Legopolis

The Allahabad High Court while allowing the petition said that Section 195 (I) (b) bars the Court taking cognizance of an offence, in which, forgery has been committed in a documents filed in case pending in any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, if such forgery has been made in any Court proceedings, then the concerned Court should file a complaint as provided under Section 340 CrPC. A Single Bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I passed this order while hearing a Criminal Revision filed by Vishwanath. The criminal revision has been filed for challenging the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), FTC, Basti in Criminal Misc Application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti. By the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the application of the revisionist filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C for directing the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti to register and investigate the criminal case against th

The Allahabad High Court while dismissing the petition said that the Court can consider the present income of the husband and wife for determining maintenance payable to the wife and children. A Single Bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Rana Pratap Singh. By means of the criminal revision, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Criminal Case filed under Section 125 CrPC. By the impugned order, the trial court has allowed the criminal case instituted by the opposite party no1 under Section 125 Cr.P.C and granted maintenance allowance of Rs 15,000/- per month to the opposite party no 1 (wife) and Rs 5000/- each to her children from the date of filing of the criminal case. The opposite party nos 2 and 3 were provided maintenance till they attain the age of majority. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the trial Court has passed the impugned order agains

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) directed the District Collector, Ernakulam and other concerned authorities to ensure payment of compensation expeditiously to the family members of the deceased victims of  a blast took place in a temporary firecracker storage unit at Choorakkadu set up in connection with the festival at Puthiyakavu Temple at Thrippunithura in Ernakulam District in Kerala on 12.02.2024. The Principal Bench of Justice Prakash Shrivastava , Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi and Dr. A Senthil Vel disposed of a Petition registered suo-moto on the basis of the news item appearing in the daily newspaper dated 12.02.2024. In that incident, though as per the news item, one person had died but as per the report, two persons had died and several others were injured.    The news item raises substantial issue relating to compliance of environmental norms.   “Power of the Tribunal to take up the matter in suo-motu exercise of power has been recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in th

The Allahabad High Court while allowing the bail application said that a person’s right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. A Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Pradumn. The bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Pradumn with a prayer to release him on bail in Case under sections 394, 411 IPC, Police Station – Barhalganj, District–Gorakhpur, during pendency of trial. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case due to ulterior motives. He further submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. Subsequently, the applicant has been arrested by the Police and a recovery of one mobile has been shown from the possession of the co-accused;

Supreme Court judge Justice BR Gavai has said that due to the mandate of affirmative action and inclusion of the Indian Constitution, he was able to serve at the highest judicial office of the country. He said that affirmative action ensured persons from marginalised communities were able to reach top government positions in India. Highlighting his own example, he said that his elevation to the Supreme Court was advanced by two years since the Collegium wanted to have judges from the Dalit community on the Bench. As per the Apex Court judge, if not for giving representation to the Scheduled Castes, he would have been elevated maybe two years later. A well-established former lawyer, Justice Gavai said that this was one of the factors, which helped in his elevation as a judge at the Bombay High Court, from where he was later elevated to the Apex Court. Attending an event hosted by the New York City Bar Association (NYCB), Justice Gavai said that when he was appointed as a judge at

The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL), which sought removal of Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Delhi Chief Minister following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for his alleged involvement in the Delhi liquor policy scam case. The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that it was for the executive and the President to examine the issue and the Court cannot interfere with the same. The High Court asked whether there was any scope for judicial interference in the case. The Bench said it had read in today’s newspaper that the Delhi LG was examining the issue, which will then go before the President. The High Court refused to pass any orders on the grounds that the issue pertained to a different wing. Stating that it understood that there may be some practical difficulties, the Bench said it need not give any guidance to either the President or the LG. It observed that the e

