Prolawctor Daily Legal News| 23 August 2020

Daily Legal News

  • Additional Solicitor General of India explains the pros and cons of Press and Media Trial.

Additional Solicitor General of India, Senior Counsel Madhavi Divan has highlighted certain keypoints which are to be kept in mind of the reporters who are responsible for a coverage of news nationwide. In her Webinar Session on Friday the topic of the webinar being ‘Trial by Media’, Divan expressed the pros and cons of the types of coverage which are being done by the reports for their personal benefit like in order to raise the TRP levels, they focus on news items which can be turned and twisted and shown as sensational. These all somewhere or the other hampers the citizens as they are deprived of the actual news they should be aware of, as per Divan he or she doesn’t get what they should.

Further explaining the value of Press, ASG pointed out that press is like a trustee which holds the trust of people so it should be their responsibility to deal with the matters sensibly. Divan has highlighted the importance of Media Trial which helps the Judiciary as well as the citizens she even cited certain cases where Media Trial has just scandalized the matter and not helped in anyway. Giving example of Late Sushant Singh Rujput death case, Divan has explained the coverage done by Media which has become “hysteria”. Divan points out that in certain sensitive cases the Apex Court has refused interference of media. She has also urged that the court room hearings can be made public which would help the citizens to become aware of realities without physically visiting court.

  • Indian Democracy should not be tainted by Criminals- Madras HC

Madras High Court has suggested that the persons with criminal background are not fit to be policymakers, stating that Indian Democracy should not be tainted by criminals. The High Court of Madras has raised strong opposition towards the persons who are allowed to contest elections even after having a criminal background, court also raises a question before government that why hasn’t there been a law enacted by the parliament for not allowing a person with criminal background to obtain tickets to contest elections, as this was also suggested by the Supreme Court in 2018.

While hearing a matter the division bench of Justice N. Kirubakaran and Justice M. Velumani has raised this question where the matter was in relation to a Pudducherry man who was involved in country made bombs to use it against the rival gang, when investigated the matter, court found out that every other person has political connections who have a criminal background and because of this the court raised concern over the matter and also urged the Government to enact a law which would forbid a person with criminal background to obtain ticket to contest elections. As a person with criminal background if permitted to be a policymaker would send a wrong message to the country.

  • Personal Guarantor Anil Ambani to be presented before a Resolution Professional in the SBI Insolvency Case

In an insolvency case of SBI for being the personal guarantor of RCOM (Reliance Communication Limited) and RILT (Reliance Infratel Limited) Anil Ambani is to presented before the Resolution Professional which is order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Applications were filed on behalf of SBI against Anil Ambani wherein as being the personal guarantor of RCOM and RILT, he had advanced a loan of Rs. 565 crores and Rs. 635 crores for payment of a financial debt and the account was later discovered as a non performing account as a result afraid that the loan amount would not be recovered the SBI commenced proceedings against Anil Ambani in NCLT

It was argued on behalf of Anil Ambani that action cannot be directly taken against the personal guarantor the NCLT rejected the plea as per the decision of NCLT under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code permitted to appoint a Resolution Professional for the insolvency case against Anil Ambani.

  • The Attorney General hinted towards the comments made by former judges which emphasised upon corruption in the higher judiciary.

KK Venugopal, implied to the bench constituting of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari that previously nine Supreme Court judges have spoken about the existence of corruption in the higher judiciary majority of them have instantaneously made such a remark after the retirement. He cited while appearing before the Supreme Court judges that, “Five judges of the Supreme Court who have said that democracy has failed in the Supreme Court – which is what Bhushan said in his tweets. Secondly, I have nine judges of the Supreme Court saying that there is corruption in the higher judiciary. Two of them made statements while they chaired (not clear). Seven of them said so immediately after their retirement. I have extracts from all of them. I myself made a speech in 1987 in the Indian Law Institute…” while expressing this opinion AG Venugopal has been interrupted by the bench who ceased to hear him on the “merits” of the case.

The judges who have been referred above include,

  • Justice Venkataramiah who was the 19th CJI of India.
  • Justice Bharucha, who was the 30th CJI of India.
  • Justice Michael Saldanha.
  • Justice Markandey Katju
  • Justice Chelameswar
  • Justice MN Venkatachaliah
  • Justice VR Krishna Iyer
  • Justice JS Verma
  • Justice AK Ganguly
  • Bombay High court states the action taken against the Tablighis implicitly warns the Indian muslims against any form of action that could be taken against.

