Legal tangle over mandatory linking of Aadhaar

Author: 
Amritananda Chakravorty Mihir Samson

i. Ill-Equipped fake hospitals to be granted harsher punishments – The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that as per provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, the punishment  for running a medical establishment without a license is only a fine, which is not deterrent enough. The Court pointed out that the act does criminalise abortions not performed in accordance with the Act but there are no consequences for the hospital that allows for such abortions to be conducted in it. [Sri Krishna Nursing Home v State of Telangana, Writ Petition No. 30285 of 2017, date of order: 21.09.2017]

ii. Proof of injury suffered to be proven toaward damages for loss of profits in arbitration proceedings – The Delhi High Court has ruled that it is imperative for the claiming party to submit proof of injury suffered, in order to successfully claim damages for loss of profits in an arbitration proceeding. The petitioner had challenged an earlier decision of the Court of rejecting its plea to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on the ground that the tribunal had not granted damages for loss of profits suffered during the extended period of the agreement by it. It claimed that it had given relevant materials as evidence to prove loss of profits. But again the Court held that the evidence was not worthwhile, and that the proof needs to meet a higher standard. [Ahluwalia Contract (India) Limited v Union of India, First Appeal (Original Side) (Commercial) 143/2017, decided on 17.10.2017]

iii. Plea against Uttar Pradesh circular making singing of national anthem mandatory in madrasas dismissed–The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea challenging a circular issued by the Uttar Pradesh Government makng it mandatory for students in madarsas to sing the National Anthem. The Allahabad High Court noted that the singing of the National Anthem is not just a constitutional duty but also fosters the spread of the spirit of democracy, secularism and integrity of the nation.[Alaul Mustafa v State of Uttar Pradesh, Public Interest Litigation No. 44335 of 2017, dated 21.09.2017]

iv. Life ban on Sreesanth restored – The Kerala High Court has allowed BCCI’s appeal and reinstated the life ban on S. Sreesanth for indulging in spot fixing during IPL matches. Earlier the court had quashed the ban, against which BCCI filed an appeal. The point of contention was that in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, the Court acted as if it was a court hearing an appeal and substituted its own decision with that of the disciplinary committee’s by undertaking a re-assessment of the evidence. The Court noted that its role was limited to checking whether the principles of natural justice had been followed in the disciplinary proceedings against him, which according the court had been followed. [Board of Cricket Control v S. Sreesanth, Writ Appeal 1909 Of 2017 dated 17.10.2017]

v. Order Of Maintenance Awarded Under Domestic Violence Act Cannot Be Substituted By Maintenance Under S.125 of CrPC – The Bombay High Court has held that the maintenance granted under Section 125 of the CrPC and maintenance granted under the Domestic Violence Act stand on two different footing and cannot be substituted for each other. The provisions of the Domestic Violence Act are to be applied, in addition to the CrPC and not in derogation of them and the amount granted under the DV Act cannot be substituted for the amount to be granted under the CrPC. [Prakash Babulal Dangi v State of Mahrashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 3791 of 2017 dated 10.10.2017]

Other Legal Developments –

i. Government sanction made mandatory to probe judges and public servants in Rajasthan - The State of Rajasthan has passed an ordinance which makes it mandatory to obtain a Government sanction before investigating both serving and former Judges, Magistrates, and public servants for on-duty actions. As per the law, a magistrate cannot direct an investigation against a Judge, Magistrate and a public servant except with the previous sanction under S.197 Cr.PC. It also provides a time limit of 180 days for the authorities to consider a sanction request. If no decision is taken within the time limit, the sanction would be deemed to have been provided. Disclosure of the name of the servant until sanction is given is also prohibited under the ordinance. [Criminal Laws (Rajasthan Amendment) Ordinance, 2017, Notification No. F.4(1)Vidhi/2/2017 dated 7.09.2017]

Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar resigns – Solicitor General of India Mr. Ranjit Kumar resigned from the post of the Solicitor General of India citing personal reasons. He was appointed in 2014 by the NDA government and his term was also extended in 2017. (IPA/Concluded)

Tuesday, 31 October, 2017