Ishika Patnaik Vs National Law University of Odisha and Ors on 20 Oct 2020

Posted on October 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Orissa High Court held the NRIS Quota as an affront and unconstitutional.

11. Before parting with this case, we are constrained to observe that the NRIS category is an affront to the meritorious candidates who toiled day night to secure seats in NLUs through CLAT. The candidates belonging to the category of NRI/NRIS, who are very low ranked in the merit list often gets seat in the NLUs whereas the general candidates having secured better marks also lag behind the NRIS students and get disappointed. This is like the reservation for the elite class and this dubious category of quota is unconstitutional. The eligibility and selection under this category are unregulated, illegal and arbitrary. Even the apex court has observed in P. A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra that admissions under this category is given to less meritorious students just because they could afford to pay the higher fees demanded by the University. The Consortium of NLUs, the Bar Council of India and all the stake holders involved in the process should revisit the so-called NRIS quota and prepare a proper regulation and system while implementing this quota. Several studies reveal that the selection process under this NRIS quota is quite vague, undefined and is based on inconsistent parameters. This Court calls upon the relevant stake holders especially the Bar Council of India, which is mandated to regulate the legal education in this country to ensure that a uniform and well-defined parameter are adopted so that the meritorious candidates do not suffer. The elitist approach to selected group in CLAT Admission process must be restricted. It is imperative that this issue needs to be settled within a shortest possible time to assuage the pains of the unselected due to poor rank.

Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand on 28 Sep 2020

Posted on October 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The 3-judge bench again reiterated the usage and importance of Sec 313 CrPC, in this case where the parties very well knew they cannot get married due to their different religions and their parents are opposed to their marriage as they insisted that the marriage happen in a Temple Vs a Church !!!

From Para 6,

9. It stands well settled that circumstances not put to an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against him, and must be excluded from consideration. In a criminal trial, the importance of the questions put to an accused are basic to the principles of natural justice as it provides him the opportunity not only to furnish his defence, but also to explain the incriminating circumstances against him. A probable defence raised by an accused is sufficient to rebut the accusation without the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This Court, time and again, has emphasised the importance of putting all relevant questions to an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand on 28 Sep 2020

Assessment Of The Criminal Justice System In Response To Sexual Offences

Posted on October 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court decided to assess how the Trail Courts are implementing the Practice Guidelines issued in a 2018 Judgment here.

Assessment Of The Criminal Justice System In Response To Sexual Offences on 18 Dec 2019

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134592336/

More time (of 4 weeks) is given to respondents to file (status) affidavits.

Assessment Of The Criminal Justice System In Response To Sexual Offences on 07 Feb 2020

Raghunath Anant Govilkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 8 Feb 2008

Posted on October 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court held as follows in regards to the protection given to public servants from prosecution u/s 197 CrPC, mandating a sanction from Government.

8. The protection given under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or adequate protection to public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything done by them, in the discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause, and if sanction is granted, to confer on the Government, if it chooses to exercise it, complete control of the prosecution. This protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from the protection. The question is not as to the nature of the offence such as whether the alleged offence contained an element necessarily dependent upon the offender being a public servant, but whether it was committed by a public servant acting or purporting to act as such in the discharge of his official capacity. Before Section 197 Cr.P.C. can be invoked, it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official capacity. It is not the duty which requires examination so much as the act, because the official act can be performed both in the discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The act must fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned. It is the quality of the act which is important and the protection of the section is available if the act falls within the scope and range of his official duty. There cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between the act done and the official duty, nor is it possible to lay down any such rule. One safe and sure test in this regard would be to consider if the omission or neglect on the part of the public servant to commit the act complained of could have made him answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official duty: if the answer to this question is in the affirmative, it may be said that such act was committed by the public servant while acting in the discharge of his official duty and there was every connection with the act complained of and the official duty of the public servant. This aspect makes it clear that the concept of Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not get immediately attracted on institution of the complaint case.

Citations : [2008 RCR CRI 1 1042], [2008 AIR SC 1486], [2008 BLJR 56 1000], [2008 SCC 11 289], [2008 ALD CRI 2 134], [2008 SCALE 2 303], [2008 AICLR 2 150], [2008 MLJ CRI 2 458], [2008 AD SC 3 153], [2008 CCR 2 203], [2008 JT 2 374], [2008 CRIMES 1 346], [2008 SLT 3 680], [2008 AIOL 155], [2008 AIR SC 1375], [2008 BOMCR CRI SC 2 131], [2009 SCC CRI 1 130], [2008 SCR 2 580], [2008 SUPREME 1 572], [2008 AIC SC 63 28], [2008 CRLJ SC 2054], [2008 AIR SCW 1375]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1809946/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae6ee4b0149711413d79

3 ACES Hyderabad Vs Municipal Corporation Hyderabad on 2 Sep 1994

Posted on October 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A 3-judge Full bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh had passed these guidelines for Municipal bodies in regards to Demolition of structures.

When the Corporation comes to the conclusion, keeping the above guidelines in view, that the construction in question is required to be demolished or pull down, it should follow the procedure indicated below:

(i) The demolition should not be resorted to during festival days declared by the State Government as public holidays excluding Sundays. If the festival day declared by the Government as a public holiday falls on a Sunday, on that Sunday also, the Corporation should not resort to demolition.

(ii) In any case, there should not be any demolition after sun set and before sun rise.

