The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) has handed over a cheque of Rs. 2 lakh to the family of 19-year old CBSE class XII topper in Haryana who was gang-raped by local men, including a former student of her father, on Wednesday.

The cheque was handed over by Chief Judicial Magistrate and DLSA secretary Vivek Yadav under the Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme-2013.

Besides the compensation, a team of two advocates from the panel of District Legal Services Authority has been given responsibility for providing all assistance to the victim and her family.

Besides the legal assistance, the team would be counseling the victim.

This assistance will be given under the supervision of Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal of Punjab and Haryana High Court who is also the Executive Chairman Haryana State Legal Services Authority, Panchkula.

CJM Yadav said the financial assistance was to meet medical requirements and the team of advocates would be providing all other types of assistance to the survivor and family.

CJM Yadav informed that under Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme-2013, there is a provision for immediate interim relief to the victim. The remaining assistance is given after the decision of the case.

He said, “The family of the victim is passing through a major shock”, so he has assigned responsibility to the advocate panel for preparing all kinds of papers and the primary objective was to provide medical and legal aid to the victim.

The girl, a resident of Rewari district, was drugged and gang-raped on Wednesday following her abduction from a bus stop in Kanina, Mahendragarh, on her way to a coaching centre.

Her father claimed that she was raped by eight to 10 men.

A three judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra today ordered the UP police to provide protection to Shabnam Rani, a petitioner before the Supreme Court against Nikah-halala who was allegedly attacked with acid by her brother-in-law and his friend.

“Senior Superintendent of police of Bulandshahr shall provide adequate security to the petitioner. She may also be escorted with police protection in case she wants to go outside the state and if the petitioner makes a request in this regard”, the bench said as Senior Advocate Sajan  Poovayya presented her plight before the court.

When he sought compensation for acid attack, the bench said it shall be extended as per the apex court’s earlier directions regarding compensation for acid attack victims and no separate orders were required. The district hospital has however been directed to provide all kinds of medical aid to the victim.

Shabnam lives in Delhi and was married off to Bulandshahr. She accused her husband Muzammil of giving her triple talaq and later also forcing her to perform halala with her brother-in-law which she refused.

Shabnam says when she had gone to visit her in-laws in Bulandshahr to discuss certain issues, the two men threw acid on her. She was rushed to the local hospital and her condition is said to be stable.

Including the one filed by Shabnam, SC is already seized of six petitions- filed by three other victims Nafisa Begum, Sameena Begum, Farzana and two advocates Ashwini Upadhyay and Mohsin Kathiri challenging the constitutional validity of the polygamy and nikah-halala.Jamiat-Ulama-I-Hind moved the SC supporting the practices.

After she was given triple talaq by Muzammil who then went on to marry one Shabana, the local residents of Jauligarh, Bulandshahr pressurized Shabnam’s in-laws and only thereafter she was allowed to stay in their home.

“My parents spent around Rs five lakh including dowry and ornaments. After the marriage my husband and in laws started harassing, humiliating, taunting, torturing and threatening for bringing inadequate dowry and pressurize me to get a car.One day I was being thrown out from her matrimonial home by her husband and since then she is living in the house of her in laws at Jauligarh, Bulandshahr, U.P., at the mercy of her in laws and local villagers without having any source of income".

The husband of the petitioner had second marriage with a lady namely Sabana.

The Petitioner is living with her three childrens at her in laws home and the local villagers providing her the essential support for survival.

The Supreme Court Monday said it will examine two days later whether there is material supporting the arrest of five rights activists in connection with the Koregaon-Bhima violence case.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra extended till September 19 the house arrest of the five rights activists--Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves, Sudha Bharadwaj and Gautam Navlakha-- at their respective homes.

"Every criminal investigation is based on allegations and we have to see whether there is some material," the bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said.

The bench said if there are some grave lapses, it may consider prayers like an investigation by a Special Investigating Team (SIT) into the case.

The plea by Thapar and others has sought an independent probe into the arrests and the immediate release of the five activists.

The bench fixed the plea by Thapar, economists Prabhat Patnaik and Devaki Jain, sociology professor Satish Deshpande and human rights lawyer Maja Daruwala for final hearing on Wednesday. The court had on September 12 extended the house arrest of the activists till today.

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Maharashtra government, said the court should make it clear that after adjudication by it, the arrested accused cannot avail remedies simultaneously on similar issues at other judicial fora.

The Maharashtra police had arrested the rights activists on August 28 in connection with an FIR lodged following a conclave -- 'Elgaar Parishad' -- held on December 31 last year that had later triggered violence at Koregaon-Bhima village.

Prominent Telugu poet Rao was arrested on August 28 from Hyderabad, while activists Gonsalves and Ferreira were nabbed from Mumbai, trade union activist Sudha Bharadwaj from Faridabad in Haryana and civil liberties activist Navlakha from Delhi.

The Supreme Court had on September 6 taken strong exception to the statement of a senior police officer on the arrest of the activists, saying he had cast "aspersions" on the top court.

An irked court had referred to the statements made to the media by an Assistant Commissioner of Police of Pune and said he was casting aspersions on the apex court by saying it should not have entertained the petition against the arrests.

The Maharashtra government had told the court that the petitioners were "strangers" to the mater and questioned their locus. Its counsel had said there was enough evidence including the materials taken from the activists' computers and other sources which belied the perception of the petitioners about those arrested.

Senior advocate Harish Salve, the counsel for Tushar Damgude who had filed the FIR in the Koregaon-Bhima violence, had opposed the plea of Thapar and said it could have been raised in the magistrate's court by the affected parties.

Earlier, the Maharashtra government had filed its response to the plea claiming the five activists were arrested due to the cogent evidence linking them with the banned CPI (Maoist) and not because of their dissenting views.

The state's response had come in the backdrop of the apex court, while ordering the house arrest of the five activists on August 29, categorically stating that "dissent is the safety valve of democracy".

The court had questioned the state police's move to arrest these activists nine months after the incident and said all of them were reputed citizens and "stifling the dissent" was not good.

[This story has not been edited by LiveLaw and is from PTI feed]

Asserting that absence of humour has led to the deterioration in tolerance levels in the country, Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court recently set aside an FIR filed against five people for allegedly having hurt sentiments of those following the Hindu religion.

The Bench comprising Justice TV Nalawade and Justice Vibha Kankanwadi observed, “Here only it needs to be observed that in India due to absence of humour the tolerance level has gone to shocking down. Those "few" who want to get political advantage by raising such issue or who want to create rift in the society or those who are oversensitive and take such posts seriously have created problems for our society.”

