PIL outfit gets it from Madras HC for its misleading nomenclature


Court News by LatestLaws.com
Court News by LatestLaws.com

There can’t be a specialist organisation to file PILs, says the Bench.

Madurai based organisation- Tamil Nadu Centre for PIL, represented by its managing trustee KK Ramesh, was castigated by the Madras HC for using a name which is misleading the public.

On Friday, the 1st bench of Chief Justice SK Kaul & Justice M. Sundar said that at the inception, we must know there can’t be a specialist organisation to file PILs (public interest litigations).

The name under which this organisation is working creates a incorrect impression in the mind of the public as if it is a specialist only in filing the PILs.

The bench added that they can’t allow an organisation, which picks up a newspaper, finds out the issues raised & files half-baked petitions without any knowledge of the law or subject & that too without any sort of research on the subject.

Thus, they are of the view that any petition which is filed in the name of Tamil Nadu Centre for Public Interest Litigation can’t be maintained & no such petitions shall be maintained in this name & style.

The court observed that this issue is well settled in a chain of decisions of the Apex Court & other HCs that a mandamus can be issued only in the cases where there’s a statutory duty imposed upon a person.

It said that there’s a failure to discharge that duty & that a writ of mandamus can’t be issued to the Legislature to enact any particular legislation, as the same is the sole prerogative of Legislature.

High Court: ‘Kangaroo Courts’ functioning from Mosques have no legal sanctity


Sharia Law
Sharia Law

As per Petitioner people who are heading such courts followed neither the Shariat law nor the Legislated Law.

The Division Bench of the Madras High Court has reiterating its earlier stand.

It had ruled that Makka Masjid Shariat Council at the Mosque at Anna Salai and other places can only provide conciliation service to its members.

High Court made it evidently clear that such religious entities cannot be allowed to function in a manner resembling a judicial forum.

Such forums have no legal sanctity, the Bench said.

DB ruled that it is unable to agree with the plea  as such entities can merely provides conciliation service.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice SK Kaul and Justice M Sundar said that it is concerned about the the manner in which it is portrayed before the public. Legally they can only hold conciliation proceeding and help to resolve family disputes amicably.

It was alleged that hundreds of marriages are dissolved deceptively.

Apart from this property issues are also settled to the whims and fancies of their religious leaders with the help of lawyers. They portray and work in a court like setup inside the mosques.

Senior counsel A Sirajuddin had sought action against such “Kangaroo Courts”.

It was claimed that people heading such courts follow neither the Shariat law nor the Legislated Law.

High Court: Educated Girl once ditched by boyfriend can’t cry Rape for Pre-Marital Sex


No Rape in Pre Marital Sex with consent
No Rape in Pre-marital Sex with consent

There is a rising trend of criminal prosecutions for Rape initiated after the end of a relationship.

A promise to marry can’t be considered an inducement in every rape case, the Bombay HC has ruled while granting pre-arrest bail to a 21 year old man after his former girlfriend lodged a case of rape following their break up.

Justice Mridula Bhatkar held that a girl who is educated & has given consent to have premarital sex should take responsibility for her decision.

Justice M Bhatkar said that in the event of consent being obtained by fraud, inducement must be proved. Some material should be there on record to believe prima facie that girl was induced to such an extent that she was ready to have sexual intercourse. Promise to marry can’t be said to be an inducement in such types of cases.

The judge said that though society has been changing, it certainly carries the baggage of morality. Since generations, there is a moral taboo that it’s responsibility of a woman to be a virgin at the time of her marriage. However, now, the young generation is exposed to different interactions with each other & is well informed about the sexual activities.

Under such circumstances, a woman who’s in love with a boy forgets that it’s her option to have sex is like her counterpart’s but still refuses to take responsibility for her own decision.

 The HC pointed to the rising trend of criminal prosecutions for rape initiated just after the end of the relationship & also said that the court needs to take an objective view & balance life & liberty of the accused with the sufferings of the girl.

What pushed Three Judge Tripura High Court into a Constitutional problem?


Court News by LatestLaws.com
Court News by LatestLaws.com

A Judge cannot be part of a Bench hearing an Appeal on the Judgement authored by him.

Tripura High Court Chief Justice T Vaiphei has written to the Chief Justice of India J S Khehar seeking resolution of a peculiar constitutional crisis which has been faced by the HC, which is currently operating with three judges against the sanctioned strength of four judges.

Tripura HC Chief Justice in his letter stated that Intra-Court Appeals against Single Judge’s order before two-judge or Division Bench was piling up and that he was finding it difficult to constitute the required Bench.

He requested the CJI to transfer these pending appeals to another High Court in region to facilitate early justice to the litigants.

