The Supreme Court will consider the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid land dispute on October 29, Monday. The appeals arising from the 2010 judgment of Allahabad High Court pertaining to division of Ayodhya-Babri Masjid land is listed before the bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S K Kaul and Justice K M Joseph under the caption "direction matters".

On September 27, a three judges bench of the then CJI Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer had decided by 2:1 majority that there was no need to refer the matter to larger bench. The request for reference was made by Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, the counsel for Sunni Waqf Board, on the premise that the observation in the Constitution Bench judgment in Ismail Faruqui case that "offering namaz in mosque is not an essential feature of Islam" required reconsideration. The majority of the then CJI Misra and Justice Bhushan opined that the said observation in Faruqui was not relevant in determining the title dispute of Ayodhya-Babri Masjid land. The majority held that the observations in Faruqui were made in the context of deciding the issue whether a mosque could claim immunity from land acquisition proceedings. However, dissenting from this view, Justice Abdul Nazeer held that the observations in Faruqui case influenced the High Court decision in the title suit, and hence required reconsideration by a larger bench.

After declining the plea for reference to larger bench, the majority had fixed the next date of hearing as October 29.

In December 2017, a plea for postponing the hearing after 2019 Lok Sabha polls was made by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan and Dushyant Dave, on the ground that the political climate was not conducive for hearing the dispute.  However, the bench of the then CJI Misra turned down the plea, after a dramatic hearing session.

The Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal at New Delhi has imposed a cost of Rupees One Crore on the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board for its failure to comply with its directions to act against polluting industries.

In a judgment passed on December 18, 2015, the Tribunal had directed the MPCB to prepare a comprehensive action plan to control air pollution in Mahul, Ambapada and Chembur areas, with a focus on control of Volatile Organic compounds (VOC) emissions and associated adverse health impacts on the surrounding population, within a period of two months from the date of judgment. The applicants were residents of Mahul, who were fighting against air pollution by various companies in the vicinity, including Sealord Containers Ltd, BPCL, HPCL, and Rashtriya Chemical and Fertiliser Ltd, since 2014. The NGT had also imposed a fine of five lakhs each on the polluting companies.

Though the judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court, the SC declined interference, and held that the NGT directions deserved to be implemented expeditiously.

On failure of PCB to act as per directions, the applicants filed an Execution Application in 2016. The Tribunal constituted a special committee comprising six scientists for preparation of action plan to control air pollution.  The Tribunal noted that the Board was not sincere in acting as per the directions and recommendations of the Committee. The Tribunal shockingly observed that the Board had outsourced the task of assessing VOC emission to a private entity, ignoring the expertise of Central Pollution Control Board in the matter. "One fails to understand, that if the CPCB itself was having such eminently qualified  person then what was the need of outsourcing VOC monitoring", observed the bench of Justice Raghuvendra S Rathore, Judicial Member and Dr.Satyawan Singh Garbyal, Expert Member.

On August 31, the MPCB moved an application before the NGT asking for time till December 31 to submit the report. But the NGT rejected the application and asked the MPCB to submit its report by October 17, posting the matter for hearing on October 25.

When the case was posted on October 25, the Board sought for further time, which was not well received by the Bench. "This is nothing but a game of hide and seek being played by Maharashtra PCB at different times as per their  convenience", the Tribunal said.

Therefore, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rupees one crore on the MPCB, which has to be deposited with the fund created by CPCB  for environmental restoration. The cost has been directed to be paid by November 1. The Tribunal also directed that the Member Secretary of MPCB should be personally present for the next hearing on November 15.

A Pune court on Saturday remanded rights activists Sudha Bharadwaj, Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira, accused of having Maoist links, in police custody till November 6.

Bharadwaj, under house arrest in Faridabad, was taken into custody by police this morning and brought to Pune.

Gonsalves and Ferreira had been taken into custody by the Pune Police Friday evening after the court rejected the bail applications of all three, observing that the material collected by police, on the face of it, shows their alleged links with Maoists.

District and Sessions Judge K D Vadane sent Gonsalves and Ferreira to police custody till November 6 after they were produced in the morning. The judge remanded Bharadwaj in police custody for the same period later in the day.

Public prosecutor Ujjwala Pawar argued that as all the accused were under house arrest (according to the Supreme Court's directions), they could not be interrogated, so their police cusody was needed.

Seeking their police custody for 14 days, Pawar said the preliminary investigation has revealed that the three had links with the banned CPI (Maoist) and were involved in recruitment as well as raising funds for Maoist activities.

They were involved in "larger conspiracy to threaten the democratic set-up of the nation", Pawar told the court.

The Pune Police arrested Ferreira, Gonsalves, Bharadwaj and two others -- Telugu poet Varavara Rao and activist Gautam Navlakha -- in August this year in connection with the probe into violence in Koregaon Bhima in Pune on January 1 this year.

Gonsalves and Ferreira were brought to Pune from their residences in Mumbai on Friday after the bail pleas were rejected by the court. Their four-week period of house arrest also ended on Friday.

Seeking Bharadwaj's police custody, prosecutor Pawar claimed she was a key office-bearer of the Indian Association of People's Lawyers, "a frontal organisation of CPI (Maoist)".

Bharadwaj had the responsibility to recruit students from institutes such as the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, she said.

"After the recruitment, the students were sent to the interior parts which are called guerrilla zone," said Pawar.

Documents seized from Bharadwaj revealed that she guided Maoists on tactics, and she had asked Maoist leaders to follow the tactics of Kashmiri separatists to disturb law and order situation in other parts of the country, said Pawar.

Bharadwaj filed an application in the court Saturday in which she said she suffered from high blood sugar and some other health issues, and she should be provided the same facilities in jail which the government had "promised" to fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya.

"The applicant must be provided with condition of incarceration, bathing and toilet facilities which are on par with those promised to be provided to Mr Vijay Mallya by the state and central government," the application said.

The court ordered that the required medical facilities be provided to her.

Opposing the police custody, defence lawyer Rahul Deshmukh, who represented Gonsalves, argued the police in remand report have not mentioned that they need to recover any material from the accused. The material seized earlier is already in their possession for nearly two months, he said, adding "so there is no need for police custody".

Citing a CrPC section, he argued that the house arrest is nothing but a "judicial custody".

"While seeking the police custody of the accused, who are already in judicial custody, the prosecution needs to submit an affidavit... No affidavit was submitted, so there is no need to give police custody," Deshmukh said.

Advocate Siddharth Patil, representing Ferreira, argued the period of the house arrest specified by the SC was valid till midnight of October 26.

HC rejected petitioner’s plea to withdraw PIL that sought Regulations on withdrawal of PILs

‘Registrar General of this High Court cannot frame regulations/rules, as to how a writ Court, in exercise of the powers, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should exercise powers, when orders are passed allowing the petitioner, to withdraw PILs.’

The Madras High Court recently dismissed public interest litigation filed by a ‘magazine editor’ who sought regulations on filing and registration of PILs and withdrawal of the same.

Varaaki, who claimed himself to be an editor of a magazine, Indian Reporter, had filed a PIL in which he contended that many PILs are filed for personal interest only. To ‘avoid wasting of precious time of the High Court’, he sought for a direction to high court registrar to frame regulations, rule or scheme for presenting and registration/filing of public interest writ petitions and also withdrawing the same.

Advocate C Chokkalingam appeared for Varaaki before the bench comprising Justice S Manikumar and Justice PT Asha. As the arguments proceeded and the bench warned the lawyer that the PIL is liable to be dismissed with costs, he sought permission to withdraw it. However, the bench refused such a request.