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Ashok Deshmukh and four of his Facebook friends, who were booked for insulting Hindu religion by comparing Lord Parshuram with the famous character ‘Parshya’ of Marathi blockbuster, Sairat. His friends were booked for liking and commenting on his post.

The Bench, however, opined that in cases like the one before it, it is the Court’s duty to ascertain the rights and the intention of the accused. It in fact elaborated on the “enlightenment movement”, and the right to fight against traditional authority, with the petitioners contending that they were atheists.

“Democracy involving right of quality and freedom of expression is also achievements of enlightenment movement. The questioning of traditional authority and superstition is a part of that process. If the person, who has questioned rational behind the proposition or story due to which traditional authority was established and continued and the proposition, which amounts to superstition, is allowed to be prosecuted only for such questioning, that step will stop human development. 

That is why Courts need to be very cautious in the matters like present one,” it explained, asserting that the interpretation of Section 295­A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) of the Indian Penal Code needs to be undertaken from that angle.

The Court then opined that the posts in question were not put up to insult any community or any caste, and set aside the FIR. It also cautioned against putting such a case to trial, observing,

“The Courts need to keep in mind the distinction between the history and the stories from Puran. Thus, the trial of such allegations, in fact involves fight between the beliefs of persons from different Varnas and also of conservatives and of progressive persons. Renowned philosophers, who did the work of reformation, authors, leaders and even the judges have questioned such traditional authority shown to be created by the stories of Purans. 

 The Courts are not expected to allow the debate on such thoughts or beliefs before it. Such debate will divide the society further. The Court is not expected to give decision on such issues.”

Read the Judgment Here

“If it shocks Your Lordships’ conscience, then there is perversity on the face of it...if, on a feel of the case, Your Lordships do not think this case deserves such(SIT) investigation, I will go elsewhere”. Argued Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi.

The PIL by historian Romila Thapar and four other eminent persons over the arrest of five activists in connection with the Bhima-Koregaon violence witnessed yet another eventful hearing in the Supreme Court on Monday as ASGs Tushar Mehta and Maninder Singh and Senior Advocate Harish Salve engaged in a war of words with Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Anand Grover, Ashwani Kumar and Rajeev Dhawan and Advocate Prashant Bhushan.

The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice A. M. Khanwilkar clarified that any decision as to the quashing of the criminal proceedings or directing an independent inquiry into the allegations shall be taken only upon a perusal of the evidence and other materials. The bench also extended its earlier interim order of house arrest in respect of the five accused activists.

Dr. Singhvi faced resistance in opening his arguments on behalf of Ms. Thapar, with Mr. Mehta stressing on the evidence which purportedly implicates the accused in serious offences-

“Your Lordships are the custodians of the Constitution...Your Lordships must decide whether this is just ‘dissent’ or something else which involves the criminal law...persons who are strangers to the allegations have come before Your Lordships saying that as per their perception, the individuals arrested are social activists and incapable of committing the acts they have been charged with...when Your Lordships go through the evidence we have placed on record, you will also feel as citizens...these materials have been retrieved from computers, laptops, pen drives, hard-disks etc...to do away with any claims that the evidence was planted, from the moment the police knocked on their doors till the time the evidence was sealed, everything has been video-graphed...”

Once again, he questioned the locus of the petitioners- “the accused have already resorted to the remedies under the law...the petitioners, who are not in the zone of investigation, have moved this court...can Your Lordships take notice of this under the idea of ‘dissent’? Suppose, tomorrow, there is some material against a politician and another eminent politician of the same party comes to you and says that he is a great person but because he has a different ideology his dissent is sought to be curbed, and then we come to you under Article 32?”

“We will not get into that extreme example...we will only see if they should go to the criminal courts or is there something we can do under Article 32”, observed the Chief Justice.

“We are not on locus...we had entertained this petition and passed the order for house-arrest as we had felt that liberty may be sacrificed”, he continued.

“The accused have been in jail since June and the PIL has come to be filed before Your Lordships only now when the trial has begun”, Mr. Mehta refused to relent.

Speaking for the Centre, ASG Maninder Singh rooted for the propriety of the criminal law procedure- “the problem of naxalism is not limited to one region but is is transcending states and becoming a serious national concern...is it that the investigation (in the case at hand) is not being conducted correctly or that the courts below are not good enough to deal with the matter? The moment Dr. Singhvi is allowed to open the case, it would seem so...Such a situation has not arisen at all! What is the basis of questioning what is happening? This would be dangerous for the courts as well as the accused...I am not doubting Your Lordships’ jurisdiction. I am only on the basic issue of procedure- that it is the judicial officers who are the competent authority to look into this...”

Regarding Mr. Singh’s contention as “pedantic”, Dr. Singhvi insisted that he be heard- “Adjudication under Article 32 depends on the feel of the case rather than text or context...unless I shock the conscience of the court, I cannot get the relief (of an independent probe)”

Upon receiving the bench’s audience, Dr. Singhvi commenced his submissions- “There are two FIRs...the first one imputes the incitement of riots to Hindutva activists Sambhaji Bhide and Milind Ekbote. It speaks of disruption of a peaceful procession being carried out by the Dalits to commemorate the 200th anniversary of a ‘Mahar’ credited with performing Shivaji Maharaj’s son Sambhajiraje Bhosale’s funeral after the latter’s body had been dissected by Aurangzeb...the second FIR is by Tushar Damgude, a self-proclaimed fan of Bhide, who has made claims of provocative slogans promoting enmity”

It was his case that the quotation by Dalit Activist Sudhir Dhawale of the Hindi translation of the following lines from the 1943 play ‘The Good Person of Szechuan’ could not rationally be the basis of the FIR- “When injustice is done there should be revolt in the city. And if there is no revolt, it were better that the city should perish in fire before night falls!”

“This is being called sedition? A call to raise arms against the country?”, advanced Dr. Singhvi, placing reliance on Chief Justice Misra’s recent judgment refusing to ban the Malayalam novel ‘Meesha’ and upholding the right of a poet to assume his own freedom under Article 19(1)(a).

“There is also a whisper in the media of an attempt (at the Elgar Parishad) to plot the assassination of the present Prime Minister on the same lines as the Rajiv Gandhi episode...but there is no third FIR in this behalf? The CBI, NIA are not investigating the claim?”, continued Dr. Singhvi.

