Weekly Legal Updates

We bring you the updates for last week. Hope it updates you with all the news from legal world.

Updates: 03th January to 11th January 2015:
In a major move the Supreme Court has revised rules regarding its selection of judicial clerks which allows non-NLU students to apply.  The new rules, published on the Supreme Court’s website, specifies that applicants can come from any law college accredited by the Bar Council of India (BCI).

The President of India  promulgated the Citizenship (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 on January 06, 2015 with immediate effect which provides for the following amendments to the Indian Citizen Act, 1955:

• At present one year continuous stay in India is mandatory for Indian Citizenship which is relaxed stating that if the Central Government is satisfied that special circumstances exist, it may, after recording such circumstances in writing, relax the period of twelve months specified upto a maximum of thirty days which may be in different breaks.

• To enable for registration as Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) by a minor, whose parents are Indian Citizens.

• To enable for registration as Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) by a child or a grand-child or a great grandchild of such a citizen.

• To enable for registration as Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) by such spouse of a citizen of India or spouse of an OCI registered under Section 7A and whose marriage has been registered and subsisted for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the application under this section.

• In respect of existing PIO card holders central government may, by notification in Official Gazette, specify a particular date from which all existing PIO card holders will be deemed to be OCI card holders.

The Delhi High court dismissed a plea against Amir Khan starrer movie- PK, holding that there was no substance in the allegations leveled against the movie, in the PIL filed by Ajay Gautam. The Court also observed that the provision for appeal against the CBFC’s decision on certification of films was restricted to film-makers. Mr. Gautam had alleged that the movie defamed and maligned the Hindu religion and culture. It was also contended that the movie hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus.

In a submission made before the Apex Court, the Central Government has said that it wants to stop NGOs that do not submit their balance sheets of last three years. The Central Government represented by the Additional Solicitor General P S Patwalia submitted to the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India HL Dattu that the submission of balance sheets by the NGOs must be a condition precedent for grant of funds.

The Supreme Court has published the in-house mechanism adopted by it in 1999 to deal with complaints against the judges of the Supreme Court and High Court in its website. This has been published pursuant to its judgment in the sexual harassment case involving a sitting judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In the above judgment the Court relied on the in-house mechanism and had scrapped the investigation initiated by the Madhya Pradesh Chief Justice on the ground that it was not in compliance with the in-house mechanism.

Siemens, Dong Energy and London Array – the world's biggest operating offshore wind farm – are all heading for a UK court showdown with German turbine-maker Enercon over alleged patent infringement of 'Storm Control' technology developed by the latter's founder, Aloys Wobben. The Wobben Properties lawsuit names Siemens, Dong and turbine-installation specialist A2Sea as defendants.  The 630MW London Array – which is already using 175 3.6MW Siemens turbines – is the subject of a similar but separate action, and is set to join the other defendants in contesting the case at a High Court hearing in London, currently scheduled for June. Enercon had previously successfully sued turbine OEM Gamesa in Spain over the 'storm control' patent, a verdict which is currently being appealed.

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, (2nd 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.

Read More

News Updates

We bring you the updates for last week. Hope it updates you with all the news from legal world.

15 December 2014

The Bombay High Court refused to entertain a Writ filed by an advocate challenging the imposition of service tax on advocates. So the business clients of individual lawyers and law firms will continue to pay service tax as mandated by the Finance Act.

16 December 2014

In the case of Italian Marines who are accused of killing two Indian fishermen, the Supreme Court denied the plea of one Italian Marine to extend the stay in Italy on health grounds and the plea of the other Marine to travel to Italy for Christmas. The Court held that they want the system to work and that the relief cannot be granted even though the trial has not commenced. Therefore, the accused must come to India and the charge-sheet be filed.

17 December 2014

The Delhi High Court which had earlier passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the Chinese manufacturer, Xiaomi, allowed the company to sell and import handsets which have chipsets of Qualcomm Inc., till 5 February 2015. Xiaomi argued that Erricsson had suppressed the facts to obtain an injunction. Qualcomm has a license from Erricsson and therefore the license does not make Xiaomi an infringer of Ericsson’s patent rights.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) on 17 December ordered that information relating to the death of the former Chief Justice of India J S Verma be disclosed to RTI activist Mr. S C Agrawal. The Commissioner, M Sridhar Acharyulu said, “Such letters (documents) from eminent citizens from all walks of life on death of a devoted and honest jurist who spent his post-retirement life in a rented house is indeed a matter of serious concern”.

