Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: After the Uttar Pradesh government has knocked the door of Supreme Court, challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order regarding the removal of hoardings put up by the state government, with names, addresses and photographs of those who were accused of violence during anti-CAA protests, the Court has referred the matter to a 3-judge bench.

Senior lawyer Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for ex-IPS officer SR Darapuri, told the Court that Darapuri is ’72 batch IPS officer who retired as IG. While citing examples of cases of child rapists and murderers, he said,

“Since when and how do we have in this country a policy to name and shame them? If such a policy exists, a man walking on the streets or roads may be lynched.”

Senior lawyer Colin Gonsalves, appearing for accused Mohammad Shoaib, submitted that this is the grossest form of violation which his client was facing now.

“Somebody can come to my home and kill me.”

Taking the suo moto cognisance of the public interest litigation on the issue, the High Court in an unprecedented sitting on Sunday termed the act of putting up photos of protesters as “unjust”. The hoardings included pictures of Shia cleric Maulana Saif Abbas, former IPS officer SR Darapuri and Congress leader Sadaf Jafar, all of whom were named as accused in the violence that swept the state capital on December 19 last year.

(Source: ANI)

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of Justices (1) Rahul Chaturvedi, (2) Irshad Ali, and (3) Neeraj Tiwari, Additional Judges of the Allahabad High Court, as Permanent Judges of that High Court.

With a view to assess merit and suitability of the above-named three Additional Judges for appointment as Permanent Judges, we have carefully scrutinized the material placed on record including certain complaints received against one of the above-named recommendees. On overall assessment based inter alia on the additional information received from the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, the observations made by the Department of Justice in the file and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the view that Justices (1) Irshad Ali, and (2) Neeraj Tiwari, Additional Judges, are suitable for being appointed as Permanent Judges.

As regards Justice Rahul Chaturvedi, having taken into consideration all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the view that his present term as Additional Judge be extended for a further period of six months.

In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend that:

(A) Justices (1) Irshad Ali, and (2) Neeraj Tiwari, Additional Judges be appointed as Permanent Judges of the Allahabad High Court against the existing vacancies; and

(B) Justice Rahul Chaturvedi, be appointed as an Additional Judge for a fresh term of six months w.e.f. 22nd September, 2019.


[Collegium Resolution dt. 05-09-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Legislation UpdatesNotifications

Allahabad High Court issued a notice requesting learned counsels to refer to the Code of Criminal Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act 2018 (UP Act 04/2019) U.P. Government Notification no. 1058(2)/LXIX-V-1-19-1(KA)-20-2018 dated 06-06-2019 for grant of Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 CrPC to person apprehending arrest.

Following is the direction of the High Court in regard to the filing of an application for Anticipatory Bail:

(1) The application must bear Court fee of Rs. 5/- as prescribed for application.

(2) The application must be supported by an affidavit of the person apprehending arrest.

(3) The Second paragraph of the affidavit filed in support of the application must contain the reason to believe that deponent
apprehending arrest on accusation of a non-bailable offence with particulars i.e. Case Crime Number, Police Station, and Section(s) under which arrest is apprehended, if the same is known to the deponent.

(4) The third paragraph of the affidavit filed in support of the application must contain that apprehended accusation does
not fall under the offences provided under sub-section (6) of the Section 438 CrPC.

(5) The fourth paragraph of the affidavit filed in support of the application must contain that the deponent has not filed any previous application under Section 438 CrPC before this Hon’ble Court either at Allahabad or Lucknow or before any other High Court in India, pertaining to the same subject matter.

(6) The fifth paragraph of the affidavit filed in support of the application must contain information as to whether any application under Section 438 CrPC has been moved before the Court of Sessions having Jurisdiction and the status/result of that application and must be substantiated with relevant documents.


[Notice dt. 01-07-2019]

Allahabad High Court


Further Reading:

Breaking | Provision of “Anticipatory Bail” once again incorporated in the State of Uttar Pradesh

Hot Off The PressNews

Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in regard to initiating the impeachment motion for removal of Justice Narayan Shukla of Allahabad High Court.

