Legopolis

The Allahabad High Court has acquitted an accused who had been sentenced to 15 years imprisonment and fine under POCSO Act and SC/ST Act in Kamasin police station area of Banda district. A single-judge bench of Justice Samit Gopal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by Krishnakant. The Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”) has been filed by the accused appellant Krishnakant against the order dated 30.11.2017 passed in Special Criminal Case convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) to 15 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs 15,000, under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”) to 15 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs 15,000, under Section 3 (1) 11 SC/ST Act to 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a petition filed by All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen President Asadduddin Owaisi, challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant bail to two persons, who attacked his convoy in Uttar Pradesh in February this year. The two-Judge Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari issued notice on the aspect as to why the High Court should not be asked to consider the bail plea afresh. The Apex Court fixed November 11 as the next date of hearing. The convoy of the Lok Sabha MP from Hyderabad had come under attack in Hapur in Uttar Pradesh, while he was returning after attending events related to campaigning for the Rajya Sabha elections. One of the accused was arrested within 24 hours of the incident, while the other one surrendered later. They were identified as Shubham, native of Nakur in Saharanpur and Sachin, resident of Badalpur in Gautam Buddh Nagar. According to police, the accused said they were triggered by the

The Supreme Court rejected on Friday a petition filed against installing the State Emblem atop the Central Vista building, claiming that its design was in violation of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition Against Improper Use) Act, 2005. The Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari said that they have seen the emblem and found it not violative of the law. The Court remarked that the impression the emblem gives depends on the mind of the person. It was a matter of perception, not violation. The Bench said in its order that the Court has gone through the emblem of which grievance is made, and can say that it is not in contravention with the Act. The petition was filed by Advocates Aldanish Rein and Ramesh Kumar Mishra, who believed that the lions portrayed in the emblem inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi appear ferocious and aggressive with open mouth and visible canines, in contrast with the State Emblem preserved in the Sarnath Museum, where the lions seem

The Supreme Court rejected on Friday a petition filed against installing the State Emblem atop the Central Vista building, claiming that its design was in violation of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition Against Improper Use) Act, 2005. The Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari said that they have seen the emblem and found it not violative of the law. The Court remarked that the impression the emblem gives depends on the mind of the person. It was a matter of perception, not violation. The Bench said in its order that the Court has gone through the emblem of which grievance is made, and can say that it is not in contravention with the Act. The petition was filed by Advocates Aldanish Rein and Ramesh Kumar Mishra, who believed that the lions portrayed in the emblem inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi appear ferocious and aggressive with open mouth and visible canines, in contrast with the State Emblem preserved in the Sarnath Museum, where the lions seem

Former Chief Justices of India (CJI), Justice Dipak Misra and Justice T.S. Thakur, have been appointed as the arbitrators in the dispute between the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) and Afcons Gunanusa. Justice Dipak Misra, Justice TS Thakur, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, ONGC, Afcons Gunanusa, The Supreme Court was apprised about the development by the Counsels for ONGC and Afcons.  The Bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Surya have passed an order that ONGC has nominated Justice Thakur as its nominee arbitrator, while Justice Mishra has been nominated for Afcons. The Court later on asked the newly- appointed arbitrators to appoint a third arbitrator as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. The court said that Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, states that Afcons Gunanusa JV has nominated Shri Justice Dipak Misra, former Chief Justice of India as their nominee A

A local court in the national capital on Friday granted bail to former JNU student Sharjeel Imam in a sedition case of 2019. However, Imam would remain behind the bars as he was yet to get bail in other cases pending against him, including the larger conspiracy leading to riots in Delhi.   The former JNU student was granted bail in the FIR registered at New Friends Colony Police Station, alleging that his ‘provocative speech’ against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) at Jamia Millia Islamia led to violence in the area. A detailed copy of the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge Anuj Agrawal is awaited. On September 26 this year, the Delhi High Court had permitted Imam to withdraw his application for regular bail and directed the trial court to first consider his application seeking relief under Section 436-A CrPC on the ground that he has remained in custody for 31 months. Under Section 436-A, a person can be released by the cou

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the Central government to elevate three High Court judges as Chief Justices and transfer one Chief Justice and three judges to four High Courts in the country. The Collegium took the decisions during its meeting on September 28, 2022, held under the chairmanship of Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul were the other members of the Collegium. As per the recommendation, Justice S. Muralidhar, currently serving as the 32nd Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, was recommended for transfer to the Madras High Court in the same capacity. Bombay High Court Judge, Justice Prasanna B. Varale, was recommended for elevation as Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court. Two judges were recommended for elevation to take charge as Chief Justice of the same High Courts. These include Orissa High Court Judge Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High C