18 December 2014

The Supreme Court bench has extended the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu J. Jayalalthaa’s bail by 4 months and directed the Karnataka High Court to constitute a special bench to hear her appeal expeditiously and decide it within 3 months, till 18 April 2015. The former CM challenged her conviction in Karnataka High Court in a ‘Disproportionate Assets Case’ after being found guilty.

19 December 2014

Three judge bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in relation to the Coal Ordinance. The deadline to pay the penalty is 31 December which was marked from 24 September judgment in which the 214 of the 218 coal blocks allocations was quashed.

22 December 2014

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a batch of Writ Petitions which were filed praying for protection as a married couple as they had tied the knot after the girls got their religion converted from Hindu to Islam and then performed Nikah. The court observed that “Conversion to another religion basically requires change of faith and belief of personal relations of a major individual of sound mind by his free will, with what he/she regards as cosmos, his/her Make or Creator, which he/she believes, regulates the existence of insentient beings and the forces of Universe.”

24 December 2014

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has released the 1^st draft on the National IPR Policy submitted by the ‘Think Tank’ chaired by Justice Prabha Sridevan. The draft policy can be accessed here.

26 December 2014

The Delhi High Court issued a notice to RBI on the decision to impose a limit of five transactions per month from the customers’ own bank ATM and charging Rs. 20/- per transaction beyond it. RBI had also imposed a limit of three transactions per month from ATMs of other banks, located in the six metro centres- Mumbai, New Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata, Bengaluru and Hyderabad. During the hearing, the court said, “You (banks) are unnecessary taxing your account holders.” The response has been sought by 18 February 2015.

The Delhi High Court distinguished between Uber and Ola cabs and refused to give a similar order in favor or Uber. Ola was given relief as they are only a technology platform and not a radio taxi operator. The court observed that ‘You (Uber) take money from customers and give it to drivers. So you are providing the service.’ By the virtue of December 8 Government Order, Uber had been effectively banned in India.

We hope that this summarizes the News from 15th to 27th December . Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Until next post of weekly News updates.

Wishing you all a very delightful and successful New Year. 

Manish Kumar, (3rd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

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.

Read More

Weekly Legal Updates

We bring you the updates for last week. Hope it updates you with all the news from legal world.

8^th December 2014:

The division bench of Supreme Court has struck down the legality of provisions in certain circulars which banned hookah smoking and sale of cigarettes in designated smoking areas. With this three High Court (Bombay, Gujarat and Madras) decisions is overturned. The illegality of circulars was found on the basis of it being violative of COTPA Act, 2003 and Rules.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea challenging the recent ordinance on Coal Block Allocations which is to be heard on 6^th December. The Court had earlier declined a batch of petition by private companies seeking that it re-look its September 24 order cancelling 214 coal blocks allocated from 1993 to 2011.

9^th December 2014:

A Delhi Court has held fourmen guilty for murdering L.N. Mishra, the then Railway Minster in a bomb blast on January 2, 1975. This trial is one of the longest drawn trials in India. Over 200 witnesses were examined in the case. Though the charge-sheet was filed in 1977 in a CBI court in Patna, the conviction has come only after about 40 years of the murder. Earlier in 2012, the accused approached the Supreme Court for quashing the trial against them as the case has not been concluded even after 37 years, which was not accepted by the apex court and was returned to the Delhi Court. The quantum of sentence would be pronounced on 15th December.

10^th December 2014:

The Central Government announced that section 309, attempt to commit suicide, will be deleted from Indian Penal Code (IPC) which will decriminalize the act of commitment of suicide. The decision is based on the request by 18 states and 44 Union territories to implement the Recommendations made in this regard by the Law Commission of India in its 210^th Report. The report made reference to P. Rathinam v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court of India held that Section 309 of IPC is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The same was overruled in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, however The Mental Health Bill of 2013 did attempt to decriminalize the same by putting presumption of mental illness on the persons attempting to commit suicide.