With a working strength of three judges, when an appeal is filed against judgment authored by a particular judge, he cannot be part of Division Bench.
This would leave Chief Justice and other judge to constitute Division Bench. If for some reason, one of them recuses from hearing an appeal, then case remains pending.
Apex Court Bench comprising of CJI Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud requested Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to assist the Court in finding a solution to problem and has posted the matter for hearing on Monday.

Tripura HC has three judges, Chief Justice Vaiphei ,Justices S C Das and S Talapatra.

CJI Khehar expounded that transferring of these appeals to another HC would require notices to be given to the litigants, who may have to travel long distances to attend the court hearings.

To nullify SC ban on Jallikattu, Centre arms Tamil Nadu with an Ordinance


Jallikattu Game
Jallikattu Game

Now provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act will not apply to the bull.

In a swift move, the Centre Govt yesterday night cleared an ordinance on Jallikattu.

It has now paved the way for Tamil Nadu Government to promulgate a Law in an effort to end the protests that have paralysed Tamil Nadu for the last four days.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi had given an assurance to the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O Panneerselvam in this regard.

Ministries of Home, Law and Environment has also vetted the state’s draft ordinance and cleared the amendment. The changed Law will denotify the Bull from the list of “performing animals”.

Thereafter the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act will not be applicable on the bull.

Post promulgation the ordinance has been forwarded to the state government. However it has been sent without referring it to the President of India as of yet.

Cabinet of Tamil Nadu State is expected to meet tomorrow morning to clear the ordinance and recommend  Governor Vidyasagar Rao for promulgation of the Ordinance.

Jallikattu is a sport of bull-taming. It is an annual event during Pongal and is very popular in Tamil Nadu State.

Lately celebrities like Rajnikant, Kamal Hassan and AR Rahman had also come in support of the protestors of the Ban.

Meanwhile Apex Court had also agreed to put on hold its verdict on the issue.

Related News @ LatestLaws.com-

12.1.2017 – SC trashes Jallikattu plea again: Violent Protests erupt in parts of Tamil Nadu, Police lathicharges

16.11.2016 – Supreme Court dismisses Tamil Nadu’s petition seeking Review of its 2014 Judgment banning Jallikattu

17.1.2016 – Supreme Court Ban on ‘Jallikattu’ violated with impunity, State Govt-Police turned blind eye

12.1.2016- Supreme Court tames Modi’s Jallikattu Bulls once again, Notification stayed

9.1.2016- Supreme Court Ban on Jallikattu nullified by Modi Govt. with eye on Elections, Read Notification here

26.12.2015- Tamil Nadu Political Parties gearing up to Amend Law to nullify May 2014 Supreme Court ban on Jallikattu, Read Judgment

BCCI empire strikes back: Now Attorney General seeks recall of Lodha Panel reforms by Supreme Court

January, 20,2017:

Anurag Thakur was threatened with a jail term by SC
BCCI Reforms

Govt, seeks to transfer the BCCI Reforms matter to a larger Bench.

On Friday, a fresh twist took place to the Board of Control for Cricket in India versus the Lodha panel controversy, when the Attorney General of India urged Supreme Court to recall radical reforms suggested to bring greater transparency in Indian Cricket Board.

This happened on the day when Supreme Court was to name a set of administrators for BCCI, Attorney General of India Mukul Rohatgi brought a dramatic twist to script when he argued that implementation of Lodha reforms needed a bigger debate and thus must be referred to a larger bench.

The Supreme Court stated that it would name administrators on January 24 (Tuesday).

Nine names have been submitted in a sealed envelope.

On January 2, Supreme Court in its landmark judgement, sacked Anurag Thakur and Ajay Shirke as President and Secretary, respectively, of BCCI.

Related News @ LatestLaws.com-

2.01.2017 – CJI TS Thakur led SC Bench removes Anurag Thakur as BCCI President

21.10.2016 – Supreme Court truncates BCCI’s Financial Powers, directs independent Auditor to scrutinise Accounts

28.9.2016 – Supreme Court warns BCCI: Don’t behave like Lords, fall in line or we will make you fall in line

17.8.2016 – BCCI seeks Review of Supreme Court’s July 19 Judgment with recusal of CJI TS Thakur from Bench

7.8.2016- BCCI beams as Justice (Retd) Markandey Katju calls SC Judgment on Cricket reforms as ‘Unconstitutional and illegal’

2.8.2016- Justice Markandey Katju to Head BCCI Panel for compliance of SC Judgment on J.Lodha Report

18.7.2016- SC accepts Lodha Committee Report, rules no Government Minister or official in BCCI, Read Text

8.4.2016- CJI Thakur: When Bharat Ratna ‘Tendulkar’ can give 30 more yrs to Cricket, why have 70+ BCCI Members

