Lily Thomas Vs Union of India and Ors on 10 Jul 2013

Posted on November 1, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has struck down the Section 8(4) as ultra vires to the Constitution which was in the following fashion,

(4) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) a disqualification under either sub-section shall not, in the case of a person who on the date of the conviction is a member of Parliament or the Legislature of a State, take effect until three months have elapsed from that date or, if within that period an appeal or application for revision is brought in respect of the conviction or the sentence, until that appeal or application is disposed of by the court.

From Paras 19 and 20,

19. The result of our aforesaid discussion is that the affirmative words used in Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) confer power on Parliament to make one law laying down the same disqualifications for a person who is to be chosen as member of either House of Parliament or as a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State and for a person who is a sitting member of a House of Parliament or a House of the State Legislature and the words in Articles 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the Constitution put express limitations on such powers of the Parliament to defer the date on which the disqualifications would have effect. Accordingly, sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act which carves out a saving in the case of sitting members of Parliament or State Legislature fromthe disqualifications under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act or which defers the date on which thedisqualification will take effect in the case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature is beyond the powers conferred on Parliament by the Constitution.
20. Looking at the affirmative terms of Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution, we hold that Parliament has been vested with the powers to make law laying down the same disqualifications for person to be chosen as a member of Parliament or a State Legislature and for a sitting member of a House of Parliament or a House of a State Legislature. We also hold that the provisions of Article 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the Constitution expressly prohibitParliament to defer the date from which the disqualification will come into effect in case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature.Parliament, therefore, has exceeded its powers conferred by the Constitution in enacting sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act and accordingly subsection(4) of Section 8 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution.

From Para 23,

…
Sitting members of Parliament and State Legislature who have already been convicted for any of the offences mentioned in sub-section (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and who have filed appeals or revisions which are pending and are accordingly saved from the disqualifications by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act should not, in our considered opinion, be affected by the declaration now made by us in this judgment.
…
However, if any sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature is convicted of any of the offences mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and by virtue of such conviction and/or sentence suffers the disqualifications mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act after the pronouncement of this judgment, his membership of Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case may be, will not be saved by subsection (4) of Section 8 of the Act which we have by this judgment declared as ultra vires the Constitution notwithstanding that he files the appeal or revision against the conviction and /or sentence.

Lily Thomas Vs Union of India and Ors on 10 Jul 2013

Citations : [2013 ABR 6 236], [2013 AD SC 10 655], [2013 AIR SC 2662], [2013 AWC SC 6 5458], [2013 BOMCR 5 261], [2013 CGLRW SC 2 339], [2014 CLT SC 117 284], [2013 JLJR 3 351], [2013 JT SC 9 419], [2013 KARLJ 5 1], [2013 KLJ 3 284], [2013 KERLT 3 296], [2013 LW 4 857], [2013 MLJ 5 463], [2013 OLR 2 941], [2013 PLJR 3 261], [2013 RCR CIVIL 3 713], [2013 SCALE 8 469], [2013 SCC 7 653], [2013 SCC L&S 7 811], [2014 WBLR SC 1 69], [2013 SCC CIV 3 678], [2013 SCC CRI 3 641], [2013 SCC L&S 2 811], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 603], [2013 GUJ LH 2 408], [2013 GUJ LR 3 2209], [2013 ILR KERALA 3 203], [2014 CUT LT 117 284]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63158859/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2ee4b0149711415be4

Supreme Court Landmark Judgment- Lilly Thomas v. Union of India

Litigation by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay

Posted on October 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya ji has launched a lot of Public Interest Litigation and since the entire collection is not available in a single place, the following is a curated list for interested folks.

Initiated between 1986-1990

Initiated between 1991-1995

Initiated between 1996-2000

Initiated between 2001-2005

Initiated between 2006-2010

Initiated between 2011-2015

Initiated between 2016-2020

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 699/2016 : Attacking the pending criminal cases against the elected representatives of people (MPs and MLAs) in various Courts of India and expedite and disposed them on war-footing.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 329/2019 : The Section 31 of the CrPC, which provides that a convict can serve varying jail terms simultaneously for several offences, should not be made applicable to the convicts in heinous cases under special laws such as “the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), the Black Money and Imposition of Tax Act, and Fugitive Economic Offenders Act,.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6259/2019 : Seeking Union Government to implement 24th recommendation of National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (Justice Venkatchaliah Commission) on Population Control; Two-child norm as a criteria for government jobs, aids and subsidies, and, may withdraw statutory rights viz. right to vote, right to contest, right to property, right to free shelter, right to free legal aid etc.;

Initiated between 2021-2025

W.P.(C) No. 1334/2020: Regards to Election Reforms in India, i.e., Right to Reject all candidates in an election.