The Kerala High Court has concluded that the DLF violated the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification (CRZ Notification) and therefore ordered the demolition of the construction under DLF project in Kochi. The Court held that:

“Authorities are constituted under various enactments to see that the environment is protected and to see that the present topography which keeps the ecological balance is not disturbed. The purpose of these laws is to preserve nature for posterity. If the violation of these laws is allowed to become the order of the day, the existence of life would be at peril. Right to life guaranteed by our Constitution takes in innumerable rights, including the right to enjoy nature in the present form. Indiscriminate invasion of nature to the detriment of others is an invasion of right to life. Nature which is the property of the nation cannot be allowed to be scrambled by a minority violating all laws.”

11^th December 2014:

The Delhi High Court injuncted Xiaomi, a Chinese phone manufacturer, from selling, advertising, manufacturing or importing devices that infringe the Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) in question. The same SEPs are also a subject matter of a pending litigation between Ericsson and Micromax, Gionee, Intex.  In an ex-parte order passed against Xiaomi, the court also directed Customs Department to stop import of such products as per the IPR Rules, 2007. It is worth noting that Xiaomi managed to sell out its 50,000 handset in just 6 seconds on 8^th December.

12^th December:

Hearing an appeal filed by the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) against a judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), the Supreme Court had to decide the question of benefits of an extra amount in pensions on account of disability due to service conditions of the ex-servicemen of the Army. The Bench headed by HL Dattu, CJI, said:

“They are in the line of fire. They sacrifice their life for you and for us. This is the least you could do for them. The government can have at least this much of budget for its soldiers who are dying for the people of this country everyday. What is the point of having these memorials and placards saluting our defence personnel if you litigate against the disabled soldiers till the Supreme Court. You should pay them,”

The Government agreed to comply with the order. The Supreme Court dismissed the matter, as a result disposing 880 appeals on the issue. It has also been reported that around 15,000 retired soldiers will be benefited due to the order.

The Social Justice Bench constituted to hear cases pertaining to “Social Justice” matters began with the division bench of Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice UU Lalit. The bench will take up fresh matters alongside the pending matters and will sit every Friday at 2PM at the Supreme Court. The bench was constituted to achieve the Constitutional goal of securing social justice for the citizens of the country.

The Supreme Court has dismissed Bayer’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the decision of the Bombay High Court. This dismissal will continue the effectiveness of grant of compulsory license to Natco for Bayer’s anticancer drug Nexavar. This has continued the Indian Courts’ stand to ensure the access to medicine across the country.

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

Until next post of weekly News updates.

Manish Kumar, (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.

Read More

Legal News Updates

We bring you the updates for last week. Hope it updates you with all the news from legal world.

Updates: 23rd November to 07 November 2014.

The Supreme Court has constituted a Special Bench christened ‘Social Justice Bench’ to achieve the Constitutional  goal of securing ‘social justice for the citizens of the country. The bench comprising of Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice UU Lalit will hear all cases in the Supreme Court falling within the domain of “social justice”. The Bench will start functioning from December 12 and will sit at 2 pm on every Friday.

The Centre is planning to partially open up legal market to foreign firms. According to the proposal put forward by the Centre, foreign lawyers could be permitted to practice in India in conjunction with Indian lawyers, as a joint venture, with a cap on foreign participation. Also, advisory or non-litigious services in Indian law could be opened up subject to foreign lawyers going through a prequalification examination in various aspects of Indian law. However, the Bar Council of India and Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) have voiced their opposition to this proposal.

The Delhi High Court refused to quash the FIR filed against three men who tried to molest a Delhi Police Constable. The woman registered an FIR against the three persons, who incidentally lived in her locality only. She later agreed to take back her complaint, after the intermediation of some people. When the matter reached the Delhi High Court for quashing of FIR, Justice Pratibha Rani, refusing to quash the FIR said, ‘if a woman police officer can’t walk on the street what will happen to common girls?’