Over 600 lawyers, including senior advocate Harish Salve and Bar Council of India chairman Manan Kumar Mishra have written to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud expressing concern on what they perceive as a threat to the judiciary’s integrity.  The lawyers from across the country condemned the vested interest group attempting to manipulate judicial processes, influence court decisions, and tarnish the reputation of the judiciary with baseless allegations and political agendas. The letter asserted that these tactics are particularly evident in cases involving political figures accused of corruption, where efforts to sway court decisions and discredit the judiciary are most pronounced. It further mentioned that one of the alarming tactics is the alleged fabrication of false narratives aimed at portraying a skewed view of the judiciary’s functioning, with comparisons to a purported golden age of the courts. The lawyers pointed out that such narratives are intended to influence judi

The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected four fresh petitions moved by the Indian National Congress against the Income Tax (IT) reassessment proceedings initiated against it by the IT Department. The Division Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed the petitions after both the Congress and the IT Department agreed to the fact that the latest petitions stand covered by the judgment recently pronounced by the High Court over certain other assessment years. On March 22, the High Court had dismissed the petitions filed by the Congress to challenge the re-assessment proceedings for assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. The four petitions, which the High Court today dismissed, challenged the fresh scrutiny initiated by the IT Department for assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. On March 22, the Court, while rejecting the petitions filed by Congress in relation to the years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, had remarked that

The Delhi High Court warned of severe action if any protest is carried out in any courts of the national capital, ahead of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) legal cell’s call for protest against the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by the Enforcement Directorate The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora questioned how protests can be held in court premises. After a lawyer made a mention about his complaint against the call given by AAP legal cell, Justice Manmohan said that consequences are very severe for organising a protest in court. While the High Court said it may hear the matter tomorrow, it also issued a warning to the lawyers intending to protest inside the court premises. Justice Manmohan added that there will be serious consequences and law laid down by the Supreme Court will be applied. He further added that the Court can’t be withheld and can’t be stopped. He mentioned that litigants cannot be prevented from

The Supreme Court will hear former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s plea challenging the High Court’s decision on April 1. The Jharkhand High Court refused to grant him permission to attend the Assembly session.  A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice K V Viswanathan will hear the plea of the former Chief Minister, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on January 31 in a money laundering case. The former Chief Minister had sought permission from the Jharkhand High Court to attend the Budget session of the Assembly that commenced on February 23 and concluded on March 2. Earlier on February 28, the high court dismissed his plea. Furthermore, a special court in Ranchi on February 22 had denied Soren permission to participate in the Assembly session. The Jharkhand High Court had earlier allowed Hemant Soren, the ruling JMM’s executive president, to take part in the trust vote in the Assembly on February 5. Former CM Hemant Soren is currently lodged in the Birsa

The Delhi High Court will today hear a petition filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and subsequent remand in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy scam case. The single-judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma will hear the case at 10:30 am. ED had arrested the Delhi Chief Minister from his residence on March 21, after questioning him for over two hours. He was arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for his alleged involvement in the Delhi liquor policy scam. On March 22, Special CBI judge Kaveri Baweja of the Rouse Avenue Courts sent Kejriwal to ED custody till March 28. Appearing for the national agency, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju alleged that Kejriwal was the kingpin of the Delhi excise scam and was directly involved in the use of proceeds of crime accounting to over Rs 100 crore. The ASG contended that even during the time of search on March 21, Kejriwal did not give corr

The Delhi High Court has sought the response of the Union of India on a petition filed by the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) against the government cancelling it’s registration under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). The single-judge Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh directed the Central government to file a short response on the appeal as well as the accompanying application within two weeks and listed the mater for further hearing on April 25. The notice was accepted by Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Mukul Singh, who appeared for the Union of India. Currently headed by political scientist and former Principal of Lady Shri Ram College Meenakshi Gopinath, CPR is a think tank that has been involved in research with a focus on India’s 21st-century challenges since 1973. It’s President and Chief Executive is Yamini Aiyar, while former foreign secretary Shyam Saran and Senior Advocate Shyam Divan are other members on its governing board. The government