The bench said: “There could be regulations framed in exercise of the powers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, as to how, a PIL should be filed. Considering the reasons assigned, that time is wasted in Courts, in entertaining Public Interest writ petitions, though on merits, and on the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that in the instant writ petition is also one such writ petition and not permitted to be withdrawn, we are of the view that the petitioner, claimed to be an Editor of Magazine, Indian Reporter, has not made any effort to ascertain, as to whether, High Court, Madras, under Article 225 of the Constitution of India has framed any regulations, in the matter of filing/registration of a PIL and thus, wasted the time of this Court.”

The court said that rules have already been framed for regulating registration/filings of PIL. But it said that Registrar General of the High Court cannot frame regulations/rules, as to how a writ court, in the exercise of the powers, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should exercise powers, when orders are passed allowing the petitioner, to withdraw PILs.

“Rules/Regulations, if any, framed governing presentation/registration of any public interest writ petition, are matters to be decided by the Registry. No authority or Court can frame any regulations, as to how, a Constitutional Court should decide a writ petition, filed under Article 226 or revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In exercise of the powers, under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, Courts are empowered to decide, as to whether PILs filed are maintainable; whether any notice is required to be issued to the respondents therein; whether, on response, required to be adjudicated or not, or to permit the petitioner therein, to withdraw the writ petition, filed under the caption, "Public Interest Writ Petition".

The bench finally dismissed the PIL without imposing any costs.

The Central Government has notified the appointment of following four Advocates as Additional Judges of Punjab and Haryana High Court:

Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi Mr. Arun Kumar Monga Mr. Manoj Bajaj

The recommendations were made by the Supreme Court collegium in September this year, after they were forwarded by the then Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 24th November, 2017, in consultation with his two senior-most colleagues.

As per the resolution, the collegium had eleven candidates before it. The other Advocates whose candidature was considered were Sukant Gupta, Sanjay Vashisth, Jasdeep Singh Gill, Mansur Ali, Sunil Kumar Singh Panwar, Deepinder Singh Nalwa, and Harsh Bunger. While consideration of their cases was deferred without allotting any specific reason, the collegium had said that the proposal for elevating Deepinder Singh Nalwa and Harsh Bunger would be taken up for consideration after some time.

‘What is offered by the employer is a package as contained in the Schemes of voluntary retirement, and that alone would be admissible.’

The Supreme Court on Friday observed that voluntary retirement schemes have to be strictly adhered to, and the very objective of having such schemes would be defeated, if parts of other schemes are sought to be imported into such voluntary retirement schemes.

The bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul was considering a batch of appeals filed by associations of employees of Insurance companies, who had availed General Insurance Employees’ Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004. Their contention was that they are also entitled to certain benefits arising under the earlier scheme known as the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995, which inter alia provided that the qualifying service of an employee, retiring under that 1995 Scheme, would be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to certain conditions.

The issue before the apex court bench was whether the beneficiaries under the SVRS-2004 Scheme, which specifically excludes the benefit of additional five (5) years’ service of the 1995 Scheme, would still be entitled to claim the said amount contrary to the explicit terms.

Referring to various judgments and also perusing the schemes in question, the bench observed that what is binding between the parties is the statutory scheme itself, as per its terms. Approving the contention raised by insurance companies that, if one has availed of the benefits, it would not be open to raise pleas and seek benefits beyond what is stipulated in the scheme, the bench said: “We have, thus, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that statutory or contractual, such voluntary retirement schemes as the SVRS2004 Scheme have to be strictly adhered to, and the very objective of having such Schemes would be defeated, if parts of other Schemes are sought to be imported into such voluntary retirement schemes. What is offered by the employer is a package as contained in the Schemes of voluntary retirement, and that alone would be admissible.”

Dismissing their appeals, the court said: “Employees avail of the benefit of such a Scheme with their eyes open, they cannot look here and there, under different schemes, to see what other benefits can be achieved by them, by seeking to take advantage of the more beneficial schemes, while simultaneously enjoying the more beneficial aspects of the SVRS-2004 Scheme.”

The CBSE has denied before the Supreme Court the allegation that it charged fees of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 1,200 per subject for providing Photostats of evaluated answer sheets to the candidates of Classes X and XII.

In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, CBSE chairperson Anita Karwal said, “I deny that fee of rupees 1,200 for obtaining the photostat copies of evaluated answer books is being charged for providing photostat copies and the RTI rules framed under the Right to Information Act.”

The board said: “It is only where the process of providing photocopy of answer books gets linked with the process of redressal of the grievances of the students who seek revaluation of the answer book besides and in addition to receiving photocopies of the answer books that the student candidate would be required to pay an amount of Rs. 700 for Class 12 and not rupees 1200 as contended. These charges are not applicable for any request only for supply of photostat copy of answer books under the provisions of the RTI.”

The affidavit also stated that after the declaration of result the board invites application for verification of marks which is a separate procedure and existed even before the implementation of RTI Act.

“…Under the provision of verification of marks on receipt of request from the candidate, CBSE appoints examiners who are deputed for checking of the answer books whether the marks were given for each answer and correctly added in the front page of the answer book for which aside from administrative cost of the Board, the examiners are paid honorarium, refreshment, meals and conveyance etc for working day and night and sometimes working late in the night to complete the work in the given time frame out of the processing charges,” it said.

The board also said it has framed separate formats of applications to ensure that students who are only desirous of obtaining a photocopy of the answer sheet under the provisions of the RTI Act are not required to make any payment over and above the fee prescribed under the RTI Act.

Besides, it said in the affidavit that it is not receiving any grant from the Centre and it charges the lowest examination fee in the country.

The affidavit has been filed in response to notice issued by the court on a contempt petition moved by advocates Kumar Shanu and Paras Jain, the co-founders of Whistle for Public Interest (WHIP).

The contempt plea challenged a notification issued by the CBSE on May 29, 2017, saying it prescribed a fee of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 1,200 for candidates of Class X and XII seeking evaluated answer sheets, even as the same is available under the RTI Act for a mere fee of Rs. 2 per page and the application fee of Rs. 10.

The CBSE said in the affidavit that “the notice dated May 29, 2017 regarding the modalities in respect of the process of verification and obtaining photostat copies of evaluated answer books of the candidates who have appeared in Senior School Certificate Examination 2017 was issued by the Controller of Examination CBSE”.

It said CBSE has, like any other examination body, developed a mechanism to provide an inspection of answer books of the students.

“Those candidates who only seek copies of the answer sheet are charged the fees strictly in terms of the RTI Act. The fee which has been prescribed under the RTI Act does not stipulate any revaluation or retotalling of marks etc. For providing the copies of the answer sheets on the applications and the RTI the CBSE receives the fee only as per the norms laid down by the RTI Act or the rules made thereunder,” it said.

The board said in order to device a mechanism for inspection of the answer books, a lot of logistic arrangement is needed for which mechanism has to be developed in all its 10 regional offices.

“Accordingly, the Board, which always endeavours in introducing new initiatives and reforms in examination processes as a step towards complete transparency has issued a notification on June 21, 2012 for providing photo copies of answer books to the candidates by speed post after charging the processing fee,” said the affidavit.

It said in addition to process of seeking copies of the answer sheets, if any, candidate also applies for re-evaluation or retotalling of its answer book requiring a procedure for processing and meeting with any such requirement then it does not get restricted to the simple activity of providing a copy of the examination sheet without there being any other requirement, but it also necessarily requires huge infrastructure and manpower for handling such request for revaluation/retotalling. This also requires significant funds for that purpose.