The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister has approved the introduction of the Companies (Amendment) Bill, 2014 in Parliament to make certain amendments in the Companies Act, 2013. The Companies Act, 2013 (Act) was notified on 29.8.2013. Out of 470 sections in the Act, 283 sections and 22 sets of Rules corresponding to such sections have so far been brought into force. In order to address some issues raised by stakeholders such as Chartered Accountants and professionals, some amendments have been proposed.

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a PIL challenging Rule 7 of the recently released Bar Council of India Rules, 2014. Under Rule 7, a lawyer must practice for two years in a trial court and three in a high court before being allowed to practice before the apex court. It was dismissed not on merits, but on the ground that Rule 7 has still not been notified and therefore it would be an exercise in futility if the petition is examined on merits.

The Delhi High Court has held that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has the right to file an appeal in cases where its probes have been stayed by courts. The order came after a CCI appeal in a dispute involving JCB India Ltd, in which all CCI proceedings, including the probe, were stayed by the HC after its director general raided JCB’s premises. Doubts were raised whether CCI could file such an appeal, as it was the CCI that ordered the probe against JCB in the first place; the court ruled that CCI has the right. The court also held that “the interference by us at this stage is unwarranted”. It asked both parties to raise their issues before the single judge who is hearing the case.

The Delhi High Court recently interpreted S.107A expansively to conclude that it is applicable when a party exports a patented product to a third party outside India as long as the purpose of export is the facilitation of research. The case relates to the Compulsory License granted by the Court to Natco for the compound Sorafenib tosylate. One of the conditions was that Natco should use the licensed product “solely for the purpose of making, using, offering for sale and selling the drug covered by the patent for the purpose of treating HCC and RCC in humans within the territory of India”. However, Bayer found that Natco was exporting the product outside India. In March this year, an interim order was passed by the Delhi High Court preventing Natco from such export. The present application was filed by Natco to seek permission from the Court to export 1 kilogram of Sorafenib to a Chinese Pharmaceutical Company for preparation of a trial batch of the generic drug in China.

The application filed by Venus Remedies Ltd. (the applicant) for an invention titled “Parenteral Composition Comprising Ceftriaxone and Vancomycin for Bacterial Resistance and Process of Preparation Thereof” was opposed in a pre grant opposition by (Akums Drugs & Pharmaceuticals) on the grounds of lack of inventive step as required under Section 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja) and 2(1)(l) and also on the grounds of section 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patent Act. The opposition, however, was not successful. The invention was a single unit combination of two incompatible antibiotics (Ceftriaxone and Vancomycin) which are combined together with stabilizing agents, such as L-arginine, EDTA and Na₂CO_3.  The Controller observed that the claimed invention was held not to be a mere aggregation of property/features since Ceftriaxone and Vancomycin are made compatible, due to the existence of a chemical stabilizing and solubizing agent. The opponent also contended that various studies have shown the concomitant use of vancomycin and ceftriaxone and cited two documents.  However, both these documents failed to form ‘prior art’ because they were published on 3/3/2006 and 20/12/2005 after the filing of the present patent application in 14/2/2005. Moreover, the prior art failed to contemplate the problem of incompatibility between Ceftriaxone and Vancomycin. Also, the contention on Section 3(d) was dismissed on the ground that nothing in the prior art qualified as a “known substance” and hence Section 3(d) was not attracted.  The Controller declared that that the invention was both a technical advance as well as economically significant and therefore qualified the inventiveness criteria.

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, (2nd 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.

Read More

Legal News Updates

We bring you the updates for last week. Hope it updates you with all the news from legal world.

Updates: 03rd November to 22nd November 2014.

In an interim order passed by the Delhi High Court, Micromax has to pay a royalty that amounts up to 1% of the selling price of its devices to Ericsson. Ericsson had alleged that Micromax had refused to enter into a licensing agreement covering its patented innovations across several wireless technology standards such as GSM, EDGE and third generation (3G). The patents in question are a part of what are called “standards-essential” patents and holders are expected to license them on Free Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Micromax was said to have keen on negotiating a FRAND license with Ericsson but the companies could not come to a suitable conclusion.

