Friday, November 21, 2014

Delhi High Court : Adding alphabet ‘A’ before name of candidate in DUSU elections is improper

Delhi High Court : Adding alphabet ‘A’ before name of candidate in DUSU elections is improper

The Division bench of Delhi High Court comprising the Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice RS Endlaw delivered a judgment on 20th November 2014 in the appeal LPA No. 566/2014 filed by All India Students Association against single Judge’s order in relation to the elections to Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) elections.  The Court observed that the practice of candidates changing their names and adding the alphabet "A" before their names prior to DUSU polls to get themselves listed at the top of the ballot paper "is flawed". 

The Court observed : ‘we do indeed find several of the contesting candidates to have prefixed the letters “AAA”, “AA”, “aa”, “A.A”, “AAAA”, “aaa”, “a.a” or a name beginning with the letter “A”, to their names, resulting in such altered / changed name being listed at the top of the ballot paper, the names of LPA No.566/2014 Page 4 of 9 contesting candidates wherein are listed alphabetically and which otherwise would have been listed at the bottom of the ballot paper. The contesting candidates having indulged in such a practice, this Court cannot turn a blind eye thereto.  ……We fail to understand, as to how a student of the university, for the purpose of contesting the election, can be allowed any prefix before his name as entered on the rolls of the university.”

The court further observed : “We are however of the opinion that the practice, if followed by the respondent University of allowing such prefixes to the name for the purposes solely of election, is flawed. The name by which a candidate is allowed to contest the election should be the name on the rolls of the university and which name would be, as aforesaid, the same as the name of such student in the School Leaving Certificate. The name in School Leaving Certificate is generally the name given at birth. Though a change of name is possible but the same entails effecting publication in the prescribed newspapers of such change and thereafter having such change notified / published in the Delhi Gazette. Similarly, the schools also have a procedure for effecting change in name. …. Even if there is procedure prevalent in the university permitting change of name, the same should be permissible after contesting in the election and which are normally held soon after the beginning of the academic session. We are further of the view that once the candidate has so changed his name, even if for the purpose of election, in the ensuing year he/she ought not be permitted to thereafter revert to the original name and should be ready to obtain his University Leaving Certificate/Degree also with such changed name”.

Click on Judgment for the Full Text.
 

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Supreme Court of India on black money stashed abroad in foreign accounts

Supreme Court is currently hearing Review Petition of Central Govt filed in the PIL (WP No.176 of 2009) which was filed by noted lawyer Ram Jethmalani for directions to Government to take prompt measures to ensure that  the money stashed abroad in illegal bank accounts is brought back to India. The supreme Court had constituted a SIT for this purpose.


The matter came up on 28th October when the Supreme Court directed Govt to place the names of all such account holders. On 29th October, the Govt gave names of 627 such account holders in sealed cover to Court who then passed it on to SIT for taking appropriate action.  The matter will now be taken up on 3rd December at 3.30 pm.

Here is the text of the Order passed by Supreme court on 29th October 2014 :

“Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India, on instructions, would submit that as of now, he is not pressing for any of the prayers made in the Interlocutory Application No. 14 of 2014 filed in Writ Petition (C) No.176 of 2009.
          Placing on record the said statement by the learned Attorney General, I.A. No. 14 of 2014 is disposed of as having become unnecessary for the present.
          Shri Rohtagi, learned Attorney General, has voluntarily had filed two separate sealed covers before each of us, which, according to him, contains the names of those account holders who have their bank accounts in HSBC, Geneva, as received from the Government of France.
         This Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition, by its order dated 04.07.2011 had constituted a Special Investigation Team (for short 'the S.I.T.'). That S.I.T. has been constituted and is functional as of now.
        By our order dated 01.05.2014, we had reconstituted the said S.I.T. and had directed the newly constituted S.I.T. to take forward the orders and directions issued by this Court on 04.07.2011. The said S.I.T. is looking into these matters. In fact, they had filed a Status Report before us on an earlier occasion.
        We do not intend to open the two sealed covers that are placed before each of us by the learned Attorney General, since we have already constituted an S.I.T. to look into these matters. The Registry is hereby directed to hand over the said two sealed covers intact today itself to a responsible officer/person in the S.I.T. with a specific instruction that it shall not be opened by anybody else except by the learned Chairman and Vice-chairman of the S.I.T.
          It is now for the S.I.T. to make use of the documents furnished by the learned Attorney General. We permit the S.I.T. to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and for that purpose to evolve its own procedure after hearing the learned Attorney General or his representative, Shri Ram Jethmalani, party-in-person and his counsel.
          We now request the S.I.T. to furnish before us the latest Status Report as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, by the end of November, 2014.
          We permit both sides to express their difficulties, grievances and other procedure which requires to be adopted before the S.I.T.
I.A.No.15 of 2014:
          Reply, if any, be filed to I.A. No. 15 of 2014 within four weeks' time.
         Call the matter on 3rd December, 2014 at 3.30 p.m.”

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Happy Diwali



The Goddess Of Light Is Adorned In Sparkles
And Light This Diwali.
She Wears A Million Stars To Illuminate Our Life.
The Sun And The Moon Are Her Allies
On The Path To Destroy All Evil And
Bring Peace And Happiness To Us.
Let Us Celebrate A Special Diwali This Day!




Sunil Goel
B.Sc, LLB, LLM
38/7 East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi - 110026
107, DLF Towers, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi - 110015

M : 9810215488


Member : 
Supreme Court Bar Association
Delhi High Court Bar Association
Guest Faculty, Dte of Training, UTCS, New Delhi

S.G.Solicitors

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Government can not give away land at its sweet will in arbitrary manner, held Supreme Court

A bench of Supreme court of India comprising Justices M.Y.Eqbal and P.C.Ghosh in its judgment dated 26th September 2014 in the case of ‘CIDCO vs Platinum Entertainment’ Civil Appeal no. 9264/2014 upheld the CIDCO’s action  of cancelling the land allotted to the respondents allottees by undue favour at the instance of the Minister.

The court held “State and its agencies and instrumentalities cannot give  largesse  to any person at sweet will and whims of the political entities or officers  of the State.  However, decisions and action of the State must be founded on  a sound, transparent and well defined policy which shall be made known to  the public.  The disposal of Government land by adopting  a  discriminatory  and arbitrary method shall always be avoided and it should be  done  in  a  fair and equitable manner as the allotment on favoritism or  nepotism  influences the exercises of discretion.  Even assuming that if the Rule  or  Regulation prescribes the mode of allotment by entertaining individual  application  or by tenders or competitive bidding, the Rule of Law requires publicity to  be given before such allotment is made”.

The court further observed “we  observe,  that  notwithstanding Regulation 4, as contained in the Regulations, the appellant CIDCO may  take all endeavour to make allotments of plots by open tender or  competing  bids and shall not take any decision for allotment  of  Government  land  at  the instance of the Ministers and High Dignitaries for any purposes whatsoever”.

Click below for the Full Judgment.





Supreme Court to reexamine JMM MPs bribery case judgment of 1998

A bench of Supreme Court of India comprising Justices T.S.Thakur, R.Banumathi in SLP (Crl) 2758/2014 titled as “Sita Soren vs Union of India through CBI” in its order on 23rd September 2014 referred the issue of corruption by a MP/MLA to a larger bench. The court said “Since the issue arises for consideration is substantial and of general public importance, we refer these matters to a larger Bench of three Hon'ble Judges to be constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India”.