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the Central government to elevate three High Court judges as Chief Justices and transfer another three judges to different High Courts across the country. The Collegium took the decisions during its meeting held on September 28, 2022, under the chairmanship of Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit. Bombay High Court Judge, Justice Prasanna B. Varale, has been recommended for elevation as Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court. Orissa High Court Judge, Justice Jaswant Singh, has been recommended for elevation as Chief Justice of the same High Court. Similarly, Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has been recommended to take charge as its Chief Justice. Besides, the Collegium has recommended transfer of three judges to different High Courts across the country, other than they are presently working with. Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra from the Uttarakhand High Court has been recommended for transfer to th

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended to the Centre for transfer of Justice S. Muralidhar, currently serving as the 32nd Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, to the Madras High Court in the same capacity. The Collegium, headed by Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and also comprising Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, took the decision during a meeting on Wednesday. Justice Muralidhar succeeded Justice Mohammad Rafiq as the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court. Born on August 8, 1961, Justice Muralidhar enrolled as an advocate on September 12, 1984 and practiced in civil courts at Chennai. Then he shifted base to the national capital to practice in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. On May 29, 2006, he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court and became Permanent Judge of the same High Court on August 29, 2007. He was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court on March 6, 2020. Justice Muralidhar was appointed as the Chief Justice

The Allahabad High Court in the Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath Temple dispute, asked the Director General (DG) of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to file a personal affidavit in compliance with an earlier order   on the site at Varanasi where both Muslims and Hindus have laid claim for right to worship. The bench of Single-judge Justice Prakash Padia said that this matter is of great importance to Nation as the case had been pending since 1991, thus have instructed  the DG to comply with the order in letter and spirit. The order said that s ince t he matter is of National importance and fact that the suit is pending before the trial Court since 1991, this Court hopes and trust that the respondent No.7/the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi will comply with the order dated 12.09.2022 in its letter and spirit on or before the next date fixed in the matter, i.e., October 18, 2022. The Court has granted the DG some additional time as she was unwell a

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended to the Centre for transfer of Justice S. Muralidhar, currently serving as the 32nd Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, to the Madras High Court in the same capacity. The Collegium, headed by Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and also comprising Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, took the decision during a meeting on Wednesday. Justice Muralidhar succeeded Justice Mohammad Rafiq as the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court. Born on August 8, 1961, Justice Muralidhar enrolled as an advocate on September 12, 1984 and practiced in civil courts at Chennai. Then he shifted base to the national capital to practice in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. On May 29, 2006, he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court and became Permanent Judge of the same High Court on August 29, 2007. He was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court on March 6, 2020. Justice Muralidhar was appointed as the Chief Justice

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has observed that a finding of acquittal recorded by the subordinate court cannot be converted into conviction by High Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 401 (3) CrPC. A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania passed this order while hearing a Criminal Revision filed by Ambika Singh. The revision alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing the revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.01.2009 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faizabad. As per case of prosecution some altercation took place on 16.04.2003 between the revisionist-Ambika (First informant) and Raj Kumar Singh at Sugarcane Weighing Centre, Mayo Bazar, Village Viyulpur and in regard to this incident an FIR was lodged under Section 504/506 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station Maharajganj, District Faizabad and after investigation charge-sheet was filed. Upon denial the accused was

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has observed that a finding of acquittal recorded by the subordinate court cannot be converted into conviction by High Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 401 (3) CrPC. A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania passed this order while hearing a Criminal Revision filed by Ambika Singh. The revision alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing the revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.01.2009 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faizabad. As per case of prosecution some altercation took place on 16.04.2003 between the revisionist-Ambika (First informant) and Raj Kumar Singh at Sugarcane Weighing Centre, Mayo Bazar, Village Viyulpur and in regard to this incident an FIR was lodged under Section 504/506 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station Maharajganj, District Faizabad and after investigation charge-sheet was filed. Upon denial the accused was

The Supreme Court on Thursday termed the exclusion of unmarried women who conceive out of live-in relationship from the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules as unconstitutional and said all women were entitled to safe and legal abortion. The Bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice J.B. Pardiwala held that the 2021 amendment to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act did not make a distinction between married and unmarried women. The matter was related to the question whether the exclusion of unmarried women, whose pregnancy arise out of consensual relationship, from Rule 3B of the Medical Termination Rules, was valid. Rule 3B mentions the categories of women whose pregnancy in the duration of 20-24 weeks can be terminated. As per the Court, if Rule 3B(c) was understood as only for married women, it would perpetuate the stereotype that only married women indulged in sexual activities, which was not constitutionally sustainable. Reading out the excerp

Supreme Court of India has set up fifth Constitution Bench for hearing six important cases. This bench has Justice KM Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice CT Ravikumar. The cases that shall be heard by this bench include: 1.WhatsApp’s privacy policy and its users’ right to privacy under Article 21 . 2.A plea seeking fault free mechanism for the appointment of the members in Election Commission . 3. Plea for bull taming sport, like Jallikattu to be allowed as cultural right. This plea challenges the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 passed by the State of Tamil Nadu to allow Jallikattu  4. Questions around the practise of Euthanasia 5.Case on validity of arbitration agreement embedded in an unstamped contract  -6.Issue of Adultery Supreme Court has already set up 4 Constitution bench and with the fifth Constitution Bench, 25 of the 29 judges in top court will be part of Constitution Benches. T