The E-Committee of the Supreme Court has rejected the Government’s proposal to record the Court proceedings in a subordinate court.  The E-Committee rejected the proposal saying it was not acceptable at present. The proposal to record court proceedings was made by the government after an advisory council meeting of the Law Ministry held in August this year. This was as a part of the E-court project under which the government had sought to initiate recording of the proceedings in lower courts and subsequently bring the High Courts and the Supreme Court under its ambit.

The Supreme Court is facing an interesting case of murder where the accused was tried as an adult though the accused was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence.  Since, the accused was a juvenile when the offence was committed, the criminal trial stands vitiated and a fresh trial will have to be held before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB).  The Court has sought the assistance of the Attorney General to resolve the issue.

In a letter to the High Courts, Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu has asked for the judgments delivered by the Judges of the High Courts, in order to “ascertain quantitative as well as qualitative disposal of cases”. So far Reported Judgments have been accepted as one of the parameters for ascertaining “qualitative disposal”. Now as per this letter, the details of all judgments will have to be provided. The letter also demands resumes of the Chief Justices and the Judges in a specified format. It also demands details of total and reported judgments.

In Criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court, the Petitioner was seeking criminal prosecution of a Judge in respect of acts discharged during judicial functions. It was held no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him, when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function. The Court also held that no Judge can be prosecuted without a prior sanction, whether the alleged offence is punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under the Indian Penal Code or under any other law.

The Central Information Commission has held that refusing to give details of foreign tours by ministers and officers, and staff particulars of AG without hearing the appellant was wrong.  It set aside the order of First Appellate Authority of Department of Legal Affairs as it was given without hearing the appellant.  CIC also recommended action against the officer for this ‘illegal’ order.

The Bar Council of India has recently notified the Certificate of Practice and Renewal Rules of 2014. Under these rules, a lawyer must practice for two years in a trial court and three in a high court before being allowed to practice before the apex court. The new rules also mandate the renewal of licenses every five years, in an attempt to “weed out” those lawyers who are no longer practicing.

In accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, the Ministry of Law and Justice has decided on the formation of a separate High Court for Andhra Pradesh. According to section 30 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad shall be the common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh till a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh is constituted under Article 214 of the Constitution of India and other provisions of the Act.

The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) is all set to slash the prices of popular medicines for stress, hypertension, HIV, pain and pneumonia. The move seeks to cover as many as 100 new drugs and would apply to drugs of varying strengths. This is the second time that NPPA has proposed regulating the price of drugs outside the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM), 2011. The announcement by NPPA comes in light of its findings that certain “anomalies or discrepancies” exist in the description/specification of drugs in NLEM.

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, (2nd 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.

Read More

Transfer of a Judge

Author :  Pulkit Gopalkrishan Popli, 1st Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School.

Often the judgments delivered by various courts receive various responses on the basis of credibility, justice served, equitable grounds etc. But recently a judgment delivered by Chief Justice of Kerala High Court sparked a controversy. The reason of the controversy was that Hon'ble Judge Manjula Chellur has been transferred to the Kolkata High Court where she assumed the charge on 5th of August. The transfer warrant was signed by the Honorable President on July 21 while the verdict on case was delivered on July 25. The verdict declared the 2007 eviction-drive in Munnar as illegal. The question arises, could a judge still deliver judgments after a transfer warrant was issued?

As per Article 222(1) the President may, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, transfer a Judge from one High Court to any other High Court. According to the Delhi High court rules,

“Every District Judge or Sub-Judge proceeding on leave or transfer, must, before making over the charge, sign a certificate that he has written judgments in all cases in which he has heard arguments. Should an officer be forced to lay down his charge suddenly, he shall, nevertheless, write the judgments in such cases, and send them for pronouncement to his successor.[1]”

This article along with article 217 has been the center of controversies. Article 217 states that 

“Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the chief Justice, the chief Justice of the High court, and shall hold office, in the case of an additional or acting Judge, as provided in Article 224, and in any other case, until he attains the age of sixty two years Provided that-

              (a) a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office;

             (b) a Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner provided in clause ( 4 ) of Article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court;

           (c) the office of a Judge shall be vacated by his being appointed by the President to be a Judge of the Supreme Court or by his being transferred by the President to any other High Court within the territory of India”

In the Landmark Judgment of, S.P.Gupta v. Union of India case^[2] which is the last judgment of judge’s case trilogy, could be used to answer various queries regarding the transfer of judges.