(iii) The Corporation should give notice of demolition as required by the statute fixing the date of demolition. Even on the said date, before actually resorting to the demolition, the Corporation should give reasonable time, depending upon the premises sought to be demolished, for the inmates to withdraw from the premises. If within the time given the inmates do not withdraw, the Corporation may proceed with actual demolition;

These guidelines are laid down in view of the fact that the Corporation is a public authority and its action must be tested on the touchstone of fairness and reasonableness.

3 ACES Hyderabad Vs Municipal Corporation Hyderabad on 2 Sep 1994

Citations : [LQ 1994 HC 3056], [1995 AIR AP 17], [1995 ALD 1 1], [1994 SCC ONLINE AP 176], [1994 AP LJ 2 194], [1994 (3) ALT 73 (FB)]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1602396/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f72ee4b014971113f5be

https://www.legitquest.com/case/3-aces-hyderabad-v-s-municipal-corporation-of-hyderabad/36BCA

https://www.lawyerservices.in/3-ACES-HYDERABAD-VERSUS-MUNICIPAL-CORPORATION-OF-HYDERABAD-1994-09-02

B.G. Prakash Kumar Vs The Commissioner on 23 Feb 2015

Posted on October 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In regards to the explanation given to section 197 CrPC, Karnataka High Court categorically held as follows,

20. The submission that the sanction is necessary, as the appellants are not facing the charges under the Sections enumerated in the newly inserted Explanation to Section 197 does not commend itself to us. The Memorandum explaining the modifications contained in the Criminal Law Amendment 2013 itself states that the Explanation to Section 197 is proposed to be inserted so as to clarify that no sanction is required for prosecuting a public servant, if the offence relates to crimes against woman. Such a clarification cannot be stretched to mean that the sanction for prosecuting a public servant is a must, if the offence alleged does not relate to a crime against woman.

B.G. Prakash Kumar Vs The Commissioner on 23 Feb 2015

Citations :

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90130688/

Reena Hazarika Vs State of Assam on 31 Oct 2018

Posted on October 29, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Navin Sinha held that procedure u/s 313 CrPC may very well be considered as a fundamental right as part of Rights available under Article 21 of the Constitution.

From Para 16,

16. Section 313, Cr.P.C. cannot be seen simply as a part of audi alteram partem. It confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence and can well be considered beyond a statutory right as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, even if it is not to be considered as a piece of substantive evidence, not being on oath under Section 313(2), Cr.P.C. The importance of this right has been considered time and again by this court, but it yet remains to be applied in practice as we shall see presently in the discussion to follow. If the accused takes a defence after the prosecution evidence is closed, under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. the Court is duty bound under Section 313(4) Cr.P.C. to consider the same. The mere use of the word ‘may’ cannot be held to confer a discretionary power on the court to consider or not to consider such defence, since it constitutes a valuable right of an accused for access to justice, and the likelihood of the prejudice that may be caused thereby. Whether the defence is acceptable or not and whether it is compatible or incompatible with the evidence available is an entirely different matter. If there has been no consideration at all of the defence taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in the given facts of a case, the conviction may well stand vitiated. To our mind, a solemn duty is cast on the court in dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.

Citations : 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 2281, 2019 (1) AICLR 192 (SC), 2018 (3) JIC 75 (SC), AIR 2018 SC 5361

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/152892250/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5bd9d9c99eff430a1b47fd8c

Section 313 CrPC can well be considered as a constitutional right under Article 21; invocation of last seen theory sans facts and evidence does not shift onus on accused: SC

GITAM Vs State of AP

Posted on October 28, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Suddenly, the District administration wakes up to the fact that certain portion of the land in use by the GITAM University was unauthorized and decides to demolish in the early dead night hours on 24th October, 2020.

On 2020-10-24, House Motion petition is moved and an interim Stay order was passed at 7.30PM

2020-10-24 GITAM Vs State of AP

On 2020-10-25, Stay was further continued until next date; Both parties directed not to demolish/construct any structures till that time

2020-10-25 GITAM Vs State of AP

Kedar Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar on 20 Jan 1962

Posted on October 28, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A 5-judge bench decided the test to apply in case of a sedition charge against an individual, while upholding the constitutional validity of the sedition section i.e., 124A IPC.

Kedar Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar on 20 Jan 1962

Citations : [1963 ANWR 1 40], [1962 BLJR 10 636], [1963 MLJ SC 1 40], [1962 SUPP SCR 2 769], [1962 CRI LJ 2 103], [1962 SCR SUPL 2 769], [1962 AIR SC 955], [1962 AIR SC 995], [1962 SCC 0 955], [1962 CRLJ 103], [1962 AIR SCC 955], [1962 SCR 2 769], [1962 SC 0 955], [1962 SUPSCR 2 769], [1962 SUPPSCR 2 769], [1962 AIR 955], [1962 SCR SUPP 2 769]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111867/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab1fe4b014971140bb97

IPC 124A – Sedition

Posted on October 28, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
Explanation 1.—The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: October 2020

Ishika Patnaik Vs National Law University of Odisha and Ors on 20 Oct 2020

Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand on 28 Sep 2020

Assessment Of The Criminal Justice System In Response To Sexual Offences

Raghunath Anant Govilkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 8 Feb 2008

3 ACES Hyderabad Vs Municipal Corporation Hyderabad on 2 Sep 1994

B.G. Prakash Kumar Vs The Commissioner on 23 Feb 2015

Reena Hazarika Vs State of Assam on 31 Oct 2018

GITAM Vs State of AP

Kedar Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar on 20 Jan 1962

IPC 124A – Sedition