Initiated between 2021-2025

Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020

Posted on October 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Vagua allegations don’t take fake cases far. Bombay HS quashed the fake case of 498A IPC against the relatively.

From Para 14,

14. Nowadays, it has become a tendency to make vague and omnibus allegations, against every member of the family of the husband, implicating everybody under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it has become necessary for the Courts to carefully scrutinize the allegations and to find out if the allegations made really constitute an offence and meet the requirements of the law at least prima facie.

Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020

Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata Vs Union of India and Ors on 1 Oct 2020

Posted on October 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Karnataka High Court held that issuance of new passport may be barred in sec 6 of Passports Act 1967, but not renewal.

11. A reading of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act indicates that, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country, if a criminal proceeding is pending against the applicant in India . However, the said provision does not provide for refusing to issue a passport for a person who intends to travel back to India . Hence, reading of this provision clearly indicates that it is applicable only for issuing a fresh passport and not for renewal of passport and this view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Ashok Khanna –vs- Central Bureau of Investigation (supra). Delhi High Court while interpreting Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 has held that the Passport Authority can refuse to issue passport or an endorsement for visiting any country but nowhere in the provision it is mentioned that even for renewal of passport, the Authority can refuse to renew the passport.

Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata Vs Union of India and Ors on 1 Oct 2020

Hospitality Association of Mudumalai Vs In Defence of Environment and Animals and Ors on 14 Oct 2020

Posted on October 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court came to the protection of the Gentleman Elephants in the Elephant corridor in Nilgiris District.

Hospitality Association of Mudumalai Vs In Defence of Environment and Animals and Ors on 14 Oct 2020

The following is the Common Judgment passed by Madras High Court in 2011.

In Defence of Environment and Animals Vs PCCF and Others on 07 Apr 2011

Anil Bharadwaj Vs The High Court of MP and Ors on 13 Oct 2020

Posted on October 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A District-Judge aspirant lost that opportunity due to a false 498A IPC case from which he got acquitted, after the selection for the post completed.