In paragraph-900 at page 543 it was discussed whether how court views the transfer of judges? It was said that it is a transaction that takes place in two parts, the first is termination from the original high court and the second is the simultaneous appointment in the other high court.

This view is supported by the circumstance that the power of transfer is vested in the President. It is significant in this connection that the President is also the appointing authority in the case of appointment made under Clause (1) of Article 217 and is also vested with the power of removal in cases falling under Article 218 read with Clause (4) of Article 124. Therefore, it was necessary that the authority who has been otherwise vested with the power to appoint a Judge and to terminate his appointment should also be the authority to transfer him. It may be added that inasmuch as the transfer constitutes an appointment of the Judge to the other High Court. Article 219 comes into play and, therefore, the transferred Judge must, before he enters upon his office in that High Court, make or subscribe an oath or affirmation according to the prescribed Form.

Now the question that arises that the article stated that the office of the judge will be vacated by him while being transferred by the President to other high courts. So can we say that the judge that has been issued the transfer warrant can no longer work as a judge until he has joined the new high court? One of such questions arose in a case M.K. Sasidharan, Advocate Supreme Court and President v. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court of India and Ors.^[3]The Petitioner, an advocate practicing in the Supreme Court filed the Original Petition praying for the issue of a writ of Quo Warranto calling upon the 5th Respondent, a Judge of this High Court who has been transferred to the High Court of Gujarat, under what authority he has been discharging the functions as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Kerala. The 5th Respondent was appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Kerala under Article 217 of the Constitution of India. He had sworn as a Judge of this Court on 11th April 1996. By virtue of powers vested in the President of India under Article 222 of the Constitution, the 5th Respondent was transferred to the High Court of Gujarat. He was given time till 9th May 1996 to assume charge as Judge of the Gujarat High Court. Later the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India had granted extension of time from time to time up to 22nd July 1996. In the meanwhile the 5th Respondent was functioning as a Judge of this Court, hearing and disposing of cases. It was contended by the Petitioner that on his transfer to the Gujarat High Court, the 5th Respondent was ceased to be a Judge of this High Court and that he has no right or authority to discharge the duties of a Judge of this Court

In the judgement to this case, the court also said in paragraph 18:

“The prayer of the petitioner to issue a writ of quo warranto is not maintainable as the 5th respondent was appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Kerala by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the warrant of appointment still holds good and he had been given time to assume office till 22-7-1996. He continues to be a Judge of this Court for all practical purposes.”

Thus from this case we can easily conclude that a judge continues to remain judge until she/he gets relieved from the previous court, not when she gets the transfer warrant but in order to maintain the spirit of the constitution it is preferred that they vacate it as soon as possible. So applying same standards in the case of Judge Manjula Chellur, it was duteous of her to deliver the judgment which and her authority of deliverance is not dubitable under law and complies with the spirit of constitution.

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.

---

[1]http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/writereaddata/upload/CourtRules/CourtRuleFile_AF9J1IE4.PDF

[2](AIR 1982 SC 149)

[3]AIR1997Ker35

Read More

PILs IN DISTRICT COURTS !!

In a very interesting development, the Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has raised a very interesting point about filing PIL in District Court!
What is at the heart of Constitutional Law is that a PIL can only be filed in the High Court or Supreme Court and only these courts have jurisdiction to entertain the same.

Any public spirited person does not have any other forum for redressal, as he has no locus standi for the matter. Well, soon this concept may find itself way back only in the annals of history. A new kind of Jurisprudence is now emerging where PIL in district courts can actually be envisaged. I freely admit, I myself was a part of the “ignorant society” that nodded and believed that only Constitutional Courts have the Jurisdiction to entertain a PIL. But kudos the innovativeness of the Indian Judiciary for envisaging a concept which may possibly help many public spirited persons in the future.