“‘Elgar’ means a ‘clarion call’...it is now in writing that the Parishad was on organised on December 31, 2017 by a former Supreme Court judge and a retired High Court judge...none of these five accused were present at the event and none of them are named in the two FIRs...it is only in the last one month that is being said that these activists have a past history of criminality...but please note the striking fact that of the 25 and 11 cases respectively against them, Varavara Rao and Arun Ferreira have been acquitted in all, while Vernon gonsalves was acquitted in 17 out of 18, already having served the sentence in the one where the appeal is pending. The others have no cases at all against them!”, he argued,

Next, Dr. Singhvi pointed out that the Pune Rural, Police, within whose jurisdiction the incident had occurred, had appointed the Mayor to look into it. The Senior Advocate proceeded to read from the report of the Mayor’s committee which attached liability to Bhide and Ekbote for a pre-planned attack on the Ambedkarites, even indicating the involvement of some local policemen. “After I filed my rejoinder on September 10, the Inspector General issued a statement on September 11 disowning the report of the Mayor’s committee, saying that it had no authority to write the same!”, he contended.

He suggested that there was an attempt to “fix” the five accused in as much as letters, which he alleged are fabricated, have surfaced as having been exchanged between Comrade Prakash, convicted on March 7 along with Delhi University Professor and Maoist activist G. N. Saibaba. “Comrade Prakash is in jail and is writing letters to these five people?”, he asked rhetorically.

Finally, Dr. Singhvi drew the attention of the bench to the wavering stand of the state of Maharashtra between February-March and now as to who incited the violence. He quoted from what he described as the “solemn affirmation” of this incident by the state- how, during the course of the investigation, Ekbote’s involvement in the offence, which shook the “social conscience in the state of Maharashtra”, had earlier been deemed to have become established.

To this, the Chief Justice remarked that the stance adopted may be changed when the investigation subsequently brings to light newer developments.

Dr. Singhvi repeated that the accused have also filed a supplementary affidavit seeking impleadment before the apex court and asserted that the court has in many instances directed a SIT investigation under Article 32. He clarified that the prayer for an independent and comprehensive enquiry into the arrests of these human rights activists would subsume a SIT or a court-monitored investigation.

“ If it shocks Your Lordships’ conscience, then there is perversity on the face of it...if, on a feel of the case, Your Lordships do not think this case deserves such investigation, I will go elsewhere”, he rested his case.

Mr. Mehta, who had sought to interject a few times as Dr. Singhvi argued, passionately requested the bench to not take any view or position until the judges have examined the evidentiary materials-

“This is not a plea we usually make, but I am saying this with utmost responsibility. Otherwise we would be failing in our respective duties to the nation”

“They (the petitioners) cannot show why the arrest was made; the state has to show it...the material will prove whether the arrest of these supposedly-innocent persons was justified”, chipped in Mr. Harish Salve.

Reiterating his objection to the accused availing of two simultaneous remedies, Mr. Mehta advanced that they shall not be permitted to take a recourse elsewhere should the bench be satisfied of the offence after analysing the evidence. In reply, when Dr. Dhawan said that the scope of Article 32 is more comprehensive than the inherent powers of the High Courts under section 482 of the Cr. P. C., the Chief Justice commented, “I do not think we have to learn this from you”.

“There are two facets- as far as liberty is concerned, we have accorded the requisite protection. But so far, no proposition has been placed to move us to appoint a committee or quash the criminal prosecution...Only the material will show precisely what the allegations are and if there are none, we may quash the proceedings”, reflected Chief Justice Misra.

When Advocate Prashant Bhushan regarded the allegations as “cooked-up stories”, the Chief Justice noted, “we have to see what is cooked up and what is the probability of it (being so)...we will have to see the record to ascertain if there is something in real...how can we adjudicate against them without looking at the evidence that the investigative agency has compiled? We will see how far they have proceeded in the investigation and if it calls for an interference”

Senior Advocate Anand Grover contended that the provisions of the Cr. P. C. on arrest and search had not been adhered to. “this is an oppressive prosecutorial process...statutory morality must yield to constitutional morality...Article 32 owes no justification to anything”, pressed Dr. Ashwani Kumar.

“Just by naming Articles 21 and 32, constitutional morality is not immediately moved. We must look at the material”, affirmed the Chief Justice sternly.

At an earlier stage, the bench had been inclined to let the cases be heard by the competent courts, while its interim order for house-arrest continued. To avert the involvement of multiple states, it had even considered transferring all matters to one court.

The hearing shall resume on Wednesday. Interim order for house arrests will be continued till then

"Any attempt at creating a dent in this most revered pillar of our democratic system could lead to promotion of fascism, naxalism and all that is opposed to democracy", the Court observed in the order.

The Madras High Court has initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against BJP national secretary H Raja, for his alleged derogatory remarks against judiciary.

H Raja had landed in a controversy as a video featuring him went viral, in which he was seen using foul language against the Court in a verbal spat with a police man. The incident allegedly took place when the police tried to stop him carrying out idol procession during Ganesh Chaturthi festival last weekend. The police stopped the procession through a particular route citing a court order.  This apparently enraged Raja, who launched a diatribe against police and judiciary, which was captured in a video. He reportedly called the police "corrupt" and "anti-hindu".

This resulted in an FIR being registered by Thirumayam Police, Pudukkottai District, against him for sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 153 (provocation with intent to cause riot), 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 294 (b) (sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharging official duty),505 (1) (b) (c) (statements conducing to public mischief), 506 (1) (punishment for criminal intimidation) and 290 (public nuisance) of the Indian Penal Code.  Raja has denied the allegations, stating that the video was doctored.

Today morning, several lawyers made oral mention before the benches headed by Justice H G Ramesh and Justice N Kirubakaran for initiation of contempt action against Raja. However, both the benches declined, and asked the lawyers to file a written application. Meanwhile, another bench of Justice C T Selvam and Justice M Nirmal Kumar initiated suo moto contempt action, and issued notice to Raja.

The bench stated that it was taking cognizance of the contempt by Raja on the basis of video clippings and newsreports.

"Any attempt at creating a dent in this most revered pillar of our democratic system could lead to promotion of fascism, naxalism and all that is opposed to democracy", the Court observed in the order.

Raja has been directed to make appearance on October 22.

Judges, staff members and lawyers of the Allahabad High Court as well as the subordinate judiciary are expecting to collect a total of more than Rs. 2 crore as a part of its efforts to contribute towards the Kerala flood relief fund.

As per a press release issued by the court, during a meeting of the Administrative Committee, as convened by Chief Justice DB Bhosale, it was resolved that all the judges, judicial officers and staff members of the High Court and the District Judiciary will contribute their one day’s salary to the Kerala Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund. This amounts to Rs. 42,91,300.

