Saturday, September 20, 2014

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.


Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award compensation of Rs.1.62 crore to a young victim of road accident

A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal headed by Ms. Barkha Gupta, Judge MACT, North West District, Delhi in its important judgment on 9th September 2014 in Case No. 330/2010 titled as ‘Palak Sharma vs Amit Kumar and others’ awarded a compensation of Rs.1.62 crore to the accident victim Palak Sharma, to be paid by Chola Mandalam MS General Insurance Company. On the early morning of March 12,2010, Palak (22 year old boy) was going with his friend on a scooter towards Maharishi Dayanand Park in Keshavpuram here for yoga class, when a rashly driven  Innova car hit him. Due to the impact, Palak and his friend fell down and were taken to a nearby hospital, where the victim was declared 100 per cent paralysed. Palak had cleared his MBA entrance and was working on a salary of Rs. 30,000 per month. 

The tribunal noted that besides being a meritorious student, Palak was financially independent and was ambitious for his higher studies. Court noted that being kept alive by feeding through a pipe and nursing care round the clock, there seems no probability of his recovery as he has suffered from 100 percent permanently disability. He is in a vegetative state and not in a position to look after himself in any manner. One has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong and has suffered at the hands of wrongdoer and court must take care to give him/her full and fair compensation for what he/she had suffered. Court ruled that no amount of money can restore the shattered life of the victim.

Click below to read the 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 : Repayment of loan obtained by fraud, by accused, is no ground to quash criminal case against him

A bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Vikramajit Sen of Supreme Court of India in its decision on 19th September 2014 in the case of ‘State of Maharashtra through CBI va Vikram Anantrai Doshi’ Criminal Appeal No. 2048/2014 held that even if the accused who had obtained the loan by fraud, has repaid the loan and even if the bank has given No Dues certificate to him, still this can not be a ground to quash criminal proceedings against him by High court by exercising inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that financial fraud of such nature goes beyond personal or private wrong. It is a wrong against the society and its consequences are serious.

Click below 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 allows Medical colleges to fill MBBS seats, as interim measure, pending renewal of recognition of colleges

A bench of Justices AR Dave, Vikramajit Sen and UU Lalit of Supreme Court of India in an important decision on 18th September 2014 permitted medical colleges to fill vacant seats for the academic year 2014-15 till 30th September 2014. Court passed the order under Article 142 of Constitution of India, looking at the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and, especially, when several seats for medical admission are likely to remain vacant for the academic year 2014-15. 

Court stated “we are of the view that these matters require urgent consideration …We are conscious of the fact that number of  physicians in our country is much less than what is required and because of non-renewal of recognition of  several medical colleges, our citizens would be deprived of a good number of physicians and therefore, we are constrained to pass this order, whereby at least there would be some increase in the number of physicians after five years. We are running against time because the last date for giving admissions to MBBS Course for the academic year 2014-15 is 30th September, 2014.  We also desire to reconsider the directions given by this Court in the judgment of Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2012) 7 SCC 433], but at this juncture, as we do not have sufficient time to decide all these petitions finally, we are passing this interim order and the matter with regard to reconsideration of the aforestated judgment would be considered while finally disposing of this group of petitions”.

The Supreme Court permitted this to the medical colleges, as a special case, on the condition that they file undertakings within 10 days to the effect that there is no defect in the medical colleges run by them and that if the statement made in the undertaking is found to be incorrect at the time of the next inspection, their deposit with the Medical Council of India, which is around Rs.10 crores, will be forfeited by way of penalty. 

The order was passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.469/2014 titled as ‘HIND CHARITABLE TRUST SHEKHAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. vs Union of India & others’, and other connected matters.

Click below to read 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


Supreme Court directs Christian Medical College, Ludhiana to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakh to medical student for depriving her migration in P.G. course from M.D. Pathology to M.D. General Medicine

The petitioner filed writ Petition (Civil) No. 986/2013 titled as ‘Bonnie Anna George vs Medical council of India and others’ in Supreme Court to direct Christian Medical College, Ludhiana and the Medical Council of India to permit her to shift her P.G. course from M.D. Pathology to M.D. General Medicine in the available vacant seat under the N.R.I. quota within the College. The college, with some motive, deprived her the opportunity to opt for the available N.R.I. seat in M.D. General Medicine during the third Counseling. 

However, keeping in view that the admission schedule fixed by Medical Council of India and by Supreme Court is being scrupulously followed, Court declined to violate the said schedule. But at the same time, taking into account the grave injustice caused to the Petitioner for which the entire responsibility lies on the college, Court directed college to pay Rs.5 lakh as compensation to petitioner for having snatched away her valuable right, apart from refunding the sum of Rs.13,000/- which the Petitioner had to pay for her readmission to the very same P.G. course of M.D. Pathology. 

Court made it clear that college should not harass the petitioner, by observing “ We are confident that since the Petitioner was only fighting for her lawful rights, the same should not have any reflection in the approach of second Respondent either directly or indirectly which would cause any disruption in her studies or in the completion of her course”. 
The judgment was passed by bench of Justices FMI Kalifulla and Shiva Kirti Singh on 18th September 2014.

Click below to read the 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

Delhi High Court dismiss petition challenging appointment of Justice HL Dattu as next CJI

Delhi High Court yesterday dismissed Writ Petition (Crl) No. 1889/2014 filed by one Ms. Nisha Priya Bhatia who made allegations against Justice HL Dattu who is slated to become the next Chief Justice of India. She was an officer in the RAW and was terminated. She challenged her termination in CAT. There were certain appeals / petitions filed by her in Supreme Court  which were dismissed by the same bench comprising inter-alia Justice HL Dattu. This made her to make allegations against the Judge and concerned advocates.  The High Court discussed about the mentality of such litigants and then dismissed the petition vide judgment dated 19th September 2014. The judgment was passed by bench of Chief Justice G.Rohini and Justice Pradeep Nandrajog.

Click below to read the Full Text of the Judgment passed on 19th 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 directions to curb female foeticide

In its Judgment on 4th March, 2013, in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2013) 4 SCC 1], the Supreme Court of India expressed its concern about female foeticide and the reduction of sex ratio and further how the persons who are required to involve in such awareness for stopping of female foeticide should equip themselves, and in that context had issued number of directions. After enumerating the directions, the Court directed all the State Governments to file a status report within a period of three months.  The matter came up for hearing on 16th September 2014 before the bench of Justices Dipak Misra and N.V.Ramana wherein clarifications were sought in respect of certain directions given by court earlier. Court directed Health Ministry of Central Govt and all State Governments to file affidavits to indicate what steps have been taken and on the basis of the steps taken, what results have been achieved. Court made it clear that the affidavits should be comprehensive and must reflect sincerity and responsibility. It should not be an affidavit in formality. Matter will now come up on 25th November 2014.

Click below to read 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