Legopolis

A notice has been issued by the Delhi High Court to the Centre and Law Commission of India on a plea that seeks uniform marriage age for men and women. A division bench comprising of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and C. Hari Shankar issued the notice. The plea, which was filed by Bharatiya Janata Party leader Ashwini Upadhyay and advocate calls the distinction in the marriage age unscientific and patriarchal stereotype. The petition by Upadhyay is filed under Article 226, which challenges a blatant, ongoing form of discrimination against women. As per the Petition, there is a discriminatory minimum age limit for marriage for men and women in India as men in India are permitted to get married at the age of 21, while for women it is 18. As per the plea this is based on patriarchal stereotypes, has no scientific backing, perpetrates de jure and de facto inequality against women, and goes completely against the global trends. As per the PIL this differential bar infringes fundamental pri

The Supreme Court listed the petitions challenging the Electoral Bonds scheme on the grounds that it facilitated anonymous funding of political parties, for final hearing in the third week of March. The matter came up for hearing on Tuesday before the Bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha, which listed it for final hearing in March this year. The Bench further took up two other petitions related to the issue of bringing political parties under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and regarding certification under the Foreign Contribution Regulation (FCRA) Act for political funding. It said these two petitions were distinct from the Electoral Bonds case and would be heard separately in April. While issuing notice on both, the Apex Court ruled that reply should be filed in the petition related to bringing political parties under the ambit of RTI in two weeks and by the end of this month in the plea related to FCRA. The plea regarding RTI would be

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has rejected a petition filed seeking a declaration that the election of BJP MLA from Lucknow North, Dr Neeraj Bora, as void. A single-judge bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan passed this order while hearing an election petition filed by Sarvesh Kumar Gupta. By means of the election petition, the petitioner has prayed that the election of Assembly Constituency 172 Lucknow, North of returned candidate Dr Neeraj Bora, the opposite party, which was declared on 10.03.2022 may be declared as void and set aside. By means of an objection filed in the Election Petition, the petitioner filed an objection on 13.05.2022 making request that the petitioner may be exempted from requirement of publication in terms of Rule 6 (c) of the Rules, 1952 stating therein that the petitioner is incapable of making such a huge payment i.e Rs 94,450 in the name of publication in the newspaper because he is a man of humble background and the payment of such amo

The Supreme Court has refused for entertaining the plea against the circular by the Jammu and Kashmir government directing all Deputy Commissioners to remove encroachments on Union Territory land, including Roshni land and Kachharie land, by January 31. A bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna were not convinced with the argument of the petitioners that despite the Jammu & Kashmir State Land (popularly known as the Roshni Act) being repealed, their ownership rights persisted. The Court said that the Act has been repealed and once the Act has been repealed, where is the question of savings clause? The bench orally said that if the Court granting relief to those continuing to occupy the land, can have larger repercussions. The Court said that incase it protects their possession, it will affect the entire J&K encroachment,however the court can certainly grant reasonable time to relocate. The petitioner eventually sought to withdraw the petition and was

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear the petition filed by the Central government, seeking review of its August, 2022 verdict that struck down certain provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 1988 on the grounds of being manifestly arbitrary. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter before the Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha, seeking an open court hearing in the case. The Bench agreed to hear the matter. The ASG contended that the Apex Court, by way of its August 23, 2020 judgment, had struck down certain provisions of the Benami Act, which were not even under challenge. He contended that a lot of orders were being passed after this Supreme Court verdict.  On August 23 last year, a three-judge bench of the Apex Court, comprising the then CJI N.V. Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli had ruled that Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act 2016 could not be applied re

The Delhi High Court has has said that the information about money laundering, hawala transactions, acts of tax evasion and smuggling do not relate to corruption or human rights violations and, thus cannot be questioned to the intelligence and security organizations which are not bound to provide such information under Right to Information Act (RTI Act). Justice Prathiba M Singh has  set aside the Central Information Commission order which directs (CIC) directing the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB) for providing the outcome of the complaint made by the RTI applicant named GS Srinivasan. The Court reiterated that the CEIB is exempted from Section 24(1)Schedule II of the RTI Act and to provide details in the case is contrary to law. The Court said that perusal of the complaint and the RTI Application shows that the same relate to information relating to money laundering business, hawala money transactions, acts of tax evasion and smuggling activities. The Court said that

The Supreme Court has acquitted two people, who were convicted in a 38-year-old murder case, after observing that both the trial court and the High Court failed to consider vital factors, which possibly hinted at false implication of the accused. The order was recently passed by the Division Bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta, which noted lapses in the police investigation and said that it was not giving weightage to the perfunctory police investigation alone in concluding that the accused were entitled to benefit of doubt. Stating that mere defects in the investigative process did not constitute grounds for acquittal, the Apex Court examined the evidence on record in detail, in order to ascertain if the prosecution’s allegations against the accused would stand. It said there was a ‘fair’ degree of ‘uncertainty’ in the prosecution story and that the courts below appeared to have been ‘influenced’ primarily by the oral testimony of two witnesses, without co