Acting on the appeal made by the Chief Justice, the Bar Association has also contributed Rs. 10 lakhs for the purpose, and Senior Advocates of the court have contributed a total of Rs. 13,60,500. Out of this, Rs. 1 lakh each has been contributed by Senior Advocate Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi and Naveen Sinha.

Besides, while judicial officers and employees of the subordinate judiciary have so far contributed Rs. 1.4 crores, more than Rs. 20 lakh is still expected to be added to the fund.

Emphasising on the enormity of the initiative, the release states, “For the very first time, in the history of Hon’ble Court, on the call and efforts made by Hon’ble Court, on the call and efforts made by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the entire legal fraternity comprising Hon’ble Judges, Bar Associations, Judicial Officers and Officials of the High Court and Subordinate Judiciary, have collectively shared the pain and agony of the victims of a natural disaster wit such open heartedness.”

Kerala has been facing an unprecedented crisis, having been hit by the worst-floods in a 100 years. The State has lost nearly 400 people and more than a million have been displaced. While water levels are receding, Kerala now faces the challenge of rebuilding, with economic cost of damages being estimated in billions of dollars.

The Supreme Court recently dismissed appeals filed by officials who were accused of receiving bribe of Rs 800 from a shop owner.

The prosecution case was that the commercial tax officer inspected a grocery shop and seized the accounts book, and when the shop owner requested for return of accounts book, a bribe of Rs 2,000 was demanded.  He reiterated this demand, when the owner later approached him for the same, and this was subsequently reduced it to Rs 800, to be paid on 1st November, 1994, failing which the application for registration certificate would be rejected. Later the shop owner alerted the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, and the officer and his staff (who received money on officer’s behalf) were arrested.

The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The high court, on their appeal, reduced it to one year.

Before the apex court, it was contended on behalf of the accused that the officer did not receive the money and the staff did not demand the same.

The bench of Justice R Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee observed that there was sufficient evidence to hold that there was demand of bribe and acceptance, and refused to take a different view from that taken by the high court and the trial court.

The bench, dismissing their appeals, directed the accused to surrender to custody within eight weeks to serve the remaining sentence.

“Learned trial Judge has considered that the accused-appellant has opened her undergarments and for this reason, learned Sessions Judge has held that he tried to commit rape. But according to this Court, as already observed, the slightest penetration, whichever degree it is, is the essential requirement vis-à-vis sine qua non to attract the provision of Section 376 of IPC. From the evidence, it is found to be absent.”

The Tripura High Court recently acquitted a man accused of attempting to commit rape charges observing that it is, at best, a case of “fondling” and the offence does not fall within the scope of Section 376 IPC but it will fall within Section 354 IPC.

According to the complaint, the accused trespassed into the kitchen of the house of the complainant and grabbed her 10-year-old daughter, laid her on the ground, kissed all over her body, tore her frock, removed her panty and by removing his under-garments tried to lay his body over her. Hearing the cries of the girl, the mother came and saw the accused running away.

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC for an attempt to commit rape and sentenced him to 3.5 years’ imprisonment.

Justice Arindam Lodh, on an appeal preferred by the accused, observed that the slightest penetration, whichever degree it is, is the essential requirement vis-à-vis sine qua non to attract the provision of Section 376 of IPC. Referring to the depositions made by mother and other witnesses, the court observed that there is no evidence in that regard.

“This Court has already observed and discussed in the preceding paragraphs that to convict and sentence an accused under Section 376 of IPC, a slightest degree of penetration of the penis into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman is enough.. The learned trial Judge did not consider this aspect of law when he convicted and sentenced the accused under Sections 376/511 of IPC. Learned trial Judge has considered that the accused-appellant has opened her undergarments and for this reason, learned Sessions Judge has held that he tried to commit rape. But according to this Court, as already observed, the slightest penetration, whichever degree it is, is the essential requirement vis-à-vis sine qua non to attract the provision of Section 376 of IPC. From the evidence, it is found to be absent,” the court said.

“Having taken into consideration, the statement of witnesses on questions of fact, particularly, the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.6, the doctor, this Court is of the view that the incident as described, at best, is a case of “fondling” and the offence does not fall within the scope of Section 376 IPC but it will fall within Section 354 IPC,” the Court said.

The bench then convicted the accused under Section 354 IPC and sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment of two years.

Apparent Contradiction With Law Laid Down By Sc

It is a settled principle that there need no penetration to attract offence of ‘attempt to commit rape”. In Madan Lal vs. State of J&K, the apex court dealt with an argument that, in the absence of any penetration into the vagina, the offence of rape cannot be said to have been established and it will not be possible to hold that the accused had attempted to commit rape on the prosecutrix, and therefore, it would at the most amount to an offence of indecent assault under Section 354 IPC.

Rejecting the said contention, the bench had held: “The difference between preparation and an attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination and what is necessary to prove for an offence of an attempt to commit rape has been committed is that the accused has gone beyond the stage of preparation. If an accused strips a girl naked and then making her flat on the ground undresses himself and then forcibly rubs his erected penis on the private part of the girl but fails to penetrate the same into vagina and on such rubbing ejaculates himself then it is difficult for us to hold that it was a case of merely assault under Section 354 I.P.C. and not an attempt to commit rape under Section 376 read with 511 I.P.C.”

It is also pertinent to note that, in Radhakrishna Nagesh vs. State Of A.P, the supreme court has held that even if there is no penetration, it does not necessarily mean that there is no rape. The Court, in that case, had held: “Penetration itself proves the offence of rape, but the contrary is not true i.e. even if there is no penetration, it does not necessarily mean that there is no rape. The Explanation to Section 375 IPC has been worded by the legislature so as to presume that if there was penetration, it would be sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse necessary for the offence of rape. Penetration may not always result in tearing of the hymen and the same will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. The Court must examine the evidence of the prosecution in its entirety and then see its cumulative effect to determine whether the offence of rape has been committed or it is a case of criminal sexual assault or criminal assault outraging the modesty of a girl.”

The judgment of Tripura High Court instead of probing whether there was an attempt to commit rape, focuses more on whether there was penetration or not.

Read the Judgment Here

The bench passed reasoned judgment dismissing the appeal after considering the written submissions filed by her.

This SLP was filed through an Advocate-on-Record. After some time, they requested the court to discharge the Advocate-on-Record and the court discharged the AoR

After several adjournments, notice was issued after condoning the delay of 2,088 days in filing the Special Leave Petitions. The then bench found that the appellant was conversant only in Tamil language and it requested Senior Advocate V.  Mohna to appear on her behalf.

On 4th September, the appellant in-person requested the bench that she does not want the senior counsel to appear for her. She also insisted on making submissions in Tamil language and requested for a translator.