12.3.2016- BCCI’s last-ditch effort to thwart the Supreme Court from bringing Transparency in Cricket, Read Text

Supreme Court slams BCCI, says India No1 Cricket Team despite your Money mindedness

4.2.2016- SC warns BCCI: Either accept Lodha Panel Report, or it will be all over with no second innings

21.8.2015- Madras HC issue notice to BCCI on CSK’s challenge to its ban and Justice Lodha Committee decision on Betting row

25.7.2015- Off the Hook- Poor Investigation or Innocence, Question Remains

17.7.2015- Can a Judge delegate the Judicial Power, Justice Katju chides SC outsourcing of IPL case

15.7.2015- Supreme Court of India- Glimmer of hope for Dawn for clean Cricket in India, Read Full Text of J. Lodha Report

Duty First for Policeman: Helps arrest his Son in Attempt to Murder case as Woman was stabbed

January, 20, 2017:

Honest Police Officer
Honest Police Officer

He even warned his relatives to not to give shelter to his Son.

For ASI Raj Singh, 52, his son was guilty of stabbing a woman who spurned him and thus had to be brought to justice.

Singh knew that his son deserved to be behind the bars and also had threatened his relatives against helping, Amit, evade arrest.

While Delhi Police was grappling for clues to crack the case, Singh walked into Najafgarh Police Station and offered to help the investigating officer to arrest his son.

Singh, who is posted in West District, was on seven day medical leave, when he learnt about his son’s involvement in Najafgarh stabbing case.


Supreme Court refuses to stay Delhi Top Cop Alok Verma’s appointment as CBI Chief

January,20, 2017:

Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court of India

Apex Court refuses to even call for the the minutes of the meeting of the high-powered Committee.

On Friday, Supreme Court refused to direct Centre to place before it minutes of meeting of a High-Powered Committee, comprising  of Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and Leader of Opposition, which has selected Delhi Police Commissioner Alok Kumar Verma as New CBI Director.

Apex Court Bench comprising of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice A M Khanwilkar enunciated that, “It is not within ambit of this writ petition. As far as this writ petition is concerned, it is over now,”.

Apex Court’s ruling came after it was informed said by thr Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and the Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that appointment to the post of CBI Director has been made and the Senior IPS Officer Alok Kumar Verma has been appointed.

Alok Kumar Verma, Delhi Police Commissioner, was appointed as New CBI Chief and his name was cleared by a three-member selection panel headed by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and comprising of  Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh Khehar and the Congress leader in Lok Sabha,  Mallikarjun Kharge as members.


Air India to staff: You’re overweight, you can’t fly!

January 20,2017:

Air India
Air India

Doing ground job means loss of the flying allowance of Rs. 35,000 to 50,000 pm.

Air India has grounded 57 members of cabin crew, mostly air hostesses, prime reason behind this move is being overweight.

Until & unless these crew members get back in shape quickly, they’ll be assigned ground jobs permanently.

These crew members had a higher than permitted BMI (body mass index), i.e. the ratio of weight & height of an individual. They were asked to lose weight and have been given deadlines.

Assigning of a ground job means loss of the flying allowance which is between ₹35,000 & ₹50,000 per month.

Overweight cabin crew have been declared temporarily unfit next for 6 months and if they don’t meet the BMI requirements in next eighteen months, they’ll be termed permanently unfit.

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) had more than 2 years ago introduced very strict requirements for cabin crew’s vision, weight & hearing.

According to the DGCA guidelines, ideal BMI for a male cabin crew is 18-25 while it is 18-22 for female crew members. Those with BMI of 25-29.9 & 22-27 are seen as overweight & those with 30 and 27 BMI are obese.

An Air India officer said that most of the cabin crew who’ve been taken off flying duties had BMI over 30.

Supreme Court : Divorce granted by Church Court are not valid and can’t override the Law


Christian Laws on Divorce
Christian Laws on Divorce

On the lines of recognition of Talaq under Muslim Law, recognition of dissolution of marriage under Canon Law as the personal law of the Indian Catholics was sought.

In Thursday,  Supreme Court expounded that divorce granted by the ecclesiastical tribunal under the Christian Personal Law are not valid as it cannot override law,

The above stated observations were made by the Apex Court while it rejected a PIL that sought legal sanction to such separations granted by Church Court.

Apex Court Bench comprising of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud dismissed the petition filed by Clarence Pais, a Former President of Karnataka Catholic Association, by stating that the issue has been settled by it in its 1996 verdict delivered in case of Molly Joseph v.George Sebastian.

Supreme Court further enunciated that,”Canon Law (personal law of Christians) can have theological or ecclesiastical implications to the parties. But after Divorce Act came into force, dissolution or the annulment granted under such Personal Law cannot have any legal impact as statute has provided a different procedure and a different code for divorce or annulment,”.