The legal Hawks

21/11/2018

In a significant and noteworthy trend in the realm of death penalty, the Supreme Court of India last week commuted the death sentence of at least two convicts to life imprisonment.

Further, it recalled orders (one in SLP and another in Review) which had confirmed capital punishment to convicts.

Commutation of Death Penalty

On November 15, a three-judge Bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, M Shantanagoudar and, MR Shah commuted the capital punishment awarded to a Swapan Kumar Jha to life imprisonment. Jha had been convicted under Sections 302 and 364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for kidnapping and murdering his own cousin.

In a 3-page order, the Court ruled that the death penalty imposed on Jha, which was later confirmed by the High Court, was being “altered to ‘life imprisonment’ under the category of special sentencing”.

The Court, however, made it clear that the convict will not be entitled to “remission”. The order also states that a “reasoned order will follow”.

In a similarly worded order, the same Bench on November 14, commuted the death penalty awarded to one Prahlad, convicted of ra**ng an eight-year-old girl in Rajasthan.

The Court, in its brief order, held:

“After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case where extreme penalty of death can be imposed on the appellant..

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the cases, we convert the death penalty imposed on the appellant, into life imprisonment.”

The Court also set aside the conviction under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).

A reasoned order will be delivered later, the Court held.

Recall of 2006 Orders dismissing SLP in limine

Another Bench comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, AM Khanwilkar, and DY Chandrachud, recalled two earlier Supreme Court orders passed in 2006, wherein the Special Leave Petition against the imposition of capital punishment was dismissed in limine.

The order to that effect was passed in the case of Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v. State of Maharashtra, after the State government, “graciously submitted” that it has no objection if the order of dismissal in limine is recalled.

The Court, therefore, ordered that

“the orders dated 30.11.2006 passed in Review Petition (Crl) No.337/2006 in SLP (Crl) No.3323/2006 and order dated 21.07.2006 passed in SLP (Crl) No.3323/2006 are recalled.”

Leave was granted and the matter will now be heard on merits. The matter was listed for February 2019 considering the fact that the convict has already spent seventeen years in prison.

Recall of Order Dismissing Review Petition

In another death penalty case of Sundar @ Sundararajan vs State, the same Bench of Justices Kurian Joseph, AM Khanwilkar, and DY Chandrachud recalled an order which had dismissed the review petition in 2013.

This was done having regard to the directions of the Supreme Court in the judgment in Mohd. Arif Vs. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India, [(2014) 9 SCC 737] as per which Review Petitions in cases involving death penalty have to be heard afresh in open court. The Court in its order stated:

“Having regard to the directions in Mohd. Arif Vs. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 737, the Review Petitions have to be heard afresh in open court. Therefore, the order dated 20.03.2013, dismissing the Review Petitions, is recalled.”

The stay imposed on the ex*****on of the death sentence will continue till further orders.

Read the Order in Swapan Kumar Jha vs State of Jharkhand



Read the Order in Prahlad vs State of Rajasthan



Read the Order in Dyaneshwar Suresh Borkar vs State of Maharashtra



Read the Order in Sundar @ Sundararajan vs State

20/11/2018

In the dispute between Devas Multimedia and Antrix Corporation (Antrix Devas Dispute), the Supreme Court yesterday issued notice and stayed the proceedings in Bangalore courts.

The matter was heard by a Bench of Justice SA Bobde and Justice L Nageswara Rao.

The petitioner, Devas Multimedia, was represented by Senior Counsel Harish Salve briefed by a team from Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas comprising Partner Omar Ahmad and Principal Associate Ishan Gaur.

The petition filed before the Supreme Court challenges the judgment of the Delhi High Court that had held that the Courts in Delhi did not have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case even though the seat of arbitration was designated as New Delhi in the arbitration agreement between the two parties.

It has been contended by the petitioner that designating a seat of arbitration is akin to assigning exclusive jurisdiction and submitted that Delhi Courts alone had the exclusive jurisdiction to hear any dispute.