The court discharged the senior advocate, but refused to allow her to make submissions in Tamil observing that she had not utilized the opportunity of having the services of a senior advocate who is well-versed with Tamil language. The bench then directed her to make written submissions and reserved the matter for judgment.

Today, the bench of Justice S.A. Bobde and Justice L. Nageswara Rao after taking into account the written submissions delivered a reasoned judgment dismissing the appeals.

In her written submissions, the appellant had referred to two documents which were neither part of the pleadings in the suit nor was an issue framed regarding the said document. The bench observed: “Civil Suits are decided on the basis of pleadings and the issues framed and the parties to the Suit cannot be permitted to travel beyond the pleadings.”

A Settlement Deed dated 6th December 1958 executed by Appavu Gounder, father of Ponnayal, in favour of his grandson was seriously disputed by the appellant. As there was no counter evidence, the bench held that the high court is right in its conclusion that Appavu Gounder had a right to settle the property that fell to his share in the Partition Deed dated 22nd April 1948 in favour of his grandson.

Supreme Court judge, Justice UU Lalit on Sunday termed "gyan daan" (gift of knowledge) as the best gift one can give to humankind and hailed the philanthropic efforts of a trust run by a couple—Delhi High Court judge, Justice Pratibha M. Singh and her husband Maninder Singh, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) for India.

 "I must confess first, I have known Maninder and Pratibha for many years but I was never aware of this part of their persona that they have instituted this scholarship till very recently… What a wonderful gesture this couple has bestowed upon the entire legal fraternity and community," Justice Lalit said.

The judge was speaking at the event organized for the "Pratibha M. Singh Cambridge LL.M Scholarship”, instituted in the memory of Mr. Singh's father, Manmohan Singh. The scholarship this year was granted to Aadya Chawla from National Law University, Delhi, and Nupur Raut from National Law School of India University, Bangalore, under the banner of the Manmohan Singh Charitable Trust.

Addressing the gathering at the fifth instalment of the scholarship, Justice Lalit recited a Sanskrit shloka, explaining that while out of every 100 people, there will be one brave man, out of every one thousand people, there will be one intellectual, and out of every ten thousand, there will be one orator, the man who gives won’t be found so easily.

"In our Indian ethos, it is considered that gyan daan is the best possible gift that a man can give to anybody,” he then said, while also reiterating Mr. Singh’s words when he said, “the cycle must continue” for inter-generational equity.

Also present at the occasion was Senior Advocate Harish Salve, who said that the selected students are about to receive not just education but an “experience in learning”. He explained that learning is always a “work in progress” in all professions.

He also shared his own experiences of having worked outside his comfort zone, i.e. India, and said that students should learn that it is extremely important to be open to ideas. He further shared the advice that he received from his guru and noted jurist late Nani Palkhivala, who told him to be his own worst critic.

He recalled that Mr. Palkhivala asked him to reflect over his court arguments after every appearance and ask himself if anybody else in the world could have done a better job. He then said that if the answer to the question is yes, then he should know that he has not been good enough.

 “Don’t be intimidated by what others think of you. Don’t be intimidated by the academic results of those who do better than you. Ask yourself at the end of every trial, could anybody have done better than this, and if the answer is yes, you have a gap to cover. If the answer is no, smile. That is how life should be,” Mr. Salve explained, adding, “I have tried to live to Mr Palkhivala's dream. It has been a big help to being somewhat successful in life.”

 The event also saw the presence of Justice Pratibha Singh, ASG Maninder Singh, Padma Vibhushan Prof. PN Tandon (Professor Emeritus Neurosurgery (AIIMS), and Prof. Ellis Veronica Ferran (Pro-Vice Chancellor, University of Cambridge).

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed for now sale of Saridon, Piriton Expectorant and Dart which were in the list of 328 fixed-dose combination (FDC) drugs banned by the Centre on the ground that there was “no therapeutic justification” for the ingredients contained in them and that they “may involve risk to human beings”.

A bench of Justice Rohinton Nariman and Justice Indu Malhotra temporarily allowed the sale of Saridon, an analgesic for headaches, and two other drugs after the drug makers challenged the September 7 notification issued by the Centre prohibiting the manufacture and sale of 328 FDCs.

Before the court, Saridon’s manufacturer pharma giant Piramal Enterprises was represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar along with Karanjawala & Co. partners Samarjit Pattnaik and Debmalya Banerjee, principal associate Arjun Mahajan, senior associates Puneet Relan and Aman Singh and associate Aviral Kapoor.

It is to be noted that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has issued a notification on September 7 prohibiting manufacture and sale of FDCs, which has a fixed dose combination of two or more compounds.

The Centre had relied on the recommendation of the Drugs Technical Advisory Board to reach a conclusion that these drugs were not safe for humans.

Earlier, pharma company Wockhardt had also moved the Delhi High Court challenging the recent ban but was refused interim relief by the single judge.

The high court, however, directed that its existing stock of drugs be allowed to be sold and the petitioner would not be acted against in respect of medicines that are already in the distribution channel.

It is to be noted that in year 2016 also, the Centre had banned 344 FDCs but the Delhi High Court had in December, 2017 set aside the ban which covered Corex cough syrup and Vicks Action 500 Extra, saying the decision was taken in a “haphazard manner” without consulting the statutory bodies as mandated under the law.

Singh & Associates, a leading full-service law firm, has been awarded the ‘Best Use of Knowledge Management of the Year’ at the recently-held 14^th Indo-US Economic Summit which was inaugurated by Minister for Commerce & Industry & Civil Aviation Suresh Prabhu. The summit also saw the presence of PP Chaudhary, Union Minister of State, Ministry of Law and Justice and Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Govt. of India.

The event organised by the Indo-American Chamber of Commerce took place in Hotel Hyatt Regency, New Delhi, and was supported by the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and US Department of Commerce. The day-long summit was themed ‘Skill and Employability – Indo-US Imperatives’ where multiple senior leaders from the industry converged to deliberate and chalk out a progressive strategy and technology roadmap for the growth of the country.

Expressing his gratitude on receiving the award, Manoj K Singh, founding partner, Singh & Associates, said, “We are delighted to receive this recognition. We have always sought to lead the industry by focusing on operational excellence and overall client satisfaction. Winning this award has been the result of an incredible effort put in by the entire S&A team.” He further added, “This award will give us an extra milestone in achieving excellence in the legal profession and we also congratulate the other winning firms in other categories during the last night's ceremony.”

Last year, during the 13^th chapter of this summit, Singh & Associates, had received the ‘Excellence in Professional Services’ award.