The case is that the Election Commission had in April 2012 countermanded the Rajya Sabha elections in Jharkhand and handed over probe to CBI following allegations of bribery. The CBI in its charge-sheet had accused Sita Soren of receiving Rs 1.5 lakh for proposing nomination and also casting vote in favour of Raj Kumar Agarwal, an independent candidate. She challenged her prosecution claiming immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution of India, which provided that no member of legislature of a state shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him/her in the legislature or any committee thereof. She cited the 1998 judgment in JMM MPs bribery case ( in which the apex court granted immunity from prosecution to MPs who took bribe and voted to save the then Congress government of P V Narasimha Rao in Parliament). Jharkhand High Court rejected her plea by coming to a conclusion that since she had not voted for the candidate for whom the bribe was allegedly paid, she was not entitled to immunity from prosecution as in the JMM MPs case the Supreme Court had allowed Ajit Singh's prosecution for not voting even after allegedly taking bribe.

The Supreme Court was of the view that the 1998 judgment in JMM MPs bribery case need a fresh look and hence referred the matter to CJI for constitution of a 3-Judge bench to decide the issue. As per the procedure adopted by the apex court, a two-judge bench can refer a question of law to a three-judge bench, which alone can decide whether such a question merited consideration by a constitution bench. 


In JMM MPs bribery case, a Constitution bench by a 3-2 majority had held that those who took bribe but did not vote were liable to be prosecuted under Prevention of Corruption Act as they would not be entitled to immunity from prosecution granted to MPs under Article 105(2) of the Constitution. 

People indulging in Cow slaughter sentenced to life imprisonment by Delhi Sessions Court

The court of Ms. Kamini Lao, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi , in its 538 page judgment on 9th October 2014, convicted and awarded life imprisonment to seven persons who were indulging in transport and slaughter of cows illegally. They were members of a Mewat gang and they were held guilty of firing at police officials who were trying to rescue cows that were being illegally taken by them for slaughtering. The case related to an encounter between a gang of cattle lifters from Mewat, on the outskirts of Delhi, and the Delhi police in the Outer Delhi district on the intervening night of January 18-19, 2013, when the accused were trying to flee by taking away three cows, one calf and a buffalo from a dairy in Rohini's sector 16-17 for the purpose of slaughtering. During the encounter, one of the gang members died while a cop sustained injury. 


The court also called for the immediate need to set right the mechanism for rescuing animals rampantly released on 'superdari' (undertaking) to those who were accused of the violation of special laws relating to protection of animals. The court said that people are taking advantage of lacuna in existing laws dealing with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Delhi Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act and also the general law (Indian Penal Code/ Code of Criminal Procedure) as these laws are totally silent on how these rescued animals are required to be dealt with. The Court said "Under no circumstances can these animals/cattle be handed over to the same persons from whose clutches they have been rescued. Cattle wealth of the country has to be protected at any cost not only because it is connected to important issues of national health but also because its an issue which is closely knitted to religious beliefs and sentiments of a class of society which have to be respected".

The court observed that, though cattle slaughtering was banned in Delhi, there were many loopholes in the law which prohibits the slaughter. The court called upon the Government to create a policy and a foolproof mechanism for protecting cattle in the country. The demands for banning of cattle slaughter across the country found backing of the court which said that cattle needs to be protected not only because of health reasons but also because it is closely knitted to religious beliefs of a section of society. Pertinently, cattle slaughter is banned in most states in the country but is legal in some states.


Click below for reading the Full Judgment.




Thursday, October 2, 2014

AIADMK chief and Tamilnadu's Chief Minister Jayalalitha convicted in disproportionate Assets case, read full judgment


In a landmark judgment pronounced on 27th September 2014 and running into 1176 pages, the court of Shri John Micheal Cunha, 36th Addl. City Civil and Session Judge, Bangalore convicted the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu Smt. J. Jayalalitha in the 10 year old Assets Disproportionate Case under Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced her to 4 year imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100 crore.
She was accused of amassing wealth disproportionate to her known sources of income during the check period of 1.7.1991 till 30.4.1996 to the extent of Rs.66 crores. The case against her was instituted on the complaint of Dr.Subramaniam Swamy, the them President of Janata Dal.