Anil Bharadwaj Vs The High Court of MP and Ors on 13 Oct 2020

Earlier High Court Judgment dismissing the Writ petition

Anil Bhardwaj Vs The High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 06 Jan 2020

~~~

Other Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103138593/

State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Shiv Kumar Yadav and Anr on 10 Sep 2015

Posted on October 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

After giving some inputs to Law commission and Bar Council of India in this para,

16. The interest of justice may suffer if the counsel conducting the trial is physically or mentally unfit on account of any disability. The interest of the society is paramount and instead of trials being conducted again on account of unfitness of the counsel, reform may appear to be necessary so that such a situation does not arise. Perhaps time has come to review the Advocates Act and the relevant Rules to examine the continued fitness of an advocate to conduct a criminal trial on account of advanced age or other mental or physical infirmity, to avoid grievance that an Advocate who conducted trial was unfit or incompetent. This is an aspect which needs to be looked into by the concerned authorities including the Law Commission and the Bar Council of India.

Supreme Court passed these reasons for not recalling a witness

29. We may now sum up our reasons for disapproving the view of the High Court in the present case:
(i) The trial court and the High Court held that the accused had appointed counsel of his choice. He was facing trial in other cases also. The earlier counsel were given due opportunity and had duly conducted cross-examination. They were under no handicap;
(ii) No finding could be recorded that the counsel appointed by the accused were incompetent particularly at back of such counsel;
(iiii) Expeditious trial in a heinous offence as is alleged in the present case is in the interests of justice;
(iv) The trial Court as well as the High Court rejected the reasons for recall of the witnesses;
(v) The Court has to keep in mind not only the need for giving fair opportunity to the accused but also the need for ensuring that the victim of the crime is not unduly harassed;
(vi) Mere fact that the accused was in custody and that he will suffer by the delay could be no consideration for allowing recall of witnesses, particularly at the fag end of the trial;
(vii) Mere change of counsel cannot be ground to recall the witnesses;
(viii) There is no basis for holding that any prejudice will be caused to the accused unless the witnesses are recalled;
(ix) The High Court has not rejected the reasons given by the trial court nor given any justification for permitting recall of the witnesses except for making general observations that recall was necessary for ensuring fair trial. This observation is contrary to the reasoning of the High Court in dealing with the grounds for recall, i.e., denial of fair opportunity on account of incompetence of earlier counsel or on account of expeditious proceedings;
(x) There is neither any patent error in the approach adopted by the trial court rejecting the prayer for recall nor any clear injustice if such prayer is not granted.

Citations : [2016 ACR SC 1 142], [2016 ALT CRL AP 1 167], [2016 MPJR 1 1], [2016 NCC 1 393], [2016 SCC 2 402], [2016 SCJ 1 93], [2015 AIR SC 3501], [2015 AD SC 10 165], [2015 ALLCC 91 640], [2015 BOMCR CRI 4 366], [2015 CCR SC 3 468], [2015 CRILJ 4640], [2015 CRIMES SC 4 1], [2015 JLJR 4 97], [2015 PLJR 4 258], [2015 RCR CRIMINAL 4 312], [2015 RLW SC 4 3271], [2015 SCALE 9 649], [2015 UC 3 1794], [2016 SCC CRI 1 510], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 799], [2015 AIC 155 68], [2015 CRI LJ 4640]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33982557/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b391e561097e45a4e3ea

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab on 21 Jan 2015

Posted on October 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Dipak Misra decried the practice of Trial/Session Court judges in giving adjournments on mere asking by the parties, in spite of the presence of the witnesses willing to be examined fully.

From Para 41,

41. Before parting with the case we are constrained to reiterate what we have said in the beginning. We have expressed our agony and anguish the manner in which trials in respect of serious offences relating to corruption are being conducted by the trial courts. Adjournments are sought on the drop of a hat by the counsel, even though the witness is present in court, contrary to all principles of holding a trial. That apart, after the examination-in-chief of a witness is over, adjournment is sought for cross-examination and the disquieting feature is that the trial courts grant time. The law requires special reasons to be recorded for grant of time but the same is not taken note of. As has been noticed earlier, in the instant case the cross-examination has taken place after a year and 8 months allowing ample time to pressurize the witness and to gain over him by adopting all kinds of tactics. There is no cavil over the proposition that there has to be a fair and proper trial but the duty of the court while conducting the trial to be guided by the mandate of the law, the conceptual fairness and above all bearing in mind its sacrosanct duty to arrive at the truth on the basis of the material brought on record. If an accused for his benefit takes the trial on the path of total mockery, it cannot be countenanced. The Court has a sacred duty to see that the trial is conducted as per law. If adjournments are granted in this manner it would tantamount to violation of rule of law and eventually turn such trials to a farce. It is legally impermissible and jurisprudentially abominable. The trial courts are expected in law to follow the command of the procedure relating to trial and not yield to the request of the counsel to grant adjournment for non-acceptable reasons. In fact, it is not all appreciable to call a witness for cross-examination after such a long span of time. It is imperative if the examination-in-chief is over, the cross-examination should be completed on the same day. If the examination of a witness continues till late hours the trial can be adjourned to the next day for cross-examination. It is inconceivable in law that the cross-examination should be deferred for such a long time. It is anathema to the concept of proper and fair trial. The duty of the court is to see that not only the interest of the accused as per law is protected but also the societal and collective interest is safe-guarded. It is distressing to note that despite series of judgments of this Court, the habit of granting adjournment, really an ailment, continues. How long shall we say, “Awake! Arise!”