Singh & Associates is an ISO 9001:2015 certified full-service law firm, with its head office in New Delhi. It has a pan-India presence, with offices situated at Gurugram, Mumbai and Bengaluru. The firm has four major Practice Groups viz., Litigation and ADR, Contracts and Transactions, Corporate and Tax and Intellectual Property. With an aim to provide a comprehensive array of services to both domestic and international clientele, the firm has 150 professionals including experienced lawyers (with in-house advocacy expertise), chartered accountants, company secretaries, trademark attorneys, patent agents, engineers, and specialized paralegal staff.

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a petition challenging an interim order passed by the Delhi High Court in the case concerning the disqualification of Janata Dal (United) Party, Sharad Yadav as a member of the Rajya Sabha in December last year.

The plea, filed by leader of JD(U) in the Rajya Sabha Ram Chandra Prasad Singh through Advocate Gopal Singh, was mentioned by Advocate Manish Kumar before the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud. The matter has now been directed to be listed sometime next week.

Mr. Yadav was a Member of Parliament and the General Secretary of JD(U), but was disqualified from the membership of Rajya Sabha by Vice President M.Venkaiah Naidu, in his capacity as the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, under the Anti-Defection law. It was alleged that by his repeated conduct, public/press statements against the JD(U) and its leadership and openly aligning with a rival political party, namely, the Rashtriya Janata Dal, he has voluntarily given up the membership of the party.

More specifically, he was disqualified under paragraph 2 (1) (a) of the 10^th Schedule of the Constitution of India read with Rule 6 of the Members of Rajya Sabha (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules,1985. He had then challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court.

The petition now impugns an interim order passed by the Delhi High Court on September 11, when the High Court dismissed Mr. Singh’s application to place additional documents and material on record.

The High Court Bench comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rekha Palli had rejected the application on the ground that the documents pertained to Mr. Yadav’s conduct subsequent to the filing of the application— submissions which the Court did not think necessary to take into consideration.

Mr. Singh, however, claims that these additional documents establish beyond doubt that Mr. Yadav formed another political party after having voluntarily given up his membership of JD(U). His subsequent conduct, he asserts, is germane to the dispute and establishes the falsity of his claim that he continues to be a party member.

He explains that the documents sought to be submitted are merely copies of public utterances which have been culled out from his own speeches and press clippings, showing his active participation and patronizing the launching of a new political party by his followers.

“The facts and material in the application corroborates the averment of the petitioner that the respondent has taken conclusive steps which establish beyond doubt that he has voluntarily given up his membership of the political party and thus defected for which he is liable to be disqualified under the 10^th Schedule of the Constitution of India,” he asserts.

Mr. Singh further points out that even if the writ petition is allowed in Mr. Yadav’s favour, his conduct during the pendency of the petition may not be a ground to file another application for his disqualification. He then asserts that the High Court should have kept the application pending till the disposal of the petition and should have decided its relevance after hearing final arguments of the parties.

The petition, therefore, challenges the impugned interim order and demands a stay on it during the pendency of the petition.

Read the Order Here

Bishop of Jalandhar diocese of Catholic Church, Franco Mulakkal, has filed an application in the High Court of Kerala today seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He stands accused of raping a nun of  the congregation, Missionaries of Jesus. The Bishop has been asked by the Kerala police to appear before it tomorrow for interrogation in the case.

In the bail application the allegations of rape are denied as false and baseless. It is stated that the complainant had not said in the first statement given to the police that she was subjected to forceful sexual intercourse. However, the statement was later changed and improved while giving statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to add allegations of forceful sexual intercourse. This embellishment has been made, allegedly, to get over the reports of medical examination, which did not return any unsavoury finding. The application also states that the cousin of the victim-nun had made an allegation that the nun had sexual intercourse with the husband of her cousin. "This crucial aspect casts serious suspicion on the credibility of the allegations raised by the defacto complainant", adds the petition.

The petition goes on to state that the victim was holding a high post in the congregation as the Superior General for 9 years, and hence she was not an "individual who can be cowed down by any authority". So, the conspicuous silence of more than 4 years is an indicator of falsity of the complaint, the petition states. It is also mentioned that in none of her complaints before the authorities in the Church, she had made any allegation of sexual assault.

The application is likely to be mentioned before Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan, who is dealing with bail applications as per current roster arrangement, today at 1.45 PM. Senior Advocate P. Vijayabhanu is likely to appear in the bail application.

Last week, the Division Bench of the High Court had recorded prima facie satisfaction of the course of investigation on the basis of report submitted by the investigating officer. The Division Bench was acting on a bunch of PILs filed seeking arrest of Franco Mulakkal and proper investigation of the case against him. The prosecution had submitted that meticulous investigation spanning over seven districts in Kerala, and five States was under progress, and statements of 81 witnesses have been taken. It was submitted that there were contradictions in the witness statements, and the police was in the process of cross-checking them. It was also submitted that notice under Section 41A of CrPC has been served on Franco Mulakkal to appear before police on September 19 for interrogation. The DGP submitted that decision regarding his arrest can be taken only after his interrogation and verification of contradictions in the evidence.

On the basis of the above submissions, the Division Bench of the Chief Justice held :

"...we are of the prima facie view that the investigation is being conducted in a fair and professional manner, and at this stage, it would be inappropriate for this Court, to issue any specific direction on the conduct of the investigation".

Taking note of the fact that the Bishop has been summoned on September 19, the Division Bench adjourned the matter to September 24.

The allegation is that the complainant was subjected to rape on multiple occasions between 6-5-2014 to 23-09-2016 by Franco Mulakkal by abusing his dominant position. On the basis of her complaint, the Kuravilangad police registered Crime No. 746 of 2018 for offences punishable under Sections 342, 376 (2)(k) and (n) , 377, and 506 (I) IPC.

The Bombay High Court said Monday it was "shocking" how fugitive jeweler Nirav Modi and several other individuals had been permitted to carry out illegal constructions along the beach in Alibaug town of Raigad district in Maharashtra.

Holding that ignoring such violations was a case of "complete non-application of mind" by the authorities, the high court directed the Divisional Commissioner (DC), Konkan region, to start an inquiry into how over 160 illegal private structures were permitted to be constructed along the beach in Alibaug.

A bench of Justices A S Oka and R I Chagla directed the DC to submit, within eight weeks, his inquiry report to the principal secretary, state revenue and forest departments.

The bench also directed the Maharashtra government to file an affidavit detailing the findings of the inquiry and the remedial steps initiated by the state.