Click below to read the Full Text of the judgment dated 27th September 2014.

Full Text of Jayalalitha conviction judgment.



Saturday, September 20, 2014

Supreme Court of India leave it to wisdom of PM and CM to appoint clean ministers with no criminal background





In response to a petition filed by one Manoj Narula (Writ Petition Civil No. 289/2005) seeking to stop MPs and MLAs chargesheeted but not yet convicted of crimes from being appointed ministers in Central and State governments respectively, the 5-Judge Batch of Supreme Court of India pronounced an important judgment on 27th August 2014. The Court said that framers of Constitution reposed faith and trust in the Prime Minister and Chief Minister and left it to their wisdom to appoint only those persons as ministers who have clean antecedents. The Court ruled that corruption is an enemy of the nation. As a trustee of the constitution, the PM is expected not to appoint unwarranted persons as ministers. The Court wished that politicians with a "criminal background" should not serve in government.

The court however said it could not disqualify the ministers, as the constitution allows prime minister to appoint his own cabinet, but said it hoped that the PM will honor the spirit of the constitution in appointing ministers. 

Earlier, vide judgment in case of Lily Thomas vs UOI on 10th July 2013, Supreme Court had struck down Section 8 (4) of the Representation of People Act 1951. As a result of said ruling, if a MP or MLA is "convicted" of an offence prescribed in Section 8(1) & (2), then he will immediately cease to be an MP or MLA and thus will thus lose his ministership if he is a minister. There was an outcry by the politicians. The then Government headed by Congress introduced a bill called Representation of People (Second amendment and Validation) Act 2013 to dilute the judgment to help the tainted politicians but before the bill could be passed, the parliament was adjourned. The Government that immediately brought an ordinance to undo the said judgment but after severe public criticism, the ordinance was dropped and not pursued.

In another judgment in case of Chief Election Commissioner vs Jan Chowkidar on 10th July 2013, Supreme Court had held that the persons who are either in prison serving a sentence after conviction or who are in lawful custody of police, are debarred from contesting elections of MP or MLA. The Government succeeded in undoing this judgment by getting the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2013 passed in Rajya Sabha on 27th August 2013. In Lok Sabha, it was passed on 6th September 2013 without any discussion. Thus, the bar on convicted politicians from contesting elections has been removed by the Government by said amendment.

Click here for Full Text of the Judgment.


Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en

Supreme Court rejects the various petitions challenging validity of National Judicial Appointment Commission Bill

The Supreme Court on 25th August 2014 rejected a bunch of PILs challenging the validity of Constitution (99th Amendment) Bill and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Bill 2014 on the ground that these are pre-mature as the bill is still in the process of becoming law and it has only been passed by the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha at the moment. Since it will amend Articles 124(2) and 217(1) of the Constitution of India, it needs to be ratified by the legislatures of at least half of the States of India (i.e. min. 15 States) before being sent to the President for approval. This law will replace the present collegium system for appointment of Supreme Court and High courts judges under which the collegium comprising three senior most judges of Supreme court including the CJI recommends the appointment of High Court and Supreme Court judges. 

Under the new system proposed to be introduced by this new law, the appointment will be made by a Commission which will be called National Judicial Appointment Commission which will comprise of 6 persons comprising the Chief Justice of India, two other seniormost judges of Supreme Court, Law Minister of India and two eminent personalities who would be chosen by a panel of Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and leader of single largest party in Lok Sabha. 

The Attorney General argued that the Court can not restrain a government from enacting a law, it will lead to chaos, it will amount to interference of judiciary in legislative and executive domain.


Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en


Supreme Court orders for fast tracking criminal trials against politicians




Supreme Court of India is hearing a PIL regarding disqualification of those MPs and MLAs from contesting elections against whom chargesheet has been filed in a criminal court and regarding fast-tracking criminal cases involving politicians. This is Writ Petition (Civil) No.536/2011 titled as 'Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India'. (At present, a MP or MLA, only on being convicted, ceases to be MP / MLA. There is no disqualification incurred at the stage of being chargesheeted). 