. There is a constant discomfort. Therefore, we think it appropriate that the copies of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Justices of all the High Courts for circulating the same among the learned trial Judges with a command to follow the principles relating to trial in a requisite manner and not to defer the cross-examination of a witness at their pleasure or at the leisure of the defence counsel, for it eventually makes the trial an apology for trial and compels the whole society to suffer chicanery. Let it be remembered that law cannot allowed to be lonely; a destitute.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab on 21 Jan 2015

Citations: [2015 SCC 3 220], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 53]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188951670/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/581180e72713e179479dda10

This was followed in this decision here.

Deepti Kapur Vs Kunal Julka on 30 June 2020

Posted on October 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, Single Judge discussed the admissibility of evidence in cases filed in Family Courts u/s 14 and also dispelled the false notion that if a spouse obtains an evidence illegally (by installing a CCTV in this case), such act would not be violative of the other spouse’s right to privacy. And also nothing in Constitution of India prohibits such evidence.

From Para 37,

37. While consistency in law is of utmost importance and law must get its full play regardless of the fact situation, this court must record the unease it feels with regard to a certain aspect that has arisen in this matter. Marriage is a relationship to which sanctity is still attached in our society. Merely because rules of evidence favour a liberal approach for admitting evidence in court in aid of dispensation of justice, this should not be taken as approval for everyone to adopt any illegal means to collect evidence, especially in relationships of confidence such as marriage. If the right to adduce evidence collected by surreptitious means in a marital or family relationship is available without any qualification or consequences, it could potentially create havoc in people’s personal and family lives and thereby in the society at large. For instance, if a spouse has the carte blanche to install a recording device in a bedroom or other private space or to adopt any means whatsoever to collect evidence against the partner, even if in circumstances of matrimonial discord, it would be difficult to foresee the length to which a spouse may go in doing so ; and such possibility would itself spell the end of the marital relationship. It is not uncommon for spouses to continue living together, even in matrimonial strife, for years on-end. So, while law must trump sentiment, a salutary rule of evidence or a beneficent statutory provision, must not be taken as a license for illegal collection of evidence.

Deepti Kapur Vs Kunal Julka on 30 June 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/170404652/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5efb8cc29fca196e33048e01

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/deepti-kapur-versus-kunal-julka

[S. 14 of Family Courts Act] Del HC | In a contest between right to privacy and right to fair trial, both of which arise under expansive Art. 21, right to privacy may have to yield to right to fair trial

Note: The nut case went to Supreme Court and the SC kicked out the SLP.

Deepti Kapur Vs Kunal Julka on 10 May 2022

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

MS Ram Pravesh Rai Estate (P) Ltd Vs Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Munna on 12 Jan 2016

Posted on October 5, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single Bench of Patna High Court held as follows, regarding interrogatories and their usage.

From Para 13,

13. Now coming to floor, it is apparent that object and purpose of serving interrogatories is to enable a party to require information from his opponent for the purpose of maintaining his own case and for destroying the case of the adversary and as such, it not only shorten the trial proceeding, save time of the court, it also deliverance the party from expenses, consumption of time as well as burden to collect and produce evidences. Side by side, it should always be guarded in a way to prevent misuse. Furthermore, as is apparent, it should be confined to the facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit. However, under Order-XI Rule 6, 7 the grounds have been enumerated whereupon interrogatories could be refused.
Basically, it has been settled at rest by different judicial pronouncement as:-
(i) A party is not entitled to administer interrogatories for obtaining discovery of facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of his adversary‟s case or title.
(ii) A party is not entitled to interrogate as to any confidential communications between his opponent and his legal adviser.
(iii) A party is not entitled to execute interrogatories which would involve disclosures injurious to public interest

MS Ram Pravesh Rai Estate (P) Ltd. Vs Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Munna on 12 Jan 2016

Other sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32984899/

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to

Lily Thomas Vs Union of India and Ors on 10 Jul 2013

Litigation by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay

Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020

Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata Vs Union of India and Ors on 1 Oct 2020

Hospitality Association of Mudumalai Vs In Defence of Environment and Animals and Ors on 14 Oct 2020

Anil Bharadwaj Vs The High Court of MP and Ors on 13 Oct 2020

State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Shiv Kumar Yadav and Anr on 10 Sep 2015

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab on 21 Jan 2015

Deepti Kapur Vs Kunal Julka on 30 June 2020

MS Ram Pravesh Rai Estate (P) Ltd Vs Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Munna on 12 Jan 2016