The directions were part of the judgment passed by the bench Monday on a petition filed by activist Surendra Dhavale.

The plea had sought that the court direct the authorities to demolish all unauthorised constructions "within the low and high tide areas" in a bunch of villages in Alibaug, a popular weekend gateway from Mumbai.

According to the petition, such constructions had been carried out in violation of the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority rules and the land laws of the state.

As per the plea, there are around 175 such private residences in Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) areas in villages such as Varsoli, Sasvane, Kolgaon and Dokvade, among others, all in the Alibaug taluka, belonging to several "wealthy persons, including Nirav Modi and several businessmen and film actors".

During a previous hearing in the matter, the bench had been informed that through an order passed in June this year, the authorities concerned had dropped all proceedings against Modi's bungalow and closed the file.

The bench has now directed that the DC call for land records and ascertain how such illegal structures were permitted to be constructed.

It noted that in 2009, Modi had merely been granted permission by the local authorities to carry out some repair work in his three farmhouses in the area.

However, he ended up carrying out fresh construction in an area exceeding 695 sq metres, in violation of state's land rules and coastal zone norms.

It added that the fugitive diamond jeweller's case was not isolated, but that it was important to highlight the lapses on part of the DC's office in failing to act against such illegal construction.

"The issue is not merely of CRZ violations, but also of illegal construction made along beaches. There is a complete non-application of mind by the authorities. The case of Nirav Modi to say the least is shocking," the bench said.

"The manner in which the DC bypassed previous orders of this court (on CRZ violations and demolition of illegal construction along beaches) calls for a serious inquiry.

"It appears that no adjudication was made on the question of Mr. Modi having carried out the illegal construction," the judges said.

"If there is rampant illegal construction in coastal areas, the same will not only result in violation of environmental laws, but, it will also amount to the destruction of our ecosystem," they said.

Modi, who has fled India, is a key accused in the alleged fraud at Punjab National Bank (PNB) which has been pegged at close to USD 2 billion.

The high court noted that the state's own rules granted vast powers to the DC to carry out demolition in case of such illegalities. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the DC to call for all land records concerning the structures mentioned in the PIL.

"The DC must scrutinise the records and take necessary action," the bench added.

India is such a vast country with a population of more than 1.3 billion. Out of the total number of seats available for people to study law, national law schools and high profile private law universities constitute only a small fraction. Merely improving the quality of education in top Indian law colleges will not be sufficient. Further, national law schools and popular private colleges are very expensive, with their fees running into a few lakhs every year. Such fees are outside the reach of a huge population of India. Many students are compelled to take significant loans which need to be repaid.  Therefore, to enhance the quality of legal education, it is necessary to turn focus to thousands of law colleges in small towns and mofussil areas, spread across the length and breadth of the country, by looking beyond the national law schools.

For lawyers to be ‘social engineers’ as Professor Madhav Menon put it, they need to be able to pursue careers and earn a livelihood by working in the areas where they can make a meaningful difference and an impact on society. This requires them to acquire skills early on from their college days itself, as they cannot afford to struggle to earn a basic living for long years after they graduate. They must be ready to start out on their own path from the moment they graduate, and that requires some prior preparation and skills. Hence, it is necessary to address certain specific areas of concerns in small-town law colleges.

Current system of exposure to practical experiences

The most obvious pathways of providing practical exposure to law students are internships and moot court experiences. There are a few reasons why these are not proving to be effective or contributing to law students’ success on a wider scale in India.

Limitations of participation in moot courts

 Moot court teams in several colleges do not have a guided system of tutoring or mentorship, while some colleges have a heritage of mooting. That leaves some people too far behind the curve. They will have had an experience of mooting but it may not make a lasting contribution to them. Also, several moot courts focus on international scenarios and laws which many law students may not encounter as practitioners. For example, an everyday civil or criminal litigator or even a corporate lawyer will not typically work on a public international law issue.

Basic skills necessary before internship.

 While lawyers want to contribute to others, teach and groom them, most lawyers do not have the willingness to engage interns because basic formatting, research and presentation skills are missing. These need to be taught in college, not by practitioners. For example, an intern may send an email without a subject line, elementary grammatical errors, or send you a PDF of his or her work, such that you cannot edit it. An intern without elementary professional skills and subject knowledge will be a burden to the legal practitioner. Hence, it is necessary to impart some basic skills in college, before setting out the students for internships.

‘Dukkis are the Bible’ culture

Dukkis or one-week series or passbooks culture is very common, especially in small cities. Law colleges of such cities do not have the proper infrastructure and systems for training students at par with law students of national law schools and famous private law colleges. The intention of the students in the small cities is to get a degree of law so that they can get an access to the courts from where they can earn their bread and butter. Generally, classes are not regular and college is just a formality. Even if the classes are taken many times lecturers are not qualified enough to teach students. There is a huge deficiency of well-qualified law professors (even in the NLUs) who have a good command on their subject and who have good teaching skills in them.

Absence of use of technology and tools

 It is necessary to use advanced tools and techniques of teaching such as use of advanced skills in MS Word, Excel, tools like Grammarly, Google Keep, Google Calendar to schedule meetings and reminders, Zoom to conduct meetings, making structure diagrams in Powerpoint presentations, doing screencasts, videos, etc. to make it more interactive and interesting for students.  However, use of technology while teaching is found to be minimal, especially in small town colleges, impacting the overall quality of teaching.

What alterations are required?

There are two major issues which if sorted may solve a lot of problems in the legal education system. First of all inserting practical insights into the theory of law and second improving standard of teachers of law.

Support to practical training

First of all legal education must be completely shifted from theoretical methods to practical methods of learning. Instead of insisting on 75% or more attendance criteria and short-term internships, methods must be made so that first some theory and law are taught and then students get an opportunity to apply it in the real life scenario. This is only possible when after giving them a basic knowledge of law they are allowed to go for long-term internships for at least one year at a time (just as CA students do). This will enable them to understand the technicalities involved in the legal matters and really learn how to apply textbook knowledge to real-life situations.

Training on use of technology and social media

Professors and students must be taught how to use the advanced technology available to simplify and fasten things, such as:

• Advanced use of MS Word - Track Changes, Table of Contents, Advanced Bulletting Techniques, which are useful to serve clients.
• Advanced use of Powerpoint - to explain complex business transaction structures in a simple way through diagrams
• Google Keep and other tools for making notes, preparing lists and reminders
• Google Drive and Asana - to enable people to collaborate powerfully on complex projects
• Use of video making and editing tools such as Camtasia, Movie Maker or Screencast-o-matic so that they can record videos explaining the law and its connection with stakeholders on various aspects
• Use of social media and blogging to communicate their thoughts

This can not only make the learning process better and simpler but also help to make education available to the deepest parts of the country.