On 16.12.2013, Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to expedite consideration of the two issues, namely, (1) whether disqualification should be triggered upon conviction as it exists today or upon framing of charges by the court or upon the presentation of the chargesheet by the Investigating Officer under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and (2) whether filing of false affidavits under Section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 should be a ground of disqualification? and, if yes, what mode and mechanism needs to be provided for adjudication on the veracity of the affidavit? In pursuance thereto, the Law Commission prepared its recommendation in the form of 244th Report titled 'Electoral Disqualifications'. In this Report, the Law Commission recommended that MP / MLA should be disqualified on framing of charges against them by the court, subject to certain conditions. This was considered by the Supreme Court in hearing on 10th March 2014. 

To ensure the maintenance of probity of public office, to ensure conclusion of trial expeditiously, the Supreme Court on said day directed that in relation to sitting MPs and MLAs who have charges framed against them for the offences which are specified in Section 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) of the RP Act, the trial shall be concluded as speedily and expeditiously as may be possible and in no case later than one year from the date of the framing of charge(s). In such cases, as far as possible, the trial shall be conducted on a day-to-day basis. If for some extraordinary circumstances the concerned court is being not able to conclude the trial within one year from the date of framing of charge(s), such court would submit the report to the Chief Justice of the respective High Court indicating special reasons for not adhering to the above time limit and delay in conclusion of the trial. In such situation, the Chief Justice may issue appropriate directions to the concerned court extending the time for conclusion of the trial. 


Click below for the Full text of Order dated 10th March 2014.
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/536201131032014p.txt

On 08.03.2016, the Three Judge Bench referred the matter to Five Judge Constitution Bench, particularly in view of Judgment dated 27th August 2014 by 5-Judge Bench in Manoj Narula vs Union of India 2014 (9) SCC 1. Thereafter, there is no further development in the matter, as seen from Supreme Court website.

Click below for the Full text of Order dated 8th March 2016.
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/casestatus_new/querycheck_page2.asp




Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en

Delhi High Court dismiss petition seeking ban on Hindi movie 'Finding Fanny'

A Bench of Chief Justice Rohini and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw of Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL 'Nandini Tewari vs Union of India and other' Writ Petition (Civil) No.6053/2014 on 10th September 2014. The PIL sought a ban on the release of director Homi Adajania's new movie 'Finding Fanny' starring Deepika Padukone and Arjun Kapoor. The PIL alleged that the word "fanny" was vulgar and was a slang and should be removed from the movie, its songs, posters and banners. It said the dictionary meaning of the word "fanny" was highly sexually explicit, and using the word in the movie will hurt the feelings of the citizens of India, especially minor children. It said that allowing such words in films and television will pollute children's minds. It also challenged the UA certificate given to this movie. 

The film released on Friday 12th September 2014.


Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en




Supreme Court entertains PIL seeking better treatment and facilities for leprosy patients

The Supreme Court (Bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Vikramajit Sen) on 1st November 2014 issued notice to all States and Central Govt on a PIL titled as 'Pankaj Sinha vs Union of India' being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 767/2014 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 

This PIL is aimed at eradicating leprosy from the country and for better facilities for the leprosy patients. This PIL has drawn attention to the fact that an effective cure, namely, Multi-Drug Therapy (MDT) which has been available since 1981 that can completely cure 99% of leprosy bacteria, due to apathy of the Government of India and the State Governments, people are still suffering from the said disease, which is treated as a social stigma. The PIL states that had people been made aware by the competent authorities of the Central Government and the State Governments, millions of people who are suffering from leprosy would have been cured and come to the mainstream of life and would not have been ostracized from the society. The petition further states that because of non-concern, the leprosy affects more than one lakh twenty five thousand persons yearly throughout the country, which is completely avoidable. They are not allowed to have education, sanitary benefits, community based rehabilitation as a result of which they are driven to streets and eventually turn to begging or compelled to live in so-caled leprosy homes where they are treated as unpersons or aliens. 