The board also informed that from 2017 and onwards, besides and in addition to the availability of the interlink process of verification of marks and obtaining scanned images of answer books for availing facility of revaluation of answer books, there was no bar for any candidate to seek the photocopy of his or her answer book under the RTI Act and rules framed under the Act and pay the fee for that purpose as per prescription made under the RTI Act.

“Accordingly, only all the regional offices of the Board have been providing the photo copies of the answer books to the candidates under the provisions of the Right to Information Act if any candidate has applied thereunder. The fee for that purpose is as per the prescription made under the RTI,” it deposed.

In a significant relief to 63 Moons Technologies Limited, the Bombay High Court recently stayed notifications by the state government declaring attachment of assets owned by 63 Moons, the erstwhile Financial Technologies (India) Limited (FTIL).

The attachment of assets was ordered by the state in order to recover the loss of Rs. 5,600 crores caused to investors due to the trading of fictitious stocks that took place in National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL), an electronic platform in spot-trading of commodities. FTIL promoted NSEL and NSEL chairman Jignesh Shah was also in-charge of management of FTIL.

A division bench of Justice RM Savant and Justice Revati Mohite Dere was hearing a notice of motion in a petition filed by 63 Moons Technologies Limited challenging notifications by the state government directing attachment of the petitioner’s assets under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999.

Submissions

Senior Counsel and former Attorney General of India Mukul Rohatgi appeared on behalf of the petitioner company. He submitted that the state government has misdirected itself and misconstrued the provisions of Section 4 of the MPID Act and though they have already proceeded against the defaulter members and their directors/promoters by attaching properties worth Rs.6,115 crores, they have still proceeded against the petitioner and attached its properties more than Rs.2,200 crores.

Against the alleged original default amount, which was further reduced by the amount being repaid after the allegation of default against the outstanding default amount of Rs.4,822.53 crores, the authorities have attached properties worth Rs.8,548 crores which included the property of the petitioner, Rohatgi said.

Senior Counsel Rafique Dada appeared on behalf of the respondent state. He informed the court about the status of the immovable properties which have already been attached. It is not sufficient to meet the amount of default, as the outstanding alleged default amount is Rs.5,600 crores and as against this, on the exclusion of the properties of the petitioner, the worth of the properties attached would fetch the approximate value of Rs.3,394 crores, Dada said.

Order

The court noted the reason for the ‘excess attachment’ argument made by the petitioners in context of the state government’s corrigendum dated April 17, 2018, which deleted the earlier clause regarding exclusion of periodically accrued benefits through investments etc., from attachment.

“However, it is apparent that in the year 2018, the accruals on the investments came to be attached by issuing notifications and this is what has been objected to. The petitioner has given the details of the attachments effected by the State Government to the extent of Rs.361.46 Crores which attachment is in furtherance of the corrigendum and deletion of the exclusion clause. The attachment of the petitioner's properties effected in the year 2018 is not disputed by the petitioners to the extent of Rs.1,200.30 Crores, since it is on account of replenishment of the properties/bonds already attached vide notification dated 21st September, 2016.

What is termed as “excess attachment” is the amount of Rs.361.43 Crores, the details have been already submitted by Shri Rohatgi in the chart which we have reproduced above. This includes periodically accrued returns from the properties/bonds which were already attached vide notification dated 21st September, 2016 and also the investments worth Rs.61.83 Crores held by the petitioner in various companies. The amount of Rs.51.80 Crores lying in the bank is the income earned by the petitioner company from non-ODIN business by applying Exchange Technology. It is this amount which is sought to be excluded according to the counsel for the petitioner.”

The bench noted that prima facie the attachment was arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified and needs to be excluded.

The court stayed the relevant notifications and said:

“In the light of the aforesaid observations, we are inclined to stay the impugned notification dated 7th April, 2018, relating to ODIN and its receivables and also notifications dated 11th April, 2018, 17th April, 2018, 19th April, 2018 and 15th May, 2018 which purports to attach the properties in the form of accrual benefits on the investments, which came to be earlier attached by the State Government in the year 2016. We grant stay to the notification dated 19th September, 2018, to the extent of attaching the ODIN and its receivables and attachment of accrual benefits.”

‘Tersely put, in our view, if the Court finds that the question of valuation and/or court fees as raised by the defendant relates to the jurisdiction of the Court, it may try such an issue first and before the evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim.’

The Karnataka High Court has held that when an issue of valuation and/or court fees is raised in a civil suit on the objection of the defendant, the same is not invariably required to be tried as a preliminary issue and before taking evidence on other issues.

The full bench comprising Chief Justice Dinesh Maheswari, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Aravind Kumar observed that such an issue could be tried as a preliminary issue if it relates to the jurisdiction and the trial court is of the view that the suit or any part thereof could be disposed of on its determination.

The question referred before the full bench (Venkatesh R. Desai vs. Pushpa Hosmani) was whether, by virtue of Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, when an issue of valuation and court fees is raised on the objections of the defendants, the same is invariably required to be tried as a preliminary issue and before taking evidence on other issues.

The matter was referred since conflicting views were noticed in judgments of two division bench. In Veeragouda vs. Shantakumar, it was held that issue relating to court fees is invariably required to be tried as a preliminary issue, while in Nanjamma vs. Akkayamma, it was held not mandatory.

The bench said Section 11 cannot be read to mean that irrespective of the law applicable to the case, mere raising of question by the defendant regarding valuation and/or court fees would be sufficient to displace a suit from its regular trial and, first of all, the exercise is invariably required to be carried out for determination of such question of valuation and/or court fees.

“The approach in Veeragouda’s case is flawed for the fundamental reason that on a literal interpretation, it has been observed that the expression ‘shall’ could only mean a mandate and nothing else. With respect, the Division Bench appears to have overlooked the basic principle that the word ‘shall’ as occurring in statute even when is prima facie taken as mandatory yet, the function of the Court is to ascertain its real intention by examination of the whole scope of the statute and to construe the expression that relates to the context in which it is used and the purpose it seeks to serve,” the court said.

Answering the reference, the bench, also examining the provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,  said: “Tersely put, in our view, if the Court finds that the question of valuation and/or court fees as raised by the defendant relates to the jurisdiction of the Court, it may try such an issue first and before the evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim; and in other eventualities, the Court may examine such a question of valuation and/or court fees, but not necessarily as a preliminary issue or before the evidence on other issues.”

“The manner in which the offence is committed is not barbaric and brutal.”

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has yet again commuted the death sentence in a rape case, this time to a man accused of raping a five-year-old.

Rajkumar Kol, an autorickshaw driver, was sentenced to death by a Sessions’ court in Katni District after he was found guilty of raping a five-year-old after a trial that reportedly lasted just five days.  The conviction was under Sections 376(AB) and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

On his appeal, the bench comprising of the Chief Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, referring to medical reports, observed that the act of the accused inserting finger into the private part of the prosecutrix amounts to rape under the definition of Section 375 of IPC but the manner in which the offence is committed is not barbaric and brutal.

It said: “Though the offence is condemnable, reprehensible, vicious and a deplorable act of violance but the same does not fall within the aggravating circumstances namely extreme depravity and the barbaric manner in which the crime was committed.”

The bench further said that it is not a case in which the alternative punishment would not be sufficient to the facts of the case. It said: “Taking into consideration the totality of the facts, nature, motive and the manner of the offence and further that nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution that the accused was having any criminal antecedent and the possibility of being rehabilitation and reformation has also not been ruled out. Nothing is available on record to suggest that he cannot be useful for the society. “

The bench then commuted the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and fine of Rs. 10,000.

Section 376(AB) of the Indian Penal Code provides for death penalty as maximum punishment for rapists of girls below 12 years of age. It was only some days ago, the High court had commuted death sentence to a man convicted of raping a 7 year old girl. This is the second instance where the High court is commuting the sentence due to lack of aggravating circumstances viz. extreme depravity and the barbaric manner in which the crime was committed.