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a direction to set-aside the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2021,as violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The Petition has been filed by one Sreenivasulu Palepu who was aggrieved by the excessive action of the Respondents in amending The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 , through the Amendment Act, 2021, as violative of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Act. It is pleaded that, the rights enshrined in Right to Freedom of Religion’ head under Part III of the Constitution of India, more particularly, that of religious denominations in Article 26 of the Constitution of India, cannot be interfered with by the State, except in the interest of public order. The Andhra Pradesh Legislature though enacted the Act, and its Preamble as

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a direction to set-aside the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2021,as violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The Petition has been filed by one Sreenivasulu Palepu who was aggrieved by the excessive action of the Respondents in amending The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 , through the Amendment Act, 2021, as violative of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Act. It is pleaded that, the rights enshrined in Right to Freedom of Religion’ head under Part III of the Constitution of India, more particularly, that of religious denominations in Article 26 of the Constitution of India, cannot be interfered with by the State, except in the interest of public order. The Andhra Pradesh Legislature though enacted the Act, and its Preamble as

The Union government has imposed a ban on Muslim political organisation, the Popular Front of India (PFI) and several of its associates under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, for their alleged involvement in terror-related activities. Besides PFI, the Centre also banned the Rehab India Foundation (RIF), the Campus Front of India (CF), the All India Imams Council (AIIC), the National Confederation of Human Rights Organisation (NCHRO), the National Women’s Front, Junior Front, Empower India Foundation and the Rehab Foundation, Kerala under UAPA. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs had issued a notification on Tuesday night, stating that the PFI and its affiliates have been found to be involved in subversive activities and disturbing the public order. Their acts undermine the country’s constitutional set-up and enforce a terror-based regressive regime, it added. The notification further said that PFI and its affiliates continue to propagate

The Delhi High Court granted statutory bail on Wednesday to former Chief Executive Officer of National Stock Exchange, Chitra Ramkrishna and former Group Operating Officer of NSE, Anand Subramanian in connection with the NSE co-location scam. However, the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain clarified that the bail was not granted on merits under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The High Court then directed the CBI to read the 110-page order. It stated that if the national agency agreed with the proposition of law, it would help them in future. Chitra had challenged the order of a Special CBI court, which had denied her bail in May this year. Chitra had challenged the order of a special CBI court, which denied her bail earlier in May, 2022. On February 11, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had found Ramakrishna’s alleged involvement in financial misdeeds relating to fixation and frequent revision of compensation of another former NS

The Union government has imposed a ban on Muslim political organisation, the Popular Front of India (PFI) and several of its associates under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, for their alleged involvement in terror-related activities. Besides PFI, the Centre also banned the Rehab India Foundation (RIF), the Campus Front of India (CF), the All India Imams Council (AIIC), the National Confederation of Human Rights Organisation (NCHRO), the National Women’s Front, Junior Front, Empower India Foundation and the Rehab Foundation, Kerala under UAPA. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs had issued a notification on Tuesday night, stating that the PFI and its affiliates have been found to be involved in subversive activities and disturbing the public order. Their acts undermine the country’s constitutional set-up and enforce a terror-based regressive regime, it added. The notification further said that PFI and its affiliates continue to propagate

The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that it will decide on October 12, whether demonetisation has become ‘academic’ issue and whether it required any consideration at all. The views were expressed by a five-Judge Constitution bench headed by Justice Abdul Nazeer, while hearing petitions against the decision of the Narendra Modi government in 2016, declaring currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 as redundant. “We are already burdened with so much pendency” says Justice Gavai. The Prime Minister, in a televised address to the nation on November 8, 2016, had declared that high denomination notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 will not remain a legal tender from the mid night. In the speech, the PM said that the Central government has declared a “decisive war” against black money and corruption. The unprecedented move and decision by the Union Government had evoked sharp reactions from the Opposition parties which rejected the move calling it reckless and an attack o

The decision to grant 10 percent Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota in admissions will not impact the availability of seats for the general and reserved categories because 2,13,766 additional seats will be added to those already present in higher educational institutions, the Central government told the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Appearing for the Union of India, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta apprised the five-Judge Constitution Bench that the government had given Rs 4,315 crore to the Central Higher Education Institutions for the development of additional infrastructure, to meet the demand. Headed by Justice S Abdul Nazeer, the Bench comprised of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice JB Pardiwala, Earlier in the day, the Apex Court had reserved its decision on appeals challenging the 10 percent EWS reservation in admissions and government jobs. The top court of the country had directed the law officer to provide information re