The PIL has sought issuance of directions for availability of the drugs at primary health centres and proper administration of the same for treatment of the pregnant women suffering from leprosy in an apposite manner with dignity, and making provision in educational institutions whether government or private, so that discrimination against the children of the leprosy affected families due to some kind of inhibition which has no constitutional sanction, is stopped and for providing banking facilities and establishment of such colonies where they can live for temporary period till they are cured and come to the society, etc. 

Click below for the Full Text of the Order.



Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en

SC uphold 3% quota for disabled in jobs and promotions




    A Bench of Supreme Court of India comprising Chief Justice RM Lodha, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice RF Nariman, on 12.9.2014, dismissed the petition viz. SLP CC No. 13344/2014 'Union of India vs National Federation for Development of Disabled and others'. This petition was filed by the Government against the judgment and order dated 4th December 2013 of Bombay High Court in PIL No. 106/2010 wherein the High court, on a PIL, had directing the government to implement three per cent reservation for the differently-abled in civil services recruitment, besides granting the benefit in the matter of promotion too. 'The Persons With Disabilities Act' provides for three per cent quota for the differently-abled people. The court said that this Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and that Appointment will include promotion. 

The Court said that the Centre, States and Union Territories were obligated to implement the rules of reservation for this class in the matters of appointment, selection, direct recruitment, deputation and also for promotions. It asked the Centre to show a big heart and give the differently-abled people their due in all central and state government jobs. The SC reiterated its earlier verdict that the principle of not exceeding 50 per cent reservation would not be applicable while granting quota for differently-abled people. The Government had sought to argue that the reservation at the stage of promotion may lead to huge resentment, especially among employees in Group A and Group B categories, since many beneficiaries may get ahead of their seniors.

This order will give a level-playing field to more than four crore people with disabilities in India.

Read the Full Text of Bombay High Court Judgment dated 4th December 2013.

Read the Supreme Court order dated 12th September 2014.


The Government had confined reservation for disabled to Group C and Group D posts. In its memoranda issued in 1997 and 2005, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) had also created a distinction between posts to be filled through direct recruitment and those through promotion, while stating that no reservation shall be provided in posts to be filled through promotion in Group A and Group B categories. However,  Supreme Court of India (bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Justice Abhay M Sapre) by its judgment on 30.6.2016 in Rajeev Kumar Gupta & others vs Union of India & others (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521/2008) declared the DoPT memoranda as “illegal and inconsistent” with the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The Supreme Court ruled that three per cent reservation shall be provided to them in all posts and services under the Government of India. This is the first authoritative judgment that has explicitly directed the government to do away with the distinction and give benefits of reservation to the differently-abled, without any classification.

The court’s Judgment came on two petitions which challenged this policy in recruitment to state-run Prasar Bharati. Rajan Mani of Disability Law Initiative and S K Rungta, the only visually impaired senior advocate in the country, led the legal challenge. The Government opposed concession to the disabled, contending that they have no right to demand reservation in promotion to identified Group A and Group B posts. It also cited the nine-judge bench ruling by the apex court in the Indra Sawhney (Mandal reservation) case, to maintain reservation should be confined to recruitment at the initial level, and not at the stage of promotions.
-->
But the bench dismissed the Government’s arguments, noting that once the posts for the disabled have been identified under Section 32 of the Act, the purpose behind such identification cannot be frustrated by prescribing a mode of recruitment which results in denial of statutory reservation.




Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en


SC allows Italian marine to go to Italy for treatment (Read What is Italian Marines case)

The two italian marines have been held in India since February 2012 when they allegedly shot dead two Indian fishermen off Kerala, mistaking them for pirates. The marines were serving as security personnel on Italian oil tanker MT Enrica Lexie that was crossing the Indian Ocean.

