Supreme Court order 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. The matter will now come up on 2nd January 2015.

Click below for the Full text of Order dated 10th March 2014. 

http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wc%2053611p.txt

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 takes steps to protect elephants from deaths on railway tracks

Supreme Court of India is hearing a writ petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 107 of 2013 ‘Shakti Prasad Nayak vs Union of India’. This PIL pertains to avoidance of railway accidents by which the life of elephants, which is regarded as national wildlife wealth, is endangered as number of deaths occur due to such accidents. The depletion of the clan of the elephants has been a worrying feature for protection and sustenance of wildlife. There has been a constant uproar about the apathy shown to such accidents which are avoidable in today's progressive technology. The PIL was initially restricted to North-Eastern region of the country where there was no arrangement by the Railways. However, by order dated 10.12.2013, the supreme Court expanded the canvas and called for response from all the States. Certain directions were given by the Court on the said day.

Recently, the matter was taken up by a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Vikramjit Sen on 2nd September 2014.  The Court observed that  “the depleting rate of elephants in the country has been a concern of everyone who has interest in the environment. Needless to say that it is a necessity to sustain the environment and ecological balance. In the present era, sustenance of species is a categorical imperative and neither MOEF nor the Railways can treat it as a matter of non-concern by not taking steps or causing delay in taking steps”. The Court restrained the State of West Bengal from taking any steps to administer any kind of contraceptives or introducing any method of sterilization which hinders natural procreative process of the elephants or any wildlife. The matter was adjourned to 23rd September 2014.

Click below for Full Text of Order dated 2nd September 2014.

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wc10713.pdf

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 approves Urdu as second official language of Uttar Pradesh

A Constitution bench of Supreme Court of India comprising Chief Justice of India RM Lodha and Justices Dipak Misra, Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and SA Bobde by its judgment dated 4th September 2014 in Civil Appeal No.459 0f 1997 dismissed the appeal of the UP Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, which had moved the top court against the state government's move to adopt Urdu as second language claiming that the State Government’s decision had no rationale as there was not much Urdu speaking population in the state.

Uttar Pradesh had adopted Urdu as the second language through the UP Official Language (Amendment) Act, I989, which had added Section 3 to the UP Official Languages Act, 1951. While dismissing the appeal, the top court said that there was nothing in Article 345 of the Constitution which bars the state from declaring one or more of the languages in use in the state, in addition to Hindi, as the second official language. The Sammelan had first challenged the move in the Allahabad High Court and lost in 1996. It had then appealed to the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that State governments have the right to adopt any language as the second language as long as it is in use in the State and figures in the official languages listed in the Constitution. The Court observed that the States reserve this right in addition to having Hindi as the second language. The Court clarified that there is no such impediment to declaring Hindi as an official language even if it is not in use in the state since it is the official language of the country.

Click below to read Full text of the judgment.

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/ca4591997.pdf

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 : All live-in-relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage

An important and interesting question came up before the Supreme Court of India in Indra Sarma vs VKV Sarma Criminal appeal No. 2009/2013 as to whether a “live-in relationship” would amount to a “relationship in the nature of marriage” falling within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act and whether the disruption of such a relationship by failure to maintain a women involved in such a relationship amounts to “domestic violence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the DV Act. This issue arose out of dispute between a live-in couple where a lady had sought maintenance from a man after the relationship came to an end. The Court was concerned about the rights of the real wife and her children if another woman in live-in relation with the husband is accorded the status of ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’. 

In its landmark judgment pronounced on 26th November 2013, a bench comprising Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose held in its detailed judgment that “all live-in-relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage. The appellant, having been fully aware of the fact that the respondent was a married person, could not have entered into a live-in relationship in the nature of marriage.  Appellant’s and the respondent’s relationship is, therefore, not a “relationship in the nature of marriage” because it has no inherent or essential  characteristic of a marriage, but a relationship other than “in the  nature  of  marriage” and the appellant’s status is lower than the status  of  a  wife  and  that relationship  would  not  fall   within   the   definition   of   “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the DV  Act.  If  we  hold  that  the relationship between the appellant and the respondent is a relationship  in the nature of a marriage, we will be doing  an  injustice  to  the  legally wedded wife and children who opposed that relationship.  Consequently, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent in connection with that type of relationship, would not amount to “domestic violence” under Section 3 of the DV Act”. 

Supreme Court traced the history of live-in relationship to the concept of mistress and concubine in historic times. While observing that Live-in relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in India, the Supreme Court left it to the Parliament to amend law for protection of women in such relationship and children born out of it. The court observed that various countries have started recognising such relationship. The court said that a legislation is required as it is the woman who invariably suffer because of breakdown of such relationship. There is no express statutory provision to regulate live-in relationships upon termination as these relationships are not in the nature of marriage and not recognised in law. The Court however said that maintaining an adulterous relation would not come within the ambit of live-in relationship which is to be protected by law. 

Framing guidelines for determining live-in relations, the bench said that duration of period of relationship, shared household, pooling of resources and financial and domestic arrangements, entrusting the responsibility, sexual relationship, bearing children, socialization in public and intention and conduct of the parties are some of the criteria to be considered for determining the nature of relations between parties.

Click below to read the Full Text of Judgment

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41007

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

COMPAT imposes penalty of Rs.50 crore on NSE for abusing its position in Currency Derivatives market

In a significant order passed on 5th August 2014, the Competition Appellate Tribunal (Compat) in NSE’s Appeal No. 15/2011 filed under Section 53B of the Competition Act 2002 upheld order of May 2011 of Competition Commission of India (CCI) which had found the National Stock Exchange (NSE) guilty of abusing its dominant market position in currency derivatives segment and had fined it Rs 55.5 crore (5% of the average turnover). The CCI had passed the order on the complaint of MCX Stock Exchange (MCX-SX) which had accused NSE of abusing its dominant market position to corner business in the CD segment. The CCI, which is the competition watchdog, had found NSE guilty of abusing its dominant market position and adopting unfair trade practices in currency derivatives trading. Compat said that "NSE was making tons of profits from the relevant market on account of its services in the other segments. Therefore, there can be no justification for taking any lenient view." The Tribunal, however, said there was no necessity of putting all the other segments in one group as relevant market.

Click below to read the full text of the judgment.

http://compat.nic.in/upload/PDFs/augustordersApp2014/05_08_14.pdf

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