After this, we must concentrate to provide long-term internships to law students or find out ways to bring practicing lawyer on regular basis in law schools to ensure that students get acquainted with practical aspects of the law. Right now because of compulsory attendance requirements and restrictions on practicing lawyers, both of the above suggestions are not possible. This will encourage lawyers and firms to train interns better as they know that they are going to stay with them for a long term. They will not feel that their training or resources will get wasted.

Research in the field of law must also be promoted. Research has always been a tool for finding new dimensions of law in various countries with developed legal systems. Research here does not mean to research to find some case law or regarding a particular matter. By research, it is meant to write research papers and to conduct various doctrinal research to create something new in law. Indian legal system is prone to adopt foreign legal systems according to its own needs. There is nothing wrong in doing so, but we must also be capable to develop our own systems to successfully deal with our indigenous problems. There may be certain circumstances where we cannot find anything in other countries to adopt from. There may also be situations where the system developed by another country may not apply to our country. Research will not only increase the reputation of the education system of our country in the world but also unearth new dimensions for us.

Once a mix of technology, theory, research and practice will be combined in the legal education system, the level of knowledge and skills of law professors and students will change completely. It must be ensured that changes impact every law school and law university in the country and not restricted to national law schools alone.

Harsh is a Senior Associate at iPleaders. He is also a UGC-NET & JRF scholar and test prep expert for judiciary and bank legal officer exams.

[The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of LiveLaw and LiveLaw does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same]

In an 83-page judgment, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday passed several landmark directions for protection of mangroves all over Maharashtra.

The division bench of Justice AS Oka and RI Chagla held that there can be no construction activity within 50 m of any mangroves area as all mangrove land will fall in Coastal Regulation Zone-I category as per both the CRZ notifications of 1991 and 2011.

Case Background

The court passed these directions in a public interest litigation filed by Bombay Environment Action Group (BEAG) regarding the destruction of mangroves in Maharashtra.

The petitioners had highlighted the importance of mangroves in our ecosystem. They said it plays an important role in protecting seashores from erosion, high winds and cyclone as mangroves are strategically located between the land and sea and therefore, their importance is not merely in their forest value. The mangroves act as a buffer between the land and sea and play a very important role in fighting tidal erosion.

In an interim order dated October 6, 2005, the court had passed several directions for protection of mangroves. It had directed the state to conduct a detailed mapping of mangroves all over Maharashtra through satellite remote sensing.

Senior counsel Navroz Seervai appeared on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) and Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) have not transferred mangroves land in their possession to the Forest Department even though they were directed to do so in the October 2005 order.

He also pointed out that due to the failure in taking immediate action in respect of the destruction of mangroves, violators have not been identified and FIRs have been filed against unknown persons. He also pointed out from the action taken reports that there is a frequent and rampant destruction of mangroves and dumping of garbage as well as debris in the mangrove area.

Seervai relied on the decision of the apex court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs Union of India & Ors. In this decision, the court has given a purposive interpretation to the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 by holding that any forest, irrespective of its ownership or its classification, is entitled to the protection of the provisions of the said Act of 1980.

Judgment

The court accepted the submission made by Navroz Seervai and followed the decision of the apex court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs Union of India & Ors and confirmed all the directions passed in the interim order dated October 6, 2005.

It said-

“The destruction of mangroves offends the fundamental rights of the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In view of the provisions of Articles 21, 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, it is a mandatory duty of the State and its agencies and instrumentalities to protect and preserve mangroves.”

Following are some of the important directions passed-

(I) That there shall be a total freeze on the destruction and cutting of mangroves in the entire State of Maharashtra

(II) Dumping of rubble/garbage/solid waste on the mangrove areas shall be stopped forthwith;

(III) Regardless of ownership of the land having mangroves and the area of the land, all constructions taking place within 50 metres on all sides of all mangroves areas shall be forthwith stopped.

(IV) We direct the state government to constitute a committee that shall be responsible for the preservation and conservation of mangroves, for the restoration of reclaimed mangroves areas and for implementation of the directions in this Judgment.

(v) The state government shall create a grievance redressal mechanism within three months from today wherein the general public can complain if any such destruction of mangroves takes place.

(VI) We direct that it is the obligation of the State to replant destructed mangroves and to restore mangroves areas which are illegally reclaimed.

(VII) The State Government shall ensure that criminal law is set in motion against all those who commit offences punishable under section 15 of Environment Protection said Act of 1986.

This matter will now be listed on December 1 for reporting compliance with the above directions.

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph today adjourned the plea seeking a stay on controversial Rafale deal between India and France noting that petitioner and lawyer M L Sharma had circulated a letter seeking adjournment saying he was "unwell".

But there was high drama as "unwell" Sharma appeared and said he is seeking adjournment as he, in fact, wanted to "file additional affidavits".

"Now you are talking about filing an additional affidavit but the letter you circulated seeking adjournment is saying you are unwell. You have missed the bus", said Justice Gogoi

In the PIL, Sharma had alleged major discrepancies in the deal.

“The inter-government agreement to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets must be quashed as it was an outcome of corruption and not ratified by Parliament under Article 253 (Parliament has the power to make any law for implementing any inter-government agreement) of the Constitution”, the plea said.

It also sought FIR and prosecution of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, former defence Minister and present Goa Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar, business tycoon Anil Ambani and French armament firm Dassault with the recovery of amount.

The Moot Court Association of Government Law College, Mumbai, in collaboration with the Chief Justice M.C. Chagla Memorial Trust is organising the 25^th edition of the M.C. Chagla Memorial Government Law College National Moot Court Competition.

M.C. Chagla (30 September 1900 – 9 February 1981) was a renowned person who needs no introduction in the field of legal profession. He performed multiple jobs in his career, whether be it a professor at Government Law College, an ad hoc judge to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, an Indian Ambassador to various countries like the United States of America and Mexico, and received several recognitions and awards.

This year, 16 teams will participate in the oral rounds. The competition will take place on the 22^nd and 23^rd of September at Government Law College Mumbai. The Final Round of Arguments and Valedictory Function of the Moot will be held on 23^rd of September and will be presided over by judges of the High Court of Bombay following its tradition. Justice S.S. Shinde, Justice R.D. Dhanuka and Justice S.K. Kotwal shall grace the occasion.

The winner team of the 24^th edition of the Competition was National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi and the runners-up were West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata.

For further details, please refer to the schedule and the moot problem of the 25^th edition.