First, let us highlight what the Hon’ble Chief Justice Kalyan Sengupta said while delivering the C. Padmanabha Reddy Memorial Lecture organised by the Indian Association of Lawyers (IAL) in Hyderabad observed: (the report can be found here )

“A PIL could be filed in district courts or other subordinate courts also but not necessarily in the Supreme Court or High Courts. Judicial activism should be welcomed wherever the executive and legislative branches fall short of their goals and when a PIL comes against them, it should not be treated as an adversarial litigation but as a reminder of their Constitutional duties”

The idea itself isn’t bad. The vision of justice to the common man would be complete. The search and reach for justice has always eluded the common man, having to spend a lot of time and money to travel to long places, file for PIL in the HC or SC and represent their case. It’s not uncommon to make more than one appearance to get the desired relief. If PILs in District Court could make headway into the Judicial System, it would eliminate the need for the long wait of justice for people even in the remotest corner of India.

But is such an idea really feasible? District Courts always have the problem of pendency of cases with over 3 crore cases pending in courts. It would mean that district courts would also have to deal with the additional burden of PILs from persons who have no locus standi. This is specially a big problem because as it is the effective rate of disposal of cases is slow and time consuming. Unless additional resources are pumped in to expedite the process, it would be very difficult for the courts to carry this additional burden.

The competiveness of the District Court in handling PIL petitions is still uncertain. While on one hand, it may be especially good as District Court looks into matters of fact, hence it may examine evidence on a fact and decide on a petition, but there would not be an expeditious remedy. On the flipside, with regard to examining matters on PIL where effective, quick, correct and adequate remedy is the need of the hour, District Courts may, at some point, lack competence.

The Jurisdiction of the Court is also another aspect under consideration. The jurisdiction of the District Court is limited to the district only. This helps litigants save time and money and the Court may understand the problems of the district better than any of the Higher Courts. Yet its Jurisdiction being limited, it is very difficult for the court to give a judgment within the rigidity of jurisdiction it is bound in.

Another aspect is that, the courts are bound by procedural laws, making it very difficult to get quick remedies. So, it is very uncertain whether a District Court can be given wide amplitude of powers to bypass procedural laws which is required when a PIL petition is being heard.

In my opinion, considering many problems, and not to mention procedural aspects the District Courts may face, unless radical changes are proposed, it would be very difficult to actually put the vision of Hon’ble Chief Justice into practice. However all is not lost for the common man as he grapples with the administration, the government and the law in his quest to seek justice. The Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure do provide sections for public to seek justice.

1. An important section provided by the CPC is to invoke section 91 of CPC which empowers any two public persons to raise any matter of public interest with the permission of the court in case of any public nuisance. The relief granted by the Court includes a suit of declaration and injunction or for such other relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

2. Order I Rule 8 permits the filing of Representative Suit. Where any interested person may sue on behalf of all persons interested in the suit and a decree passed in a suit under this rule shall be binding on all persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, the suit is instituted, or defended, as the case may be. This section can be used as a powerful tool to file a suit in the District Court, as the language of Order I Rule 8 is so wide so as to permit filing of a civil suit and asking for civil damages as a result of redressing any public injury, enforcing public duty and claiming public rights.

3. Though PIL generally creates civil liability only, even criminal courts can entertain a complaint from a member of the public. Section 190 of CrPC gives wide powers to a Magistrate based on information received by him to take cognizance of any crime which may have been committed and to direct the Police to investigate the same. This is particularly helpful when the public injury committed by person or persons alike may attract criminal liability. The investigations may proceed say, under sections 268 of IPC for public nuisance, section 133 of CrPC empowering magistrate to take action against public nuisance.

PILs have revolutionised our justice system. Indian Judiciary has always upheld the cause of justice to common man and has addressed the same. In this regard, PIL in District Courts would give the much needed impetus in the process of restoring faith of the common man in the judiciary. But, the process is long drawn and a tough one. Its implementation would be difficult. Let us hope the vision, the path and the cause that the Hon’ble Chief Justice envisaged is taken up by others and the issues are addressed.

Author: Suraj Badrayan

Read More