Daily Legal Updates
- BCI Pens letter to Law Universities – Mentions to include Mediation with Conciliation as a Mandatory Subject.
The Bar Council of India writes a letter to all Universities offering LLB degrees, to include Mediation with Conciliation as a compulsory subject from academic year 2020-2021. The BCI in its letter mentions that all the universities offering law degrees of 3 years course as well as 5 years Integrated Course should from this academic year include Mediation subject as mandatory.
Chief Justice of India S.A.Bobde has addressed the Bar Council and stated that it should consider including the Mediation subject in its syllabus as a compulsion and on this view the BCI has passed a resolution and instructed the universities to act on it.
Further BCI has highlighted the importance of Mediation during these times of pandemic where virtual hearings are not possible. BCI also directs that mere inclusion of subject is not enough, which means that there should be focus on practical skill training as well along with theoretical knowledge. BCI in its letter also states the key points to be observed while recruiting teachers for this particular subject.
While explaining the importance of mediation BCI also mentions how mediation with conciliation plays a crucial role today where cases are just being filed and matters are prolonged unnecessarily. Mediation can also be opted as an alternative option. Thus due to all these points BCI wishes to train all the lawyers to master the art of mediation which can be started by learning the subject at a primitive stage.
- Residential Properties Sealed in Delhi ordered to be De-sealed – Apex Court quashes Sealing and Demolition orders.
On Friday, a three-judge bench of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Krishna Murari, passed a judgement, wherein all the residential properties in areas of Vasant Kunj and Rajokari of Delhi which were instructed to be sealed by the Monitoring Committee were ordered to be de-sealed and also to be restored with possession by the Supreme Court.
The Apex Court in its judgement expressed that the Monitoring Committee which was appointed by the court in 2006 was acting beyond its powers. The Court expressing its disappointment with committee pointed out that the Committee was not authorised to seal, let alone demolish the residential properties which were not used for commercial purposes on grounds of alleged unauthorised constructions.
The bench also points out that the committee should have acted within its powers and not misused them rendering them illegal.
In words of bench, “We quash Report 149 and other reports submitted subsequently in connection with Report No 149, and entire action of sealing pursuant thereto. We also quash notices issued directing demolition where the matter was being heard by this court, and the monitoring committee had no power to look into the matter and to take any action. Let the property sealed as per Report No.149 be desealed, and possession be restored to the owners forthwith”.The Court thus quashed the reports of the Committee and ordered the properties so sealed by the Committee to be de-sealed and to be restored with possession and also directed that the order be complied within 3 days.
- Declare there is no freedom of speech and expression with respect to pending matters and final judgement in the courts : plea in SC
A PIL has been filed in SC seeking no freedom of speech and expression under the matters of court by advocate Dr. Subhash Vijayran. The plea is mainly against those advocates who are wasting the precious time of court by passing alleged statements against the court matters and then apologizing themselves for the misstatements. Most of the recent cases directly or indirectly comes under this scenario like Prashant Bhushan case, yatin Oza case in Gujarat and Chidambaram in Rajasthan political crisis. In all the supra cases the common point is criticisms either directly or indirectly passed by the respective advocates in public domain. The case is adjourned to next hearing on August 17
- SC questions the President of NCDRC in granting long adjournments in complaints
In a special leave petition filed by LM jewellers in the month of February, 2020 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal committee adjourned the next hearing to January 2021 with utmost gap of one year. The SC mentioned that the long adjournments takes place only when there is lack of infrastructure and judges. But this became a routice use by NCDRC in many of its cases and asked the President of NCDRC to look into grievances and ordered to ensure the allocation of work in a streamlined manner.