The bench of Bombay high court which is situated in Aurangabad, while quashing various FIRs which have been filed against 6 Indians and 29 foreign nationals who have been allegedly accused for taking part in Tablighi Jamaat congregation in Delhi without seeking any prior permission to hold such a religious sermon in the masjid. Dismissing the petition of the government for basing it on the presumption that the accused were already infected, the justice asserted that “. A political Government tries to find the scapegoat when there is pandemic or calamity and the circumstances show that there is probability that these foreigners were chosen to make them scapegoats. The aforesaid circumstances and the latest figures of infection in India show that such action against present petitioners should not have been taken. It is now high time for the concerned to repent about this action taken against the foreigners and to take some positive steps to repair the damage done by such action…”These petitions were filed under various provisions such as “Indian Penal Code, the Maharashtra Police Act, Epidemic Diseases Act, Disaster Management Act and the Foreigners Act”. However, after hearing all the arguments the court held that “This action indirectly gave warning to Indian Muslims that action in any form and for anything can be taken against Muslims. It was indicated that even for keeping contact with Muslims of other countries, action will be taken against them. Thus, there is smell of malice to the action taken against these foreigners and Muslim for their alleged activities. The circumstances like malice is important consideration when relief is claimed of quashing of F.I.R. and the case itself.” Thereby quashing the F.I.Rs filed.

  • The Supreme Court states that it is strange on the part of states to stop religious activities alluding it to be the lone reason behind pandemic.

A bench which is led by Sharad A. Bobde (CJI), was hearing to a plea filed by Shri Parshwatilak Shwetamber Murtipujak Tapagacch Jain Trust urging the court to allow the temples open at Chembur, Dadar and Byculla in Mumbai during 22th and 23rd for the festival of Paryushan. The CJI while hearing the plea stated that “We find it strange that they are willing to allow activities involving economic interests, but if it involves religion, they cite COVID to say they cannot open”. Further a senior advocate Dushyant Dave, raised an important question that if the malls, liquor shops and saloons could open, then Jain worshippers shall also be able to practice their right to offer worship. However, the Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi representing the state of Maharashtra stated that there’s already an alarming rise in the cases in the state, allowing Jains would further deteriorate the situation.  However the court held that there cannot essentially be an institutionalisation of a blanket ban upon various religious congregations, further supporting his stance Chief Justice Bobde cited the Jagannath Rath Yatra which was held by the state of Odisha. However, the state concluded that such a permission granted to the Jain community would not act as a “precedent” to the Ganesh Chaturthi.

  • Bangalore Mirror takes back the wrongful allegations passed against Former Justice.

On 29 August, 2019 Bangalore Mirror published an article titled “A BAD JUDGE OF THE CITYS LAWS” alleging that former chief justice HG Ramesh has built a bungalow which violated the number of building bye laws. After reading the news article, a notice has been issued to Bangalore Mirror for the wrongful allegations. On Saturday, Bangalore Mirror apologized the former chief justice for publishing the article which caused mental pain and agony to him for the de-reputation of his social status.

  • File an affidavit of details of the migrant people : says Karnataka HC

A plea has been filed by the Congress leader Priyank Kharge seeking directions to facilitate Karnataka based migrant workers, students and some weaker sections who got strucked in other states due to this COVID pandemic. The bench asked the petitioner to show that still people are stranded in the boarders of other states although the boarders are left opened and ordered the petitioner Priyank Kharge to file an affidavit which contains the details of the Karnataka based migrant workers. The court adjourned the next hearing after two weeks.

  • Conduct of NEET, JEE with 6 days is arbitrary without abroad centres for NEET

An affidavit has been filed in the supreme court of India by Abdul Azeez urging NTA to set up abroad examination centre for NEET UG exams. The schedule for JEE exam is from September 1 to 6 whereas the scheme for NEET exam is from September 13. There is only 6 days gap between both the entrance tests. Students who got struck in abroad due to pandemic will face a crucial task to attend the exams as there is a mandatory regulation of 28 days quarantine or self-isolation period for the people who travel states. Few students want to attempt both the exams one with the centre at abroad and the other in India. Even though student may reach to India but cannot attend to exam as he/ she will be isolated for 14 days. So in the petitioner requested to conduct exams even in abroad and in online mode to facilitate students to the attend the exams without any such issues.

One thought on “Prolawctor Daily Legal News| 23 August 2020

Leave a Reply

error: Content is protected !!
%d bloggers like this: