Weekly Legal Updates

Here we are... to begin this new session. We start with the updates from last week. 

The Supreme Court in a recent judgment has ruled that CCTV cameras should be installed in the prisons within one year and not later than that. The court has also suggested that all lock-ups in the country should have CCTV cameras installed as per the satisfaction of the police commissioner/DGP concerned. This was, however, left to the discretion of the respective states and union territories. The Supreme Court has also said that every police station should have at least two women constables to deal with women who are accused or suspects.

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Central Government for not filing a counter affidavit in a petition questioning the functioning of the Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) across the country. The Social justice bench of the Apex Court, while imposing Rs.25,000 cost on the Ministry of Women and Child Development remarked “You are not even bothered to file your affidavit. You will have to pay the cost”. The bench, was hearing a Public Interest Litigation seeking proper implementation of Juvenile Justice Act and its rules. The Court had sought complete details on the pendency of cases, frequency of its sittings, vacancy of posts and other related issues.

The Bombay High Court has denied the relief under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act to a woman who was living with a married man for 15 years. The Additional Sessions Judge had ruled that the woman was in a “live-in relationship” with the married man and was entitled to relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act. The Court observed that since they had been in a relationship for almost 15 years, common sense required that she should have made enquiries about his marital status. The Court also noted that the woman had not been able to give a single instance where they had appeared as husband and wife in the society on any occasion of marriage or party. The Court hence ruled that such a relationship cannot be relationship in the nature of marriage. She and her daughters were therefore, not entitled for any relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.  The Court however noted that the daughters may be entitled for relief under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure.

A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the appointment of Mr. K.V. Chaudhary as the Central Vigilance Commissioner and Mr. T.M. Bhasin as the Vigilance Commissioner as being “illegal and arbitrary”. The petitioners have claimed that there was complete non transparency on the part of the Central Government in making the appointment of the CVC and VC. The Petitioners have also claimed that the appointments violate the principles of ‘impeccable integrity’ and ‘institutional integrity’ laid down in the landmark judgments of Vineet Narain case (1998) 1 SCC 226 and Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) case (2011) 4 SCC 1.

Yakub Memon, convicted in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the death warrant for his execution scheduled on July 30. According to his plea the death warrant is illegal because it did not follow the proper procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court of India in a ruling (DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Union of India and Another – Writ Petition (C) No. 441 Of 2015) has reaffirmed the settled legal position that under Article 32 it will not interfere with an administrative order where the constitutionality of the statute or the order made there under has not been challenged on the ground of contravention of Fundamental Rights. The Apex Court added that no question other than that relating to the Fundamental Rights will be determined in a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The SC has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation that came up before the three Judges Bench praying “to stop the use of names and images of gods and goddesses for commercial exploitation”.  The court dismissed the petition remarking that “You have raised the issue which concerns the faith of the people. This country has 33,000 crore gods. Sorry.”

We hope that this summarizes the last week's News. Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Until next post of weekly News updates.

Anjana Srinivasan, (3rd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

For 'OFF Court.'

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.