Writ Petition (Civil)No.135 / 2012 was filed by the Republic of Italy through its Ambassador in India in the Supreme Court of India objecting to prosecution of two Italian marines who had been arrested by the Kerala Police in connection with the killing of two Indian fishermen on board an Indian fishing vessel at a distance of 20.5 nautical miles from the Indian sea-coast off the coastline of the State of Kerala. 

The said two Italian marines Mr.Massimilano Latorre and Mr.Salvatore Girone filed a separate SLP No. 20370/2012 in the SC challenging the dismissal of their Writ Petition No.4542 of 2012 by the Kerala High Court rejecting their prayer for quashing of FIR No.2 of 2012 on the file of the Circle Inspector of Police, Neendakara, Kollam District, Kerala, as being without jurisdiction. 

Both the matters were taken up together for hearing and were disposed of together by Supreme Court vide Judgment dated 18th January, 2013. Vide said judgment, the SC granted bail to the two marines on certain terms and conditions. In the said judgment, SC held that the State of Kerala had no jurisdiction to investigate into the incident and that till such time it is proved that the provisions of Article 100 of UNCLOS,1982, applied to the facts of this case, it is the Union of India which alone has the jurisdiction to proceed with the investigation and trial of the said two marines. The SC, accordingly, directed the Union of India, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, to set-up a special Court to try this case and to dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of UNCLOS 1982. It was further directed that the proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, would stand transferred to the Special Court to be constituted in terms of the judgment, upon the expectation that the trial would be conducted expeditiously. Liberty was given to the Petitioners to re-agitate the question of jurisdiction once the evidence was adduced on behalf of the parties.

On 14th March, 2013, the matter was mentioned by the Attorney General before the SC on basis of Note Verbale No.89/635 dated 11th March, 2013, received by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, from the Embassy of Italy in New Delhi, whereby it was indicated that the Government of Italy had decided not to return the accused marines to India to stand trial for the offences alleged to have been committed by them.

Pursuant to the directions given on that date, the matter was again listed on 2nd April, 2013, and the Attorney General of India was requested by the Court to indicate what steps had been taken for constitution of a separate Court to try the two Italian marines separately on a fast track basis, in order to dispose of the matter as quickly as possible. 

The matter was then listed again on 22nd April, 2013, when the Attorney General informed the SC that pursuant to the directions of SC in its judgment dated 18th January, 2013, the Government of India, in the Ministry of Home Affairs, had appointed the National Investigation Agency created under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, to take over the investigation on the basis of FIR No.2 of 2012 dated 29th August, 2012, Coastal PS Neendakara, Kollam. The case was re-registered at PS NIA, New Delhi as Case No.RC-04/2013/NIA/DLI under Sections 302, 307, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of The Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Maritime Navigation and Fixed Platforms on Continental Shelf Act, 2002. The Attorney General submitted that
the case was under investigation by the National Investigation Agency, and
such investigation would be completed shortly.

The counsel for the marines strongly objected to the investigation by National Investigation Agency. He submitted that by entrusting the investigation to the National Investigation Agency, the investigating authorities were being permitted to invoke the provisions of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Maritime Navigation and Fixed Platforms on Continental Shelf Act, 2002, which provides for death penalty in regard to cognizance being taken on any of the scheduled offences. 

The SC in its decision on 26th April 2013 ruled that they did not see why SC should be called upon to decide as to the agency that is to conduct the investigation; the direction which SC had given in judgment dated 18th January, 2013, was in the context of whether the Kerala Courts or the Indian Courts or even the Italian Courts would have the jurisdiction to try the two Italian marines; it was not SC's desire that any particular Agency was to be entrusted with the investigation and to take further steps in connection therewith. The SC held that if there is any jurisdictional error on the part of the Central Government in this regard, it will always be open to the accused to question the same before the appropriate forum.