In this case also, the bench reiterated that the ‘rarest of rare’ test still applies. It said: “Newly inserted Section 376-AB in the Penal Code provides that in the case of rape with a woman under 12 years of age, minimum rigorous imprisonment has been provided not less than twenty years which may extend to imprisonment for life which shall mean natural life and with fine. Thus, the test for awarding the death sentence in the case of woman under 12 years of age shall be still the same which has been laid down in the various judgments prior to the amendment i.e. ‘rarest of rare case’.”

HC Can’t Modify Life Sentence To ‘Period Already Undergone’ While Upholding Conviction Of Murder [Jitendra @ Kalla V. State of Govt. of NCT Delhi]

The Supreme Court observed that in a murder case, the high court as an appellate court, cannot modify the life imprisonment imposed by the trial court to period already undergone.

‘Fact’ In Section 27 Of Evidence Act Not Limited To ‘Actual Physical Material Object’ And Includes ‘Mental Awareness Of The Accused As To Its Existence [Asar Mohamad and ors V. State of UP]

The Supreme Court observed that the word “fact” as contemplated in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not limited to “actual physical material object”, and it includes mental awareness or the knowledge of the accused as to its existence.

Execution Petition Filed Within 12 Years Of Appellate Court Judgment Affirming Trial Court Decree Won’t Be Barred By Limitation [Shanthi V. T.D. Vishwanathan & Ors.]

The Supreme Court held that an execution petition filed within 12 years of the high court judgment affirming the decree passed by the trial court would not be barred by limitation.

Strict Proof Of Marriage Not Needed For ‘Maintenance’ Proceedings Under Sec. 125 CrPC [Kamala vs. MR Mohan Kumar]

The Supreme Court, while setting aside a Karnataka High Court order that had dismissed a maintenance petition for want of proof of marriage, reiterated that in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such strict proof of marriage is not necessary.

Conditional Gifts Are Incomplete Until Conditions Are Complied With; Such Gift Deeds Can Be Cancelled By The Donor [S. Sarojini Amma V. Velayudhan Pillai Sreekmar]

The Supreme Court held that a conditional gift only becomes complete on compliance of the conditions in the deed, and the donor is within rights to cancel such a gift deed. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Indira Banerjee was considering an appeal against Kerala High Court judgment.

 Suit For Mere Injunction Not Maintainable When Defendant Can Successfully Raise Cloud Over Plaintiff’s Title [Jharkhand State Housing Board V. Didar Singh]

The Supreme Court reiterated that a suit for bare injunction would not be maintainable when a defendant could successfully raise cloud over the title of the plaintiff.

If A Religious Practice Threatens People’s Health, It Is Not Entitled To Protection Under Article 25 [Arjun Gopal & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors.]

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, ruled against imposing complete ban on firecrackers, but said that only less polluting green crackers can be sold, that too only through licensed traders. The court also banned online sale of firecrackers. In doing so, the Bench comprising Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan examined the interplay between the right to health and environmental protection under Article 21 on one hand, and the rights under Articles 25 and 19(1)(g) on the other.

No Bharat Stage IV Vehicle Shall Be Sold Across The Country From April 1, 2020 [M. C. Mehta V. union of India]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that no Bharat Stage IV vehicle shall be sold across the country with effect from April 1, 2020. The Bharat stage emission standards are standards instituted by the government to regulate the output of air pollutants from motor vehicles. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur made it clear that only BS VI compliant vehicle shall be sold in the country from April 1st, 2020.

SC Explains When Doctrine Of Res Judicata As Between Co-Defendants Can Be Applied [Govindammal vs. Vaidiyanathan]

The Supreme Court reiterated that the following four conditions are required to be satisfied while considering the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata as between co-defendants: There must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned; It must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the reliefs which the plaintiff claims; The question between the defendants must have been finally decided; and The co-defendants were necessary or proper parties in the former suit.

SC Sets Aside ‘Flyover Promotion’ Granted To Officer By Violating Service Rules [Ajit KR Bhuyan & Ors V. Debajit Das & Ors]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a ‘flyover promotion’ granted to an officer who worked with a former Chief Minister of Assam by violating service rules. The bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan restored the judgment of a single judge of the Gauhati High Court which was earlier set aside by the division bench on the ground of delay and latches.  The division bench had also accepted that 13 vacancies were not in existence and favoritism was shown to Debajit Das.

Remarriage Not A Ground To Deprive A Man Custody Of His Children [Dr. Amit Kumar V. Dr. Sonila & Ors.]

The Supreme Court on Friday held that merely because a man remarried and is residing with second wife’s child, he could not be deprived of the custody of his child. The bench comprising of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul were considering a child custody case between a doctor couple, both serving in CRPF.

 Voluntary Retirement Schemes Have To Be Strictly Adhered To; Parts Of Other Schemes Can’t Be Imported Into Such Schemes [National Insurance Special Voluntary Retired/Retired Employees Association & Anr. V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr]

The Supreme Court on Friday observed that voluntary retirement schemes have to be strictly adhered to, and the very objective of having such schemes would be defeated, if parts of other schemes are sought to be imported into such voluntary retirement schemes. The bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul was considering a batch of appeals filed by associations of employees of Insurance companies, who had availed General Insurance Employees’ Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004.

Home Buyer Ought Not To Be Allowed To Reap Benefits Of Their Own Delay In Taking Possession [M/Supertech td. V. Rajni Goyal]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asserted that “purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession”. Consequently, while upholding compensation to a disgruntled home buyer, a bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra reduced the time period for computation of the amount, noting the delay on the part of the buyer in taking possession.

IBC Not Intended To Be Substitute To A Recovery Forum [Transmission Corporate of Andhra Pradesh Ltd V. Equipment Conductors and Cables Ltd]

While setting an order of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), the Supreme Court  reiterated that existence of an undisputed debt is sine qua non of initiating corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).

 SC Upholds Quashing Of Unrecognised Basic Teachers Certificate Course Offered By Deemed University & Rs. 50,000 Compensation To All Students [Nehru Gram Bharati University V. State of UP]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Allahabad High Court order quashing an unrecognised two years Basic Teachers Certificate (BTC) Course introduced by a Deemed University without fulfilling the conditions prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).

 SCBA Membership Mandatory For Chamber Allotment To SC Lawyers; Applications To Be Invited Once Every 3 Years [Gopal Jha V. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India]

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the condition for lawyers to compulsorily be members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for applying for allotment of Lawyers’ Chambers. The Bench comprising Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan, however, changed the block period for which the requirement of filing and/or appearance has to be fulfilled to October 01, 2013 to September 30, 2018, instead of June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016.

PIL To Lower Men’s Marriageable Age From 21 To 18 Dismissed By SC With Rs. 25,000 Cost

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation filed seeking to lower the legal age of men to marry from 21 to 18. The bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S K Kaul and Justice K M Joseph also imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner while dismissing the petition.

‘More Than Two Children’ Disqualification Rule In Orissa Gram Panchayats Act Attracts Even If One Child Is Given For Adoption

The Supreme Court in Minasingh Majhi vs. The Collector, Nuapada interpreted a provision of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act, 1965, which disqualified a Panchayath member if he has more than two children. It stated that, such disqualification sustains even if one child is given for adoption.

