High Court of Gujarat has quashed the December 2017 election of Gujarat’s Law Minister, Bhupendrasinh Manubha Chudasama to the State’s Legislative Assembly as violative of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951
Latest: The LawMin appealed against High Court judgment at Supreme Court.
Citations: []
Other Source links: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/such-an-election-should-not-be-permitted-to-hold-the-field-gujarat-hc-quashes-state-law-minister-bm-chudasamas-2017-election
Supreme Court respecting separation of powers in the Indian democracy, acknowledged that there are criminals to a large part in Parliament and in State Legislatures but held that it cannot legislate on behalf of Parliament. Still it issue some guidelines as follows.
Each contesting candidate shall fill up the form as provided by the Election Commission and the form must contain all the particulars as required therein.
It shall state, in bold letters, with regard to the criminal cases pending against the candidate.
If a candidate is contesting an election on the ticket of a particular party, he/she is required to inform the party about the criminal cases pending against him/her.
The concerned political party shall be obligated to put up on its website the aforesaid information pertaining to candidates having criminal antecedents.
The candidate as well as the concerned political party shall issue a declaration in the widely circulated newspapers in the locality about the antecedents of the candidate and also give wide publicity in the electronic media. When we say wide publicity, we mean that the same shall be done at least thrice after filing of the nomination papers.
Citations: [(2019) 3 SCC 224]
Other Source links: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2018/09/25/candidates-with-criminal-antecedents-parliament-has-exclusive-jurisdiction-to-lay-down-disqualification-for-membership-court-cannot-legislate-sc/ or https://indiankanoon.org/doc/146283621/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5baaa0749eff430ce652f5c8
The directions given in this Judgment were not followed by Political parties and their candidates, Hence a contempt petition was filed for violating Supreme Court Orders here.
Justice Rohinton F Nariman has passed the following directions, sitting in a division bench along with Justice S. Ravindra Bhat,
From Para 4,
4. We have also noted that the political parties offer no explanation as to why candidates with pending criminal cases are selected as candidates in the first place. We therefore issue the following directions in exercise of our constitutional powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India:
1) It shall be mandatory for political parties [at the Central and State election level] to upload on their website detailed information regarding individuals with pending criminal cases (including the nature of the offences, and relevant particulars such as whether charges have been framed, the concerned Court, the case number etc.) who have been selected as candidates, along with the reasons for such selection, as also as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates.
2) The reasons as to selection shall be with reference to the qualifications, achievements and merit of the candidate concerned, and not mere “winnability” at the polls.
3) This information shall also be published in:
(a) One local vernacular newspaper and one national newspaper;
(b) On the official social media platforms of the political party, including Facebook & Twitter.
4) These details shall be published within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate or not less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier.
5) The political party concerned shall then submit a report of compliance with these directions with the Election Commission within 72 hours of the selection of the said candidate.
6) If a political party fails to submit such compliance report with the Election Commission, the Election Commission shall bring such non-compliance by the political party concerned to the notice of the Supreme Court as being in contempt of this Court’s orders/directions.
Citations: [2020 SCC OnLine SC 178]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178919210/ or https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/02/13/sc-directs-political-parties-to-publish-criminal-antecedents-of-candidates-give-reasons-for-their-selection/ or https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/rambabu-singh-thakur-versus-sunil-arora-ors
The original Judgment is here.
Supreme Court discussed who can be a Sterling witness on whose deposition can a conviction be based and this packed this false rape case into Dustbin.
Citations: [AIR 2020 SC 985]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68886715/ or https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/santosh-prasad-santosh-kumar-versus-the-state-of-bihar
Justice Vineet Saran sitting in a 5-Judge bench delivered this reference judgment on the following two questions of law.
Question-1
Whether the District Forum has power to extend the time for filing of response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days, as envisaged under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act?
Answered as follows:
To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act
Question-2
What would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
Answered as follows:
the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.
Citations: [AIR 2020 SC 1267], [2020 SCC OnLine SC 287]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96395504/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e69d2383321bc624fea2d34
AP High Court had to take Suo moto Cognizance of the Gas Leakage incident at Vizag, as our incumbent State Government did not register a criminal complaint. A set of observations and directions were issued by the Court and action taken report is to be submitted on 20 May 2020.
On 20-May-2020,
High Court issued the following directions.
On 27-May-2020,
High Court issued more directions and earlier directions were not answered by parties.
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.
On 23-04-2020,
Since the AP High Court had already taken cognizance of this issue, NGT made following Order.
In Para 8,
8. So under these circumstances, we feel it appropriate to adjourn the matter to Monday 27th April, 2020 at the same time. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant wanted the learned counsel appearing for the Government of Andhra Pradesh to mention about the pendency of this matter before the Honb’le High Court of Andhra Pradesh as well so that the Hon’’ble High Court may be knowing about the pendency of similar matter before this Tribunal. Further, learned counsel appearing for Government of Andhra Pradesh wanted the counsel for the applicant to furnish the details of Survey Numbers of the properties from where the alleged violations are said to be committed by the Government as well and these particulars are lacking in this application. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant is directed to ascertain those particulars and submit the same before this Tribunal before the next hearing date with copy to counsel for respondents 2 to 6 in advance so that she can get further report regarding the same and send the same to this Tribunal before the next hearing date.