Thereafter, the case was tried by Special court at Patial House courts, New Delhi. 

The SC, in its earlier order on 18.1.2013, had directed the accused Chief Master Sargeant Massimilano Latorre to report to the Station House Officer, Chanakyapuri Police Station, New Delhi once a week subject to further relaxation as may be granted. 

In September 2014, the said marine filed an application (IA no.6/2014) in said case in SC stating that he has suffered brain stroke on 31.8.2014 and because of said illness, he could not report to the SHO, Chanakyapuri on 3.9.2014 in compliance of Court's order dated 18.1.2013. It was further informed that because of illness, he would not be able to report to the SHO, Chanakyapuri on September 10, 2014 as well. The SC on 8th September 2014 waived reporting of said marine to the SHO, Chanakyapuri for two weeks commencing from 31.8.2014. 

The application was again taken up on 12th September 2014 by a bench of Chief Justice RM Lodha,Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice RF Nariman. In the application, the accused marine mainly prayed for relaxing condition Nos. 1 to 4 of the SC's earlier order dated 18.1.2013 and to permit him to travel to Italy for treatment, recovery and rehabilitation for a period of four months. It was stated in the application that he has suffered brain stroke and requires continued management, treatment, rehabilitation and therapy. On humanitarian ground, therefore, it was submitted that the applicant may be permitted to go to his home country Italy for about four months or so. In support of the application, medical documents were placed on record. In order to assure the Court that the applicant will return to India on permission being granted to the applicant to go to his home country for medical treatment for some, an affidavit of undertaking was filed by Mr. Daniele Mancini, Ambassador of Italy. The undertaking was given on behalf of Republic of Italy. After considering all relevant aspects, the SC by order dated 12th September 2014 permitted Mr. Massimilano Latorre to travel to Italy for his treatment, rehabilitation and continued management for a period of four months from the date of his travel from New Delhi to Italy and stated that for the above period, the condition Nos. 1 to 4 imposed in the order dated 18.1.2013 shall remain waived. The SC also stated that since Government of India has no objection in principle for the reliefs sought for by the applicant, it is expected of the Government of India to facilitate the international passage of the applicant from New Delhi to Italy and his travel back to New Delhi in all respects.

Click below for Full Text of Order dated 12th September 2014.



Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en

Supreme Court agrees to examine extent of a daughter-in-law's right of residence in the father-in-law's property

Delhi High Court’s Justice AK Pathak vide judgment dated 25th July 2014 in RFA No.299/2014 titled as ‘Sudha Mishra vs Surya Chandra Mishra’ had ruled that daughter-in-law has no right to continue to occupy the self acquired property of her parents-in-law against their wishes more so when  her husband has no independent right therein nor is living there, as it is not a “shared household” within the meaning of Section 17(1) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Wife is entitled to claim a right in a shared household which means a house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to joint family of which husband is a member. Daughter-in-law cannot assert her rights, if any, in the property of her parents-in-law wherein her husband has no right, title or interest. She cannot continue to live in such a house of her parents-in-law against their consent and wishes. The Judge further held that even an adult son or daughter has no legal right to occupy the self acquired property of the parents; against their consent and wishes. A son or daughter if permitted to live in the house occupies the same as a gratuitous licensee and if such license is revoked, he has to vacate the said property.


This decision has been challenged by the daughter-in-law in the Supreme court  in SLP(C) NO. 23519/2014. Supreme Court stayed the execution of the trial court and HC's orders asking the woman to hand over the property, however Court reportedly remarked that it would be better if she lives apart and lets the in-laws live in peace.. The petition came up for hearing before the bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and C Naggappan on 19th September 2014 when SC decided to examine this important issue. With thousands of cases filed under anti-dowry laws and Domestic Violence Prevention Act on this specific issue pending across the country, the fate of the case will be keenly awaited. In its decision, SC is likely to interpret the meaning of a shared household under the domestic violence Act. The next date is 14th October 2014.