SC Stays NGT Judgment Approving Char Dham Project

The Supreme Court stayed the operation of the judgment of the National Green Tribunal which approved the “Char Dham Highway project” in Uttarakhand. The SC bench of Justice Rohinton Nariman and Justice Abdul Nazeer passed the stay order in an application filed by an NGO, ‘Citizens for Green Doon’ and few other local residents, who alleged unfairness and lack of propriety on the part of NGT in dealing with the Original Application filed by them.

 SC Allows Nagaland Student’s Plea For Admission To Medical College Under Central Pool Quota Despite Expiry Of Admission Cut-off Date

The Supreme Court, on Monday, allowed a petition filed by a student from Nagaland, directing AN Magadh Medical College, Gaya, Bihar to admit her under the Central Pool Quota despite expiry of the last date for admissions. The judgment was rendered by a Bench comprising Justice SA Bobde and Justice L Nageswara Rao on the petition filed by one Ms. Akumsenla Jamir. While Ms. Jamir was represented by Advocate Amit Kumar Singh, the respondent medical college was represented by Advocates Gopal Singh and Manish Kumar.

#MeToo: SC Refuses Urgent Hearing Of Plea For Registration Of FIRs, Fast Track Trial Courts, Etc.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to urgently hear a petition filed by a lawyer seeking registration of FIRs based on allegations of sexual misconduct and assault levelled by women across various sectors during the #MeToo movement. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice SK Kaul said that the petition will come up for hearing in the regular course.

SC Dismisses PIL For Action Against Political Parties And Candidates For Misusing Religion For Electoral Gains

Supreme Court of India on Monday dismissed a PIL seeking directions to the Centre and the Election Commission of India to take strict action against political parties and candidates engaging in misusing religion for electoral gains to ensure free and fair elections.

 Finalize SOP For Handling Complaints Involving Child Pornography By 15 November: SC Directs Centre

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Centre to finalize the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for handling complaints involving child pornography by November 15. The bench comprising Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice UU Lalit asserted, “We are constrained to fix this deadline because the Union of India has already had more than two months of experience in working the Standard Operating Procedure and the portal and there must be some finality to the process.”

SC Dismisses PIL Seeking Action Against Politicians For Damages In Protests Against SC/ST Verdict

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S. K. Kaul on Tuesday dismissed a PIL seeking a direction that the politicians, who were allegedly behind the massive unrest across the country fueled by the March 20 verdict of the apex court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra diluting the SC/ST Act of 1989, account for the losses and damage to public property so sustained.

 SC Tells Rajasthan To Stop Illegal Mining Over 115.34 Hectares In Aravalli Hills In 48 Hours

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Rajasthan government to stop illegal mining over 115.34-hectare area in the Aravalli Hills within 48 hours while also criticising its unfortunate attitude over the entire issue of mining in the Hills. A bench of Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta took note of the status report filed by the Rajasthan government but found it lacking in clarity on the question whether illegal mining has been stopped in the 115.34 hectares.

SC Refers Plea To Make Independent Collegium To Recommend Names For Appointment Of Election Commissioners To Constitution Bench

A Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice SK Kaul on Tuesday referred a plea, for constituting an independent mechanism for selection of Election Commissioners, for the consideration of Constitution Bench.

Assam NRC:SC Directs All Stakeholders To File Their Stand On NRC Coordinator’s Objection To Five Documents For Claims And Objection by October 30

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday invited all stakeholders to offer their opinion on the stand adopted by Mr. Prateek Hajela, the State Coordinator for the Assam NRC, in regarding as inexpedient the allowing of claims for inclusion in the NRC to be filed on the basis of five specific documents.

Muzaffarpur Shelter Home Case: SC Issues Notice To Main Accused Brajesh Thakur To Show Cause As To Why He Should Not Be Shifted Outside Bihar

 The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the prime accused in the Muzaffarpur Shelter Home case, Brajesh Thakur, to show cause as to why he should not be shifted outside of the state of Bihar in the interest of a free and fair investigation.

SC Directs CVC To Complete Enquiry Against Alok Verma In Two Weeks Under Supervision Of Justice A K Patnaik;Nageswara Rao Can’t Take Any Policy Decisions Till Then

Hearing the plea of CBI Director Alok Verma against the October 23 orders of the CVC and the Central government divesting him of all powers and functions and giving charge to M. Nageshwara Rao in the meantime, the Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi issued a string of interim measures on Friday

SC Prevents Serial PIL Litigant Asok Pande From Filing New Petitions Until Payment Of Costs

The Supreme Court on Friday issued an order preventing Asok Pande, serial PIL litigant, from filing any new petitions until he pays cost of Rs.25,000 imposed by the Court on an earlier occasion for filing another PIL which was found to be frivolous.

Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Monday reiterated the Supreme Court’s orders and asked Special NIA Judge Vinod Padalkar, presiding over the trial in the 2008 Malegaon blast case that killed six and injured over a 100 people, to expedite the trial and conduct it on a day-to-day basis.

On Wednesday, the High Court set aside a Pune court order that had granted more time to the police for filing a charge sheet against lawyer Surendra Gadling and some other activists arrested in connection with the violence at Koregaon Bhima village in the state.

The High Court held that information relating to salary details of the husband cannot be disclosed in an RTI application filed by wife’s lawyer.

The High Court on Friday granted relief to human rights activist Gautam Navlakha, civil rights activist and writer Anand Teltumbde, tribal rights activist Father Stan Swamy. Court however did not grant relief to activists Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonsalves.

In a significant relief to 63 Moons Technologies Limited, the High Court recently stayed notifications by the state government declaring attachment of assets owned by 63 Moons, the erstwhile Financial Technologies (India) Limited (FTIL).

 Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday restrained the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from taking any coercive action against CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana, ordering maintenance of status quo until the next hearing date, October 29. It, however, clarified that the ongoing probe in the matter will continue, and issued notice to CBI and Alok Verma, the CBI Director.

The High Court quashed the circular issued by the Delhi government that empowered Registrars to cancel or recall a registered deed on receipt of any complaint that the same has been registered by practicing fraud.

Appreciating how big the heart of a woman is to forgive her estranged husband who created fake online accounts in the name of his estranged wife seeking companionship, the Delhi High Court quashed an FIR registered against the man subject to him depositing cost of Rs 1 lakh with the Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund.

Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court held that when an issue of valuation and/or court fees is raised in a civil suit on the objection of the defendant, the same is not invariably required to be tried as a preliminary issue and before taking evidence on other issues

 Kerala High Court

A single bench of the High Court of Kerala warned the various heads of Local Self Government institutions to ensure the removal of all illegal flex boards /banners/hoardings/flags before October 30 in due compliance with its earlier orders. The court had earlier issued guidelines to ensure prompt removal of such flex boards and the government in compliance with that order had formulated a circular to implement the same.

The High Court directed the recovery of 100% value of minerals extracted without obtaining prior Environmental Clearance(EC), by following the Supreme Court judgment in Common Cause case which held that extraction of any mineral without EC would amount to illegal or unlawful mining attracting the provisions of Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957.

The High court held that remarriage of the spouse who obtained an ex parte decree of divorce, after the filing of the application for setting aside the ex parte decree by the opposite spouse, would not render such application infructuous.

 Madras High Court

The Madras High Court closed the suo moto contempt proceedings against BJP national secretary H Raja for his alleged derogatory remarks against judiciary, after he tendered his unconditional apology in the Court on Monday.

The High Court recently dismissed public interest litigation filed by a ‘magazine editor’ who sought regulations on filing and registration of PILs and withdrawal of the same.

The High Court upheld the decision of Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker to disqaulify 18 MLAs of AIADMK. The decision was upheld by Justice M. Sathyanarayanan, who was appointed by the Supreme Court to decide the issue following the split verdict delivered by a Division Bench of the HC.

Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that while granting bail, criminal courts cannot place the condition for the accused to surrender their passport. Justice Daya Chaudhary asserted that while Section 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) allows the court to impound any document or thing produced before it, the impounding of a passport can only be undertaken by the passport authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act.

Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan high Court recently slapped ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company with penal costs of Rs. 10 lakhs for impleading several judges of District Judges Cadre as parties to a petition filed by it.

Days after the Supreme Court refused to place fetters on legislators practising law, lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay has now filed a review petition against this judgment.

The petition, filed through Advocate RD Upadhyay, now alleges that the matter was earlier reserved without a “full-fledged hearing”, despite the fact that it involves “intricate Questions of Law, interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 19 and Schedule 3 of the Constitution, Principle of Affirmative Equality, Constitutional Morality, Institutional Integrity, Separation of Judiciary Executive and Legislator, Intention of Framers and wide-ranging other facts”.

It then highlights the importance of separation of powers and the impact that permitting legislators to practice law has on this doctrine, submitting, “The Indian Judiciary occupies a unique and exalted position. It stands on a high pedestal and must remain so. Only then can it instil strength and vitality for effective functioning of our Constitution. Any act that adversely affect this unique and revered position of the judiciary will undoubtedly weaken it. If Legislators will be permitted to practice, judiciary will be imperiled and consequently the democracy also. Therefore, Legislator must be barred from practicing till he demit office.”

The review petition goes on to reiterate the contentions made by Mr. Upadhyay in his petition before the court, relying on several judgments, including those in Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Bar Council of H.P.( holding that law officer engaged by a company for not acting and pleading in court cannot be enrolled as an advocate) and Dr. Haniraj L. Chulan vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (holding that a full time medical professional cannot be enrolled as an advocate).

Notably, the Supreme Court had categorically held that these decisions were inapplicable in case of legislators, as “their status is sui generis and certainly not one of a full-time salaried employee of any person, government, firm, corporation or concern as such the participation of the legislators in the House for the conduct of its business, by no standards can be considered as service rendered to an employer.”

The petition further contends that since public servants are not permitted to practice any other profession, litigators being public servants should not be allowed to practice law. It states that restricting district collectors, magistrate and judges from practicing, while allowing litigators to do so is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The review petition now essentially asserts that the court needs to delve into the purposive interpretation of several Bar Council of India rules, as well as determine the actual status of legislators if they have not been considered to be full-time employees.

“Keeping in view the above sated facts, purposive interpretation PART-VI (Rules Governing Advocates) of the BCI Rules, particularly Rules 47-52 (Restriction on other employments), Section 21 IPC, Section 2(c) PCA, and the Judgment in Dr. Haniraj Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra [(1996) 3 SCC 342], Satish Kumar Sharma v. Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh [(2001) 2 SCC 365], Madhav Bhokarikar v. Ganesh Bhokarikar [(2004) 3 SCC 607], it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to review the impugned Judgment,” it finally prays, demanding that the judgment be reviewed in Open Court, rather than by circulation.

The Centre has justified before the Supreme Court the amendments brought in the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to overcome the controversial apex court's Judgment in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case, diluting the provision of arrest under the law.

The government also said Parliament has the power to bring such amendment.

Parliament had on August 9 passed the bill to overturn the apex court's March 20 order concerning safeguards against arrest under the SC/ST Act.

The Supreme Court had passed a slew of directions and said a public servant could be arrested in cases lodged under the SC/ST Act only after prior approval by the competent authority.

The amendments rule out any provision for anticipatory bail for a person accused of atrocities against SC/STs, notwithstanding any court order.

In its affidavit filed in the top court, the Centre said it would be "incorrect" to assume that high acquittal rates in cases under the act were due to false cases and there was misuse of the law.

The government referred to statistics and said there was no decrease in the atrocities committed on the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities.

The affidavit was filed in pursuance to the court's direction asking the Centre to respond on a batch of petitions challenging the new amendments in the SC/ST Act.

"It is incorrect to assume that high rate of acquittal under the SC/ST Act is largely on account of false cases and misuse of provisions of the act," the government said in its affidavit.

Giving the number of cases lodged under the act, the Centre said in 2014, 47,124 cases were registered under the SC/ST Act followed by 44,839 and 47,338 cases in 2015 and 2016 respectively.

It said the rate of conviction was 28.8 per cent in the year 2014, 25.8 per cent in 2015 and 24.9 per cent in 2016.

Referring to the factors which led to acquittal in cases registered under the act, the government said delay in lodging of the FIRs, lack of corroborative evidence and witnesses turning hostile were some of the reasons behind it.

"Therefore, it is misconceived and misleading to suggest that acquittals singularly take place owing to either false cases or that the provisions of the SC/ST Act are being misused," the affidavit said.

It said amendments to the act were made following the apex court order diluting the provision of arrest and it was based on "well reasoned objective" to strengthen the statutory framework to give protection to the members of SC and ST communities.

The amendments provide that no preliminary inquiry would be required for registering a criminal case and an arrest under this law would not be subject to any approval.

The apex court is seized of a batch of pleas which has alleged the two Houses of Parliament had "arbitrarily" decided to amend the law and restored the previous provisions in such a manner so that an innocent cannot avail the right of anticipatory bail.

The court is scheduled to hear the matter next month.

Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Bombay High Court Judgment which disallowed the extension of time granted to Police to conclude probe and file charge sheet in the Bhima Koregaon violence case.

The Court was was hearing a petition filed by Mahrashtra Government. The Bench has also issued notice to activists.

The lawyer submitted that if the high court order has not stayed, the accused would be entitled for grant of statutory bail for want of non-filing of chargesheet within the stipulated period. The Bench then agreed to hear the appeal.

The impugned order had set aside the order passed by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on September 2, granting an extension of 90 days for further investigation, in accordance with Section 43-D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The question before the Bombay High Court was whether the Special Judge had before him the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the period of 90 days, as contemplated under the proviso to Section 43-D.

The accused had asserted that in the case at hand, the application for extension was moved by the police officer, and no report was submitted by the Public Prosecutor. This, they had submitted, violated the provision.

Agreeing with these contentions, Justice Mridula Bhatkar had noted that “the law states that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all”. 

The court had then noted that the Investigating Officer in the case argued the matter along with the Public Prosecutor, and “navigated the application for extension of period by further 90 days, which is not contemplated under the proviso to section 43-D of the Act”.

It had further explained, “It is to be remembered that the Investigating Officer is always interested in the success or the conviction in the case. However, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to assist the Court in the process of administration of justice by upholding the law.”

The court had then set aside the impugned order granting the extension, but had stayed it till November 1, on the request of the Advocate General, who submitted that the State wanted to test the legality of the order before the Supreme Court.

Read the Bombay High Court Judgment Here

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S. K. Kaul and Justice K. M. Joseph listed the string of appeals against the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court in the Ram Janmabhoomi- Babri Masjid dispute in the first week of January, 2019 for fixing the date of hearing by an appropriate bench.

“It will come up in the first week of January not for hearing but for deciding the date of the hearing. Hearing may be in January, February, March, whenever....also the bench by which it shall be heard will be constituted”, clarified the Chief Justice.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the state of UP, had urged that in view of the nature of the dispute, it may be taken up on an earlier occasion.

The appeals arising from the 2010 judgment of Allahabad High Court pertaining to division of Ayodhya-Babri Masjid land was listed before the bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S K Kaul and Justice K M Joseph under the caption "direction matters".