After an in-house inquiry into the matter was conducted, the report was submitted stating Justice Narayan Shukla to be guilty of committing gross judicial misconduct by not following the orders of the Supreme Court.

The matter for which Justice Narayan Shukla was found to be guilty:

Medical Council of India (MCI) case 

Justice Narayan Shukla granted permission to a private medical college to admit students despite a ban by Medical Council of India along with Supreme Court Orders for the same.

Justice Shukla, had allegedly defied the restraint orders passed by a CJI-led bench to permit private colleges to admit students for the 2017-18 academic session.

Following this, an inquiry committee was set up after which the then CJI Dipak Misra had advised Justice Shukla to either resign or take voluntary retirement to which he refused and eventually all the judicial work was taken away from Justice Shukla after which he went for a long leave.


[Source: Times of India]

[Picture Credits: India today]

Appointments & TransfersNews

The President in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Krishna Singh and Shri Justice Rajiv Lochan Mehrotra, Additional Judges of the Allahabad High Court, to be Judges of the Allahabad High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their offices.

Ministry of Law and Justice

Appointments & TransfersNews

The President in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, appointed  S/Shri Justices (1) Rajul Bhargava, (2) Siddhartha Varma, (3) Smt. Sangeeta Chandra, (4) Daya Shankar Tripathi, (5) Shailendra Kumar Agrawal, (6) Sanjay Harkauli, (7) Krishna Pratap Singh, (8) Smt. Rekha  Dikshit and (9) Satya Narain Agnihotri,  Additional Judges of the Allahabad High Court, to be Judges of the Allahabad High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their offices.

Ministry of Law and Justice

Appointments & TransfersNews

The President in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article  217 of the Constitution of India appointed S/Shri Justice (i) Ashok Kumar, (ii) Vivek Chaudhary, (iii) Saumitra Dayal Singh, and (iv) Akhilesh Chandra Sharma, Additional Judges of the Allahabad High Court, to be Judges of the Allahabad High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their offices.

Ministry of Law and Justice

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The bench of R.K. Agrawal and A.M. Sapre, JJ agreed to examine a plea of the income tax department whether the North Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) is a corporation established by the Uttar Pradesh government under the state industrial development law or not. The Court said that it will look into the appeal filed by the IT department against an order of the Allahabad High Court which held that NOIDA is a corporation established under the Act and, therefore, banks are not liable to deduct income tax at source on fixed deposits.

The issue arose in 2013, when the IT department imposed a tax liability on the banks for non- deduction of TDS on the interest income on fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of NOIDA. The banks, hence, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT-A), saying the NOIDA is a corporation established by the state law and banks are not under the statutory obligation to deduct and pay the income tax.

The IT department approached the Court against the order of the High Court and sought for determination of the issue as to whether NOIDA is a corporation entitled for exemption from deduction of income tax at source under the provisions of a notification issued in 1970 under the Income Tax Act.

Source: PTI

Hot Off The PressNews

As reported by Firstpost, the Allahabad High Court has termed triple talaq as unconstitutional, observing that the practice is violation of a woman’s rights. Coming down strongly on the issue of Triple Talaq while hearing a case involving a divorce granted through the contentious practice of triple talaq, the Court observed that all citizens, including Muslim women, have fundamental rights under the Constitution, and they cannot be violated under the garb of personal law. Striking out at practices that violate the fundamental rights of women,  Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. held  that the human rights of women and of girls are an “inalienable, integral and indivisible part of universal human rights”.

The Court also said that personal law may be applicable only within the purview of the Constitution, and that a fatwa, which is contrary to the justice system, is not valid. No fatwa can be contrary to someone’s rights, the Court said.

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of 5 Judges will hear the triple talaq matter from 11.05.2017 [In Re: Muslim Women’s Quest for Equality v. Jamiat Ulma-I-Hind, SMW(C) No. 2/2015].