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala have instructed the Meghalaya High Court to defer the Assam–Meghalaya border pact hearing till the matter remained pending in the Supreme Court. The Apex Court had earlier put stay on the order of Meghalaya High Court that had put an interim stay on the execution of the Assam-Meghalaya border pact,subsequent to the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 29.03.2022 between the two states. The MoU from Assam was signed by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma whereas his CM counterpart from Meghalaya Conrad Sangma signed it for resolve the long standing interstate boundary dispute As per the MoU Assam was directed to keep18.51 square kilometres of land, and wMeghalaya keeping 18.28 square kilometres of land, for the 36.79 square kilometres of total la The interim order was passed by Justice H. S. Thangkhiew on a plea moved by Tribal Chiefs, who claimed that the MoU viol

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application saying that the internet and social media has become important tool through which individuals can exercise their right to freedom of expression but the right to freedom of expression comes with its set of special responsibilities and duties. It does not confer upon citizens the right to speak without responsibility nor does it grant an unfettered licence for every possible use of language. A single-judge bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav passed this order while hearing an application under CrPC Section 482 filed by Nandini Sachan. The application sought quashing the cognizance order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate as well as chargesheet dated 24.7.2022 as well as entire proceedings of criminal case under Section 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. Further prayer has been made to stay further proceedings 

The Delhi High Court has transferred more than half a dozen petitions that seek recognition of same-sex marriage to the Supreme Court . A Bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad have passed the order when they were informed that the Supreme Court had sought transfer of pleas on the issue filed before all High Courts to itself. Earlier this month, an order to this effect was passed by the top court that as several batches of petitions are pending before Delhi, Kerala and Gujarat High Courts involving the same question, the Apex Court is of the view that they should be transferred and decided by this Court. The top Court had directed all writ petitions to stand transferred to this Court. The matter will be heard by the apex court on March 13, after written submissions and counters are filed by all parties. The petition contained a PIL filed by Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, who are a couple for almost 10 years. They recently had a

The Delhi Government has been instructed by Delhi High Court to ensure payment of wages to the workmen of a government hospital. The bench of Justice Rekha Palli said that the hospital workmen have not been paid any wages since April 2022 due to the e files moving up and down between two departments of the Delhi Government. The Court said that this portrays a very sad picture of affair in the state.She felt sorry for the plight. The Justice said that petitions preferred by the workmen depicts a very sorry W.P.(C) state of affairs, wherein they have not been paid any wages since 12.04.2022 as the accounts couldnt be settled between two offices. The petitioner counsel stated that the petitioners has been compelled to approach the Court instead of Labour Court. The counsel said that the instead of directing the respondent to ensure that the petitioners are given their due , matter has been, adjourned time and time and again. The Court directed for issuance of notice to the responde

The Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju  while attending a program praised the Central government under the leadership of Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi for taking initiative and working for the  improvement of courts and facilities for judges, he however said even after so much of work, the PM is still accused of hijacking the judiciary. It was during a question session by India TV’s Rajat Sharma on the show Aap ki Adalat that Rijiju spoke on the matter. The law minister talked about all that PM Modi has done in 8.5 years to increase the facilities for judges by  making court halls, lawyers chambers etc. The Law minister  spoke about Rs.9,000 crores that was approved for judiciary which no other government has done . On a sad note Rijiju added that after we have done so much for judiciary, we are said that we are hijacking judiciary. Truth is there is a problem with their thinking. Talking further Rijiju cited example of the Congress government which  during national emergency ha

A notice has been issued by the Supreme Court to the Election Commission of India on January 27,with respect to a review petition that was filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) General Secretary BL Santosh against the August 2021 order which inflicted a fine of Rupees 1 lakh on BJP for not following the directions to publish the criminal antecedents of candidates. The bench said that the Election Commission of India (ECI) was as an additional respondent in the review petition and issued notice to it. The bench has asked the Advocate K Vishwanathan, who was the amicus curiae in the main matter, for assisting the Court in the review petition also. The bench had agreed to hear the review petition filed by BJP in the open court on November 30,2021. Not only BJP, but seven other parties were also punished for contempt. As a mark of fine..Communist Party of India( Marxist), Nationalist Congress Party were fined for five lakhs whereas Indian National Congress, Janta Dal, Rashtriya Janat

The Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju  while attending a program praised the Central government under the leadership of Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi for taking initiative and working for the  improvement of courts and facilities for judges, he however said even after so much of work, the PM is still accused of hijacking the judiciary. It was during a question session by India TV’s Rajat Sharma on the show Aap ki Adalat that Rijiju spoke on the matter. The law minister talked about all that PM Modi has done in 8.5 years to increase the facilities for judges by  making court halls, lawyers chambers etc. The Law minister  spoke about Rs.9,000 crores that was approved for judiciary which no other government has done . On a sad note Rijiju added that after we have done so much for judiciary, we are said that we are hijacking judiciary. Truth is there is a problem with their thinking. Talking further Rijiju cited example of the Congress government which  during national emergency ha

The Allahabad High Court has declared Rule 8 (6) of the UP Subordinate Education TGG Service Rules as valid and said it is not contradictory to the regulation. The Division Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Bal Krishana and 94 others. The reliefs sought in the writ petition is as under: “A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the impugned rules 8(6) of UP Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) services (4th Amendment) rules 2016 to be ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India to an extent that it does prescribed as one of the qualification of having passed intermediate with subject Sanskrit one of the qualification relating to Assistant Teacher (Trained Graduates Grade) Subject Hindi. B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record and quashing impugned advertisement dated 15.03.2018 being advertisement no

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation that objected to the transfer of five acres of land of the University of North Bengal to the Department of Tourism, Government of West Bengal to establish a Hotel Management Institute, namely, ‘State Institute of Hotel Management’. The submission of Counsel for the petitioner is that the University is transferring the land to a Society without any consideration and that the University itself should run the course instead of transferring it to the Society for running the Hotel Management Institute. A further plea has been raised that the University is falsely circulating misleading information that no land is being transferred and only the user right of the land is given to the Department of Tourism.   The Counsel appearing for the University has stated before the High Court that the University is not transferring the land to the Department of Tourism or the Society but only the user right is being transferred to set

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation that objected to the transfer of five acres of land of the University of North Bengal to the Department of Tourism, Government of West Bengal to establish a Hotel Management Institute, namely, ‘State Institute of Hotel Management’. The submission of Counsel for the petitioner is that the University is transferring the land to a Society without any consideration and that the University itself should run the course instead of transferring it to the Society for running the Hotel Management Institute. A further plea has been raised that the University is falsely circulating misleading information that no land is being transferred and only the user right of the land is given to the Department of Tourism.   The Counsel appearing for the University has stated before the High Court that the University is not transferring the land to the Department of Tourism or the Society but only the user right is being transferred to set

Justice Rohinton Nariman, the former Supreme Court judge suggested that the Apex Court should put a a 30-day deadline for the Central government for responding to the recommendation by the Collegium on appointment of judges. Justice Nariman added that this should be taken up n the judicial side by a Constitution Bench by a Fifth Judges case. Justice said that he strongly hopes that the Supreme Court has a 5th judges case namely that they would constitute another bench of at least 5 judges in which this MoP (Memorandum of Procedure) who will have the duty to tie up whatever loose ends there are and finish it.  Justice also said that constitution bench in my humble opinion should put across that once a name is sent by the collegium to the government, if the government has nothing to say, for a period of 30 days, it would be assumed that it has nothing to say. The statement was made by the Justice due to the allegation raised against the Central government on the count that it is ref

Retired Justice Rohinton Nariman has said that attempts have been made in the past twice to undo the basic structure doctrine laid down in the Kesavanda Bharti’s case, but have failed miserably.  Delivering the 7th MC Chagla Memorial lecture on ”A tale of two constitutions, India and the United States” in Mumbai, the eminent jurist said on Friday that the doctrine, which was first used by minority judges, was here to stay.  Justice Nariman said that the doctrine, which barred Parliament from amending or altering the basic structure of the Constitution, was an extremely ‘important’ weapon in the hands of judiciary and has been used a number of times to ‘check’ an executive when it acted ‘beyond’ the Constitution.  He said this, while responding to the remarks made recently by Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankar, stating that courts had no right to dilute the Parliamentary sovereignty.    The event was organised by the Department of Law, Mumbai University and Chief Justice MC Chagla Memo

Retired Justice Rohinton Nariman has said that attempts have been made in the past twice to undo the basic structure doctrine laid down in the Kesavanda Bharti’s case, but have failed miserably.  Delivering the 7th MC Chagla Memorial lecture on ”A tale of two constitutions, India and the United States” in Mumbai, the eminent jurist said on Friday that the doctrine, which was first used by minority judges, was here to stay.  Justice Nariman said that the doctrine, which barred Parliament from amending or altering the basic structure of the Constitution, was an extremely ‘important’ weapon in the hands of judiciary and has been used a number of times to ‘check’ an executive when it acted ‘beyond’ the Constitution.  He said this, while responding to the remarks made recently by Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankar, stating that courts had no right to dilute the Parliamentary sovereignty.    The event was organised by the Department of Law, Mumbai University and Chief Justice MC Chagla Memo