On September 27, a three judges bench of the then CJI Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer had decided by 2:1 majority that there was no need to refer the matter to larger bench. The request for reference was made by Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, the counsel for Sunni Waqf Board, on the premise that the observation in the Constitution Bench judgment in Ismail Faruqui case that "offering namaz in mosque is not an essential feature of Islam" required reconsideration. The majority of the then CJI Misra and Justice Bhushan opined that the said observation in Faruqui was not relevant in determining the title dispute of Ayodhya-Babri Masjid land. The majority held that the observations in Faruqui were made in the context of deciding the issue whether a mosque could claim immunity from land acquisition proceedings. However, dissenting from this view, Justice Abdul Nazeer held that the observations in Faruqui case influenced the High Court decision in the title suit, and hence required reconsideration by a larger bench.

After declining the plea for reference to larger bench, the majority had fixed the next date of hearing as October 29.

In December 2017, a plea for postponing the hearing after 2019 Lok Sabha polls was made by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan and Dushyant Dave, on the ground that the political climate was not conducive for hearing the dispute.  However, the bench of the then CJI Misra turned down the plea, after a dramatic hearing session.

It was undertaken by the State Attorney that the State will do everything possible to maintain law and order and to afford protection to 'genuine' devotees, whether men or women, to offer worship at the hill top shrine

The High Court of Kerala today termed the petition filed by four women for police protection to visit the Sabarimala shrine as "premature". The Court expressed that the apprehension of the petitioners that they might face threat and violence if they attempt to visit Sabarimala as based on "conjectures and surmises".

The Division Bench of Justice P R Ramachandra Menon and Justice Devan Ramachandran was considering a petition filed by four women, who sought police protection to visit Sabarimala for worship in exercise of right declared by SC for women of all ages of enter the temple. The petition stated several persons and organizations have openly declared that they will not let women enter the temple, and have unleashed terror and violence to thwart the attempts of women to visit temple. Last Thursday, the Court had sought the response of State to the petition.

Today, the State Attorney denied that there were any lapses on the part of the police machinery in ensuring law and order in Sabarimala and its vicinity, when the temple was opened for five days last week. The Attorney submitted that criminals who came under the guise of devotees were liable for creating law and order problems and that police have taken action against them. It was undertaken by the State Attorney that the State will do everything possible to maintain law and order and to afford protection to 'genuine' devotees, whether men or women, to offer worship at the hill top shrine. Recording this undertaking, the petition was closed.

The Division Bench observed that no specific directions were required from the Court as the State was in any case duty bound to ensure safety of citizens and to protect law and order.  The Bench noted that the petitioners had not laid down any specific ground in their petition to suggest that State will not afford them protection. It was also noted that the petitioners had not made any specific request before the police authorities for protection to visit temple. Since the petition did not reveal any lapse or dereliction of duty on the part of police no interference from the Court through a writ of mandamus was called for, observed Justice Devan Ramachandran while dictating order on behalf of the bench. It was observed that the Court cannot act on the basis of speculative apprehensions of the petitioners. The Court also criticised the petition as having raised various "multifarious prayers, which were unconnected with each other".

The Court also expressed its disinclination to issue notice to private respondents who were arrayed in the petition- which included State Presidents of Congress & BJP parties,  Pandalam Royal Family, and Thantri of temple.  It was orally observed by the Court during the course of arguments that persons with different agendas were involved in the issue and that Court cannot be drawn into their battles. It was orally observed that Court will approach the issue only on the basis of Constitution. Since the State is duty bound to maintain law and order and to ensure safety of all persons, the Court said that it can act on the basis of submissions of the State, without the presence of private respondents.

The Court observed that Sabarimala welcomed devotees from all faiths and was a symbol of communal harmony.

While considering a petition seeking to restrict entry of non-Hindus in Sabarimala temple, the High Court of Kerala orally observed that Sabarimala belonged to all and not just Hindus. The petition filed by T G Mohandas, Convenor of BJP State Intellectual Cell, contended that non-Hindus and non-idol worshippers cannot be permitted entry on the basis of SC judgment in Indian Young Lawyers' Association case.

The Division Bench of Justice P R Ramachandra Menon and Justice Devan Ramachandran criticized the tone and tenor of the petition as tending to disrupt secular fabric of society. The Court observed that Sabarimala welcomed devotees from all faiths and was a symbol of communal harmony.

"Even persons without "irumudikettu"-the customary travel pouch carried by devotees containing offerings to Lord Ayyapa-could have "darshan". The "irumudikkettu" was necessary only to enter temple through the holy 18 steps", remarked the Court.

The petition was posted after two weeks for the response of State and Dewaswom.

The petition contended that efforts by the state police is not to facilitate entry of Hindu- woman for worship but to prove some points to their credit and to hurt the religious sentiments of devotees of Ayyappa.

“The persons who were escorted to Sabrimala by the police included non-Hindus and with disorderly behavior who fall within the purview of Rule 3(d). Thus on the pretext of implementing Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement, the Respondents are flouting the very purpose of Constitutional Bench judgment bringing parity with Hindu devotees, men and woman. They are also flouting the Rules in force till now,”  Mohandas said in the writ petition.

The Court also considered another petition which sought judicial enquiry into alleged police atrocities against devotees who were carrying out peaceful protests against women entering temple. The Court observed that action should be taken against those police officials who acted disproportionately, as evident from several videos and directed the State to file a report to that effect.

Today, the Court also disposed of a plea by four women for police protection to offer worship at Sabarimala. The Court termed the apprehension of women petitioners "premature", and closed the petition recording the undertaking of State Attorney that all efforts will be taken by State to maintain law and order and ensure safety of genuine devotees.

The news about the eviction of two female students from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad on October 26 generated a furore of sorts among the legal community.

Media reports claimed that the two girls, Apoorva YK, and Snigdha Jayakrishnan, both fourth-year BA LLB students, were castigated for having spoken out against Asst. Professor Srinivas Methuku on Facebook and accusing him of “constant ogling and causing discomfort.” However, the claim is just a part of the numerous conflicting reports and rumours that have since been doing the rounds, with the college administration asserting that their eviction was a result of separate disciplinary committee proceedings against the duo, unconnected with the sexual harassment allegations levelled by them. Here is an attempt at putting the dots together.

The ICC complaint and the disciplinary proceedings

The two girls had written a complaint letter on April 1 to the National Commission for Women and Child Development, Ministry of Human Resources Development, and the State Women’s Commission about institutional mismanagement of sexual harassment complaints. Contrary to news reports, the complaint against Prof. Srinivas Methuku was one among the four sexual harassment allegations mentioned in their letter.

“A group of female students complained against Asst. Professor Srinivas Methuku of constant ogling and causing discomfort, Director M.I Baig allegedly passed a remark that his eyes are like that which is not his problem. At this point, no written complaint was taken against the accused and no procedures were followed. The accused had allegedly humiliated a female student by questioning her about her relationship with a boy in the campus and nothing was done about it,” the letter had said.

The Ministry was then responded to by Dr. MS Shejul, the University Registrar, stating that Prof. Methuku had been reprimanded by the Director. The response had further stated that the other allegations mentioned in the complaint were simply misconstrued by the girls as sexual harassment or that action had already been taken on the complaints.

The institution's Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) that did take up the matter later allegedly posed demeaning questions to the girls, while trivializing the allegations. Cut to October 9, Apoorva posted a screenshot of an anonymous Instagram story by a girl alleging harassment at the hands of Prof. Methuku. While students were then asked to submit their complaints for consideration by the ICC, Snigdha soon put up another Facebook post, alleging "procedural errors and callousness" on the part of the college authorities in dealing with sexual harassment allegations. Despite such shortcomings, eight students deposed before the ICC. However, as of October 26, Apoorva and Snigdha claim to not have been informed of the ICC decision or any progress made on it so far.

Meanwhile, disciplinary committee action was initiated against the duo for violation of hostel rules-- complaints that they allegedly weren’t ever informed about or heard on. Speaking to LiveLaw, they said that the disciplinary committee did send them emails to appear before it, but as per their account, the committee curiously conducted its proceedings during the summer break, when the girls weren’t available at the college campus.

While they repeatedly demanded that the proceedings be continued once they’re back from their vacations, the last email to them from this committee allegedly said that their absence in the next committee meeting would be construed as the acceptance of their guilt. [LiveLaw couldn’t verify the existence of this email as the students’ official college email id has been blocked by the administration.]

“To this day we neither know what are the particular charges, if at all the committee came to conclusion about the matter we're never informed. Neither were we called to attend any proceedings in this semester nor served any warning, notice there of with regard to any disciplinary matter verbally or written or electronic media (sic),” the two girls now wrote in a Facebook post.

They were soon served with a warning to take down the Facebook posts, or face consequences. Two days later, they were handed over eviction notices. However, they claim that no suspension or rustication letters were given them, and hence, they are still unaware of details of the disciplinary committee action taken against them.

As regards the action taken against Prof. Methuku, while Dr. Pooja Malhan, Head of Student Affairs at SIU refused to disclose any details, Times of India quotes Vidya Yeravdekar, Principal Director of Symbiosis International University as saying that he was suspended on October 15 as an interim measure.

Within the Hyderabad campus, however, the opinion has been divided. On one hand, allegations of moral policing came forth as well, with female students alleging that they were being reprimanded for their choice of clothes. A few other students claimed that they were coerced into signing statements against Apoorva and Snigdha.

On the other hand, some students told LiveLaw that the issue of sexual harassment had already been looked into and had reached its conclusion with the accused professor having been suspended indefinitely.

A release from the college administration echoed these allegations, stating that the proceedings were instituted “…due to their misbehaviour which has included instances of abusing and hitting the security guard, causing disturbances in the hostel and classrooms, misbehaviour with students, faculty and administration and unruly behaviour before a sitting Judge of a High Court. Our Committee was instituted on an urgent basis after a petition was signed by over 800 students in agreement of the same. The measures taken were interim against the students as a consequence of aforementioned incidents of repeated indiscipline over the past two years.”

Nevertheless, what has emerged is a tale of constant miscommunication among the faculty and the students, with several rumours doing rounds. While Apoorva and Snigdha say that they were orally told about their rustication, other students are still unclear about their suspension/rustication and the period thereof, and are only aware of them being evicted from the college hostel.

Moreover, it is still unclear whether Apoorva and Snigdha were given a fair hearing before being evicted from the campus. The incident has also snowballed into what several students described as a “continued trampling of dissent” within the college campus over the past several years. Moving across state boundaries, the episode has especially generated a furore among students of Symbiosis Law School, Pune, with the college Director’s name continuously cropping up.

Trampling of dissent

While the students from the sister campus did not wish to be named, they recalled their own experiences where they were compelled to take down posts about the college from social media platforms. The “arm-twisting”, they said, ranged from expulsion warnings and suspension from mooting and other co-curricular activities, to threatening retraction of recommendations given to students for higher studies.

The college has continually relied on its “code of conduct” to effect these disciplinary actions, often handing these out without proper procedure or hearing, they added.

One such alumna recollected the events that unfolded after the suicide of a fellow batchmate. With students distressed at the news, two Facebook posts were written—one about the lack of mental health awareness in colleges by Ms. Shilpa Gamnani, and another about the absence of “effective college representation at a student’s cremation and the suspicions of college inaction over her mental state while she was alive”, by her friend. The latter had in fact called for an independent enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the student's suicide, as is normal procedure when any such incident takes place in an educational institution.

Following these posts, Shilpa’s friend was called for a meeting with the Director. She recalls, “The meeting started off with seemingly innocuous questions about my friend’s acceptance into a reputed college for post-graduation but soon transgressed the boundaries of teacher-student interaction. She threatened to write to the said college, asking them to rescind their admission on account of his "misbehaviour".  While hurling accusations that my friend was attempting to use the occasion to get political mileage out of a student’s death, she went on to state that hundreds of students from the institute commit suicide everyday, and that she couldn’t be at every such student’s cremation.  Stating that it was not her job to ensure that the student’s mental health was taken care of, she dismissed my friend from her office by saying that, as the Facebook post was a challenge to her authority and that she must, in return, challenge my friend.”

He was, naturally, asked to recant his statement, failing which the college assured him of action against him. Later that night, he was served with a show cause notice, which contained allegations against him, along with a predetermined punishment i.e. suspension, should he fail to prove his case in the disciplinary committee hearing scheduled early the next morning.

“While college rules mandate that such a disciplinary committee hearing has to be held in the presence of a parent or a guardian, my friend's parents were given a 12 hour notice to fly in for the same,” she adds. Shilpa was served with a notice as well, allegedly two hours before the proceedings to show cause as to why she should not be expelled over her Facebook post.

“The disciplinary proceedings against my friend and I were ultimately disposed of, as my friend's father refused to back down, even under threats of expulsion. Our story is just another in a series of attempts at SLS Pune to suppress any attempts to question the administration, and they will go to any lengths to hide the ineptitude and apathy of their staff,” she asserts.

[Note: Shilpa’s friend had later given an undertaking, assuring the college that he would take down the Facebook post and apologising for the same. He, however, claims that he was coerced into signing it.]

A saga of miscommunication and continued lack of confidence among the students

Law school campuses throughout the country have, over the past few years, witnessed similar concerns being raised. Having contacted several students for their views on the issue revealed an atmosphere of distrust that the incident has perpetuated. It has also brought to the fore certain other procedural and communication lapses that definitely need to be given due attention to.

While press releases have been issued since, the students are now faced with two sides of a story, and are burdened with the truth of their own past experiences with the college administration. They have since spoken about issues ranging from the lack of an independent student body on campus to voice their concerns, to violation of the code of conduct by disciplinary committees.

Further, the purported handling of the sexual harassment allegations by the college has also been found to be inept by several students. Speaking to LiveLaw, a student spoke about her own harassment as a toddler, and expressed her discontent at the college’s response to the movement and the handling of the Apoorva and Snigdha’s case.

“A couple of days ago, a video was circulated by the college that rubbished this whole me too movement and an ex faculty member went so far as to say "I don't have me too moments, I have I slapped him back moments." I was curious to ask said member if she expected a five year old me to first of all comprehend what is happening, realize that I shouldn't be facing this and then slap the boy who was nearly twice my size? The way the SIU has reacted to the cases of sexual harassment in Hyderabad added with my own director's reaction and involvement in the same makes me feel more unsafe. 

“Is this what will happen to me if I stand up against a professor in this college? Maybe what the student said may be exaggeration. But Vidya Yeravdekar literally said that TNG students do such acts. It is shameful to see that if you stand up for the right, your academic records are used against you,” she said.

Anyway, the truth of what went down with Apoorva and Snigdha is certainly getting tougher to ascertain with every passing minute, with several students claiming that there are concerted efforts from stakeholders to manipulate the narrative and discredit the two of them. A video made by unknown persons has also been doing the rounds since, with CCTV footage of the two students having a verbal altercation with the security staff. The video, which largely echoes the allegations of the college administration, emerges as a condemnable and direct attack on the character of the two students. At this juncture, it therefore needs to be borne in mind that justice should not only be done but seen to be done, and right now, the steps taken by the authorities must be directed towards clearing the air within the campus rather than setting its public image straight, if it wants to regain the trust posed in it by the students.

Read the Press Release Here