The Supreme Court set aside a Kerala High Court order passed in 2017-2018 which had called for steps to regularise the appointment of certain casual labourers as plant feeders at Milma, a cooperative society that sells milk and milk products. A bench comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that the Kerala High Court had lost sight of the fact that the appropriate remedy was the one provided under the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act). The Supreme Court further pointed out that there were disputed questions of fact that went to the root of the case, which were better adjudicated by the competent authority under the ID Act. The top court bench further explained that all the aforesaid questions would fall in the realm of disputed questions of fact that would have required evidence to be lead and proper assessment and adjudication before an appropriate authority which in the instant case, even as per the respondents-writ petitioners, would have been a reme

The Supreme Court has set aside a bail condition imposed by the Orissa High Court to the extent that it barred a politician from participating in political activities, calling it violative of fundamental rights. The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta last week observed that the imposition of such a condition breached the fundamental rights of the appellant and quashed a part of Odisha High Court verdict of August 2022. The order was passed on a petition filed by Odisha Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former Berhampur mayor Siba Shankar Das, who was earlier part of the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) party, and had several criminal cases registered against him. The High Court had granted bail to the petitioner in August 2022 on the condition that the appellant should not create any untoward situation in public and should not be involved in any political activities, directly or indirectly.” The appellant was represented by Advocate Suresh Chandra Tripathy. Advocates S

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) dismissed the two applications filed by the same applicant and involving similar questions of facts and law as well as the area and the issue of environment. Original Application (1):- Raising the complaint of serious deformity and disorders found amongst the children of village Dharangwala, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka, due to probable cause of contamination of water supplied through Water Works which the supplying authorities gets from Abohar Branch of Sirhind Canal Feeder, OA-I has been filed. It is said that villagers have complained that citrus fruit crop in their village is getting adversely affected and damaged, and not bearing fruit due to the contaminated water received from the above source i.e., Abohar Branch of Sirhind Canal Feeder. Applicant has prayed that appropriate directions be issued to concerned agency to prevent occurrence of deformities and disorders in the body of children in village Dharangwala, Tehsil Abohar, District Faz

The Supreme Court has directed the States and Union Territories to complete within two months, the process of providing ration cards to eight crore unregistered migrants/unorganised workers, as per their eligibility and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The order was passed by the Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah after noting that its 2023 verdict on the matter was yet to be implemented.   The Apex Court ordered the concerned State Governments/Union Territories to issue ration cards to the registrants on e-Shram portal, who did not possess any ration card so far. It also directed the Union of India to simultaneously complete the electronic know your customer (KYC) for the card holders. The States and UTs were further directed to file compliance affidavits before the Court and furnish the copies of the same to the Union of India for purposes of collation and updation of the exercise undertaken by the Central government from India Legal http

The functioning strength of the Kerala High Court reached 41 on Friday after the swearing-in of six lawyers as additional judges of the High Court. Chief Justice AJ Desai administered the oath of office to the new judges, who were all elevated directly from the bar. In the order of seniority, these new judges are Mullappally Abdul Aziz Abdul Hakhim, Syam Kumar Vadakke Mudavakkat; Harisankar Vijayan Menon; Manu Sreedharan Nair; Easwaran Subramani; and Manoj Pulamby Madhavan. They will serve in their posts for a period of two years from today following which they may or may not be made permanent judges of the High Court. The High Court now has the functioning strength of 41 judges against a sanctioned strength of 47, with six vacancies. In the order of seniority, these new judges are Mullappally Abdul Aziz Abdul Hakhim, Syam Kumar Vadakke Mudavakkat, Harisankar Vijayan Menon, Manu Sreedharan Nair, Easwaran Subramani, and Manoj Pulamby Madhavan. They will serve in their posts for a

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Friday withdrew his petition from the Supreme Court that challenged his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case. Though a Special Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Bela M Trivedi was to take up the plea later in the day, Appearing for Kejriwal, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi mentioned the matter before Justice Sanjiv Khanna, while he was sitting with Justice Dipankar Datta. He said Kejriwal was withdrawing the plea because the ED remand was clashing with the same. He said the petitioner would first fight the remand and then come back to the Apex Court. The Senior Counsel apprised the Bench that he would give a letter to the Registry. He requested the Apex Court to kindly tell the same to the Court master as well. The Bench allowed him to give a letter to the Registry. Earlier in the day, a Bench of Justice Khanna, Justice Sundresh and Justice Trivedi had ref