 

Appointments & TransfersNews

The President in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India appointed Justice Mukhtar Ahmad, Amar Singh Chauhan,  Shamsher Bahadur Singh,  Vinod Kumar Misra, Pramod Kumar Srivastava, Raghvendra Kumar, and Pratyush Kumar, Additional Judges of the Allahabad High Court, to be Judges of the Allahabad High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 13th January, 2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court:  Dismissing an election petition with costs challenging the election of Mrs Sonia Gandhi to the Lok Sabha from Rae Bareily Constituency on May 16, 2014 and her entitlement to be registered as an Indian citizen, the Court held that grant of citizenship cannot be challenged at this belated stage. The Court also observed that the petition lacked in material facts and did not constitute a complete cause of action.

Mrs Gandhi’s election was challenged on the ground that she was not a citizen of India as the words “citizens of India” under Article 84 of the Constitution referred to those persons who were citizens by birth or descent and not those who had acquired citizenship by registration. Besides, appeal by various  religious leaders to vote for her on religious lines during the election campaign amounted to corrupt practice and rendered her election void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The petitioner also challenged Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, Rule 4 of the Citizenship Rules, 1956 and Form III prescribed therein as unconstitutional.

The Bench of Tarun Agarwala, J. held that as long as the certificate of citizenship issued under Section 5 was not challenged as in the instant case, the presumption of the validity of the certificate continues to remain in existence in view of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The Court will presume that the certificate was validly issued by the prescribed authority after satisfying itself that the said person was entitled for grant of registration in her favour. The Court observed that since the petitioner had admitted that the respondent was granted Indian citizenship on 30th April, 1983, coupled with the fact that there is no challenge by the petitioner to the acquisition of the citizenship upon the respondent, such plea cannot be looked into at this belated stage after three decades. Such registration is still continuing and has not been cancelled, withdrawn or annulled till date. So long as the order issued under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act stands, Mrs Gandhi continues to remain a citizen of India.

As for the contention of indulging in corrupt practice, the Court observed that t is clear that the appeal to vote on the ground of religion must be the religion of that candidate. The appeal is to be made on the basis of the religion of the candidate for whom votes are solicited. There is no such assertion to this effect in the election petition. In fact the assertion is, that the appeal was to garner Muslim votes. Admittedly the respondent is not a Muslim. In order to constitute corrupt practice, it must be shown that the act was done during the election campaign between the date when the respondent became a candidate and the date of poll and that it was the act of the respondent or her agent or any other person with her consent to appeal to vote on the ground of her religion. As material facts are lacking, the Court found no cause of action arose on this issue. [Ramesh Singh v. Sonia Gandhi, 2016 SCC OnLine All 451, decided on  July 11, 2016]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: In a matter where the applicant sought to recall an order whereby the petition was disposed of directing the court below to conclude the trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,  the  Court refused to exercise it’s inherent power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

The Court said that Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a court, the said court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and is dis-entitled to entertain a fresh prayer for any relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. It was further held that The power to recall a judgment will not be exercised when the ground for reopening the proceedings or vacation the judgement was available to be pleaded in the original action but was not done or where a proper remedy in some other proceeding such as by way of appeal or revision was available but was not availed.

It was further said that the effect that the criminal justice delivery system does not clothe the Court to add or delete any words, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error as specifically been provided under the Statute itself after the pronouncement of the judgment. The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something that has been expressly barred under the Code.

The bench of Suneet Kumar J., also laid down 4 conditions when a Tribunal or a Court can review its earlier order:

  1. if the proceedings culminating into an order suffer from the inherent lack or jurisdiction and such lack of jurisdiction is patent.
  2. there exists a fraud or collusion in obtaining the judgment.
  3. there has been a mistake prejudicing a party, or
  4. a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact that a necessary party has not been serving at all or had died and the estate was not represented.

[V.K. Anand . State of U.P, 2016 SCC OnLine All 392, decided on 30.05.2016]