allegedly entered into with Haseena Parkar, sister of Dawood Ibrahim. There are allegations that Malik bought the 3 acres of land at Goawala Compound on LBS Marg in Kurla, Mumbai, for Rs 85 lakh, of which Rs 30 lakh was shown in the sale agreement and the rest was paid in cash.

The ED had alleged that the registered value of the property was much lower than the prevailing market rate.

(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 12 October 2023)

‘Re-educate yourself’: SC dismisses plea challenging Darwin’s theory of evolution, Einstein’s E=MC²

The Supreme Court Friday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and Einstein’s theory of special relativity that expresses the equivalence of mass and energy (E=MC²).

As the PIL came for a hearing, petitioner Raj Kumar, who came to the courtroom clad in saffron clothes, said he had studied in his school and college about Darwin’s theory and Einstein but found them incorrect and, therefore, should not be taught in educational institutions.

Replying to the petitioner’s contention, the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia said: “Then you go re-educate yourself or make your own theory. We cannot compel anyone to unlearn. Dismissed.”

The top court stated that there cannot be a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to challenge scientific beliefs.

“This cannot be a writ petition under article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which has to deal with the issues of fundamental rights,” the bench said. “If you believe that those theories were wrong, then the Supreme Court has nothing to do. What is the violation of your fundamental right under Article 32?” the bench remarked.

The Theory of Evolution, proposed by the English naturalist Darwin, explains that all living beings evolved through natural selection. Einstein’s famous equation E = mc2 says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable.

(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 13 October 2023)

Shiv Sena-UBT disqualification plea: CJI says Speaker cannot defeat orders of Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India on Friday came down heavily on the Maharashtra assembly Speaker for the prolonged delay in reaching a decision on the disqualification plea concerning chief minister Eknath Shinde and several Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs). “Somebody has to advise the Speaker that he cannot defeat the orders of the Supreme Court,” a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said and asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to apprise the court about the
timeline for deciding the issue.

Expressing evident displeasure, the Chief Justice stated that the decision regarding the disqualification petitions should be made before the upcoming assembly elections; otherwise, the entire process would become futile. The bench warned that if it finds the Speaker’s proposed timeline unsatisfactory, it would issue a directive for the decision to be made within a period of two months. “The writ of this court has to run when there is a decision contrary to the Constitution of India,” the bench said, indicating that it may hear the plea on Monday or Tuesday.

Notably, on September 18, the top court had directed the Maharashtra assembly speaker to spell out the timeline for adjudication of the disqualification petitions against Shinde and other MLAs.

(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 13 October 2023)

Supreme Court fines man Rs 5 lakh for challenging high court chief justice’s oath

The Supreme Court has imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on a man for claiming in a PIL that the oath taken by the Bombay High Court chief justice was “defective”, and said it was a frivolous attempt to gain publicity.

A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said the oath having been administered by the Governor and having been subscribed to after the administration of the oath, such objections cannot be raised.

The top court said this was only a frivolous attempt to use the PIL jurisdiction to propagate some publicity for the petitioner.

“The petitioner does not, as he possibly cannot, dispute that the oath of office was administered to the correct person. The oath having been administered by the Governor and having been subscribed to after the administration of the oath, such objections cannot be raised.

“We are clearly of the view that such frivolous PILs occupy the time and attention of the Court thereby deflecting the attention of the court from more serious matters and consuming the infrastructure of the judicial manpower and Registry of the Court,” the bench also comprising Justice JB Padriwala and Justice Manoj Misra said.

It said the time has come when the court should impose exemplary costs in such frivolous PILs.

“We accordingly dismiss the petition with costs of Rs 5,00,000, which shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks,” the bench said.

The apex court said that if the cost is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the same shall be collected as arrears of land revenue through the Collector and District Magistrate at Lucknow.

The top court was hearing a PIL filed by Ashok Pandey contending that he is aggrieved by what he described as a ‘defective oath’ administered to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

The petitioner stated that the Chief Justice did not use the expression “I” before his name while taking the oath, in contravention of the Third Schedule of the Constitution. He also contended that the representatives and administrator of the Government of the Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Dadar and Nagar Haveli were not invited to the oath ceremony.

(Courtesy:- India Today, 14 October 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

Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (30 April 2023 to 6 May 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 7 May 2023 to 13 May 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 14 May 2023 to 20 May 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (21 May to 27 May 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (28 May to 3 June 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (4 June to 10 June 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (11 June to 17 June 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (18 June to 24 June 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (25 June to 1 July 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (2 July to 8 July 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (9 July to 15 July 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (16 July to 22 July 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (23 July to 29 July 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (30 July to 5 August 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (6 August to 12 August 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (13 August to 19 August 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (20 August to 26 August 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (27 August to 2 September 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (3 September to 9 September 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (10 September to 16 September 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (17 September to 23 September 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (24 September to 30 September 2023)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates (1 October to 7 October 2023)

Leave a Comment