The Delhi High Court on Thursday admitted the appeal moved by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the acquittal of former telecom minister and current Lok Sabha MP, A Raja and others in connection to the 2G spectrum allocation scam case. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma passed the order on the leave to appeal filed by CBI. The verdict was reserved on March 14. Notably, leave to appeal is permission granted to appeal against the decision of a court. The bench observed that the court after going through the material on record, the impugned judgment and the submissions made at bar by both the sides is of the opinion that a prima facie has been made out which requires deeper examination of the entire evidence. The judgment in the matter followed almost 6 years after CBI moved court challenging the order of acquittal. The Delhi High Court heard the matter on March 21, 2021 for the first time. Subsequently, a total of 125 hearings took place before several judges. Notably, i

The Union of India has given its nod to the elevation of 11 additional judges of the Bombay High Court as permanent judges of the same High Court. On March 12, 2024, the Supreme Court Collegium made the recommendation for elevation of 11 additional judges. These are Justice Urmila Sachin Joshi-Phalke; Justice Bharat Pandurang Deshpande; Justice Kishore Chandrakant Sant; Justice Valmiki SA Menezes; Justice Kamal Rashmi Khat; Justice Sharmila Uttamrao Deshmukh; Justice Arun Ramnath Pedneker; Justice Sandeep Vishnupant Marne; Justice Gauri Vinod Godse; Justice Rajesh Shantaram Patil; and Justice Arif Saleh Doctor. As per the resolution of the Supreme Court Collegium, the Bombay High Court Collegium had also unanimously recommended these 11 judges to be made permanent on December 14, 2023. The Chief Ministers and the Governors of the States of Maharashtra and Goa concurred with the above recommendation, it added. Justice Joshi-Phalke and Justice Deshpande were notified as additional j

Noting that a judicial officer was not expected to express or depict personal or preconceived notions in court orders, the Allahabad High Court has expunged the remarks made by a judge recently praising Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. The single-judge Bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra on Tuesday noted that Additional Sessions Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar in his order dated March 5 had made certain unwarranted expressions containing political overtones and personal views. It said a judicial order was meant for public consumption and such type of order was likely to be misconstrued by the masses. A judicial officer was expected to use a very guarded expression while focusing on the issue in hand and should not use any observation which were tangent or alien to the core issue. The High Court directed the expunction of remarks made by the judge in the last paragraph of page 6 of his order to the middle part of page 8. Earlier on March 6, while hearing case related

The Rajasthan High Court disposed of a Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated by the Court way-back in the year 2015 taking into consideration the then emergent situation due to outbreak of swine flu. Thereafter, as a result of judicial intervention, medical facilities for treatment of swine flu were made available by the State agency and the PIL was disposed off by the Court on 21nd July, 2016, while recording satisfaction with regard to various steps taken to control the infectious disease and so also the steps taken for diagnosis and treatment.    Later on, however, a miscellaneous application was filed for revival and the petition was again revived vide order dated 16.05.2018.   Apropos suggestions formulated and placed before the Court, the State counsel was directed to apprise the Court with regard to steps taken towards execution of suggestions made by the amicus curiae. Thereafter, in the last five years various steps have been taken by the respondents. At a l

The Supreme Court has come up with a slew of guidelines for the courts to follow while dealing with petitions filed by couples seeking protection, advising the courts not to make any roving enquiry into the nature of their relationships. The guidelines were issued by the Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra on a Habeas Corpus petition alleging illegal detention of a woman’s lesbian partner by her parents. The Apex Court observed that clear guidelines needed to be formulated for the courts dealing with habeas corpus petitions and petitions seeking protection of couples from family members or police interference It directed the courts to follow them in ‘letter and spirit’ as a ‘mandatory’ minimum measure to secure the fundamental rights and dignity of intimate partners, including the members of LGBTQ+ community. The courts were further directed against passing moral judgments against such couples, stating that social mora