On 01-05-2020,
NGT was prima facie, satisfied that there is arguable case here.
12. We are satisfied that there arises substantial question of environment for consideration. Admit. Issue notice to respondents. Since respondents 1 to 6 entered appearance through counsel, direct notice to respondents is dispensed with. The counsel for applicant is directed to serve copy of the original application and also the amended application to the counsel appearing for respondents. The respondents are directed to file their detailed response to the application before the next hearing date.
Then,
11. So in order to ascertain these facts, we feel it appropriate to appoint a joint committee comprising of (1) Senior Officer from the Regional Office of MoEF & CC, Chennai (2) Senior Officer from Andhra Pradesh Coastal Zone Management Authority (3) Senior Officer nominated by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Forces/Chief Wildlife Warden (4) District Collector, *East Godavari District and (5) District Forest Officer, *East Godavari District, Kakinada to go into the question as to whether the area in question was a mangrove forest subject to the provisions of Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications 2011 and 2019 requiring any clearance for any project, whether any clearance from MoEF & CC or Forest Department is required under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and whether permission from the Chief Wildlife Warden is required for commissioning the project as according to the applicant it is adjacent to Coringa Wildlife Sanctuary. In order to ascertain the anterior position of the area in question, the committee is directed to verify the forest cover map maintained by the Forest Survey of India prepared through satellite images for a period of six months prior to the filing of the application and if any violation is found they are directed to mention the nature of violation and also the nature of damage caused to environment and assess the environmental compensation required for restoration of damage caused to environment, including restoration of mangroves in that area. The committee shall verify the satellite image of forest cover prepared by the Forest Survey of India for a period of six months prior to the filing of the application and compare the same with the present condition in order to ascertain the extent of damage, if any caused either to forest cover or mangroves and assess environmental compensation. Regional Office of MoEF & CC, Chennai will be the nodal agency for coordination and for providing necessary logistic for this purpose. Three months time is granted to the committee to inspect and submit the report to this Tribunal through e-mail at [email protected] with advance copy to the counsel appearing for the parties. Construction if any done will be subject to the result of this application . If ultimately it is found by the committee that there is any violation of any of the environmental laws by the State Government and the officers concerned who were responsible for the destruction then they are liable for the consequences, including demolition of the building and payment of environmental compensation apart from restoration of damage caused to the mangroves. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the above officers immediately by e-mail in order to enable them to comply with the direction of this Tribunal.
NGT has ordered the LG Polymers as follows on 08-05-2020
In Para 6,
6. Having regard to the prima facie material regarding the extent of damage to life, public health and environment, we direct LG Polymers India Pvt., Limited to forthwith deposit an initial amount of Rs. 50 Crore, with the District Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam, which will abide by further orders of this Tribunal. The amount is being fixed having regard to the financial worth of the company and the extent of the damage caused.
Then on 01-06-2020, the following directions were passed.
40. In view of above, we issue following directions in the matter:
i. The amount of Rs. 50 crores deposited by the Company with the District Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam will stand appropriated towards part liability and interim compensation to be spent for restoration of the environment and compensation for victims in accordance with the restoration plan to be prepared.
ii. Restoration plan may be prepared by a Committee comprising two representatives each of MoEF & CC, CPCB and three representatives of State Government to be named by the Chief Secretary, including the District Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam and such other concerned Departments within two months from today. MoEF&CC will be the nodal agency for the purpose.
iii. Final quantification of compensation may be assessed by a Committee comprising representatives of MoEF & CC, CPCB and NEERI. The said Committee will be at liberty to associate/co-opt any other expert institution or individual. The Secretary, MoEF & CC may ensure constitution of such
Committee within two weeks from today. The Committee may give its report within two months thereafter. MoEF & CC will be the nodal agency for the purpose.
iv. The Chief Secretary, Andhra Pradesh may identify and take appropriate action against persons responsible for failure of law in permitting the Company to operate without statutory clearances within two months and give a report to this Tribunal
v. In view of the stand of the State PCB and the Company that it will not recommence its operation without requisite statutory clearances, we direct that if any such statutory clearances are granted and the Company proposes to recommence, this aspect must be brought to the notice of this Tribunal so that compliance of law is ensured.
vi. The MoEF & CC may also constitute an Expert Committee to suggest ways and means to revamp monitoring mechanism to check and prevent violation of environmental norms and preventing any such recurrence in future in any of the establishments dealing with hazardous chemicals. A special drive may be initiated in this regard. An action taken report may be furnished within three months from today.
vii. This order will not prejudice any criminal or other statutory proceedings in accordance with law.
Next hearing is on 03-11-2020.
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.
PIL sought to hold the rallies conducted by the party functionaries during the Lockdown Norms. The news snippets are here.
This is short but strong worded Order from AP High Court in which it asked Chief Secretary Neelam Sawhney, why Contempt of Court proceedings be not initiated against her in her individual capacity as Chief Secretary to State Government. The GO concerning painting of Panchayat Buildings in YSRCP flag colors is suspended.
The Final Judgment is here.
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 496 access attempts in the last 7 days.