The present dispute and the issue of the seat of arbitration and exclusive jurisdiction arose when Antrix Corporation moved the Bangalore City Civil Court aggrieved by the Arbitral award passed in favour of Devas by the Arbitral Tribunal. The said Tribunal was constituted by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).

Devas had challenged the jurisdiction of the Bangalore Court to hear the case citing the seat of arbitration which as per the Arbitration agreement between the parties, was New Delhi.

In 2017, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Devas Multimedia and held that that Delhi held exclusive jurisdiction on account of a designated seat of arbitration, and hence the petition filed by Antrix before the Bangalore Court was not maintainable.

The same was challenged by Antrix before a Division Bench of the High Court which overturned the judgment of the single judge and held that Delhi and Bangalore had concurrent jurisdiction. It had, therefore, directed the Bangalore City Civil Court to decide on the question of maintainability considering that the said Court was moved first.

This has now been assailed in Supreme Court. The Supreme Court yesterday issued notice in the matter and stayed all the proceedings in this case before the Bangalore Courts. The order reads:

“Issue notice.

Until further orders, there shall be stay of proceedings in Arbitration Application No.483/2011 and Arbitration Suit No.174 of 2015, pending in the Courts of VIth Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City and the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, respectively.”

Read the Petition:

Read the Order:

20/11/2018

The hearing in the cases filed by CBI Director Alok Verma and NGO Common Cause challenging the decision of the Central government to send Verma on leave will be heard today.
In the last hearing on November 16, the Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph had directed that a copy of the Central Vigilance Committee (CVC) report be served on Alok Verma so that he can respond to it.
The Court had also said that as per the report, some charges levelled against Verma need to be probed.
Yesterday, Alok Verma submitted his response to the CVC report in a sealed cover.
Here are live updates of today’s hearing:
– Bench assembles in Supreme Court, hearing commences.
– CJI Ranjan Gogoi agitated with Fali Nariman over the mentioning yesterday seeking additional time to file reply. Nariman says mentioning by Gopal Sankaranarayanan yesterday was “unauthorised” and he was not even informed. He got to know from media.
– “For reasons which the Court is not inclined to record”, the hearing has been deferred. Will be taken up next on November 29.
– CJI Ranjan Gogoi handed over a report of The Wire to Fali Nariman, which has contents of response of Alok Verma which was supposed to be in sealed cover. CJI Gogoi deeply upset by the same.

20/11/2018

The Supreme Court today adjourned the hearing in the petition filed by Zakia Jafri challenging the clean chit given to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in relation to the Gujarat Riots of 2002, to November 26.
Zakia Jafri is the wife of former Congress MP Ehshan Jafri, who was killed in the infamous Gulbarg Society Massacre in Gujarat in 2002.
The petition, which came up for hearing before the Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Deepak Gupta, challenges the Gujarat High Court’s decision of 2017. The High Court had upheld the decision of the Magistrate to accept the closure report filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the case and had thus dismissed the petition filed by Jafri challenging the report.
In the aftermath of the Gujarat riots, a number of petitions were filed. Jafri had filed a complaint before the then Director General of Police of Gujarat in 2006, seeking registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 302 (Punishment for Murder). The complaint was made against various bureaucrats and politicians, including then Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi.
The intent to file the complaint was to “bring to notice the deliberate and intentional failure of the State machinery which helped perpetuate violence between 28.02.2002 and May 2002.”
The Supreme Court, in 2008, appointed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to submit a report on a number of trials in Gujarat Riots and subsequently also ordered the SIT to investigate the complaint that was filed by the petitioner.
In 2011, the SIT was directed by the Supreme Court to submit its closure report before the concerned Magistrate, and the petitioner was given the liberty to file her objections, if any, to the said report.
In 2013, after the petitioner was handed a copy of the same, she filed a petition opposing the closure report, which essentially gave a clean chit to several bureaucrats and politicians, including Narendra Modi.
The Magistrate upheld the SIT’s closure report and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner had approached the Gujarat High Court. In 2017, the High Court upheld the Magistrate’s decision and dismissed the petition filed by Jafri.
Jafri has now, along with activist Teesta Setalvad, approached the Supreme Court challenging this decision to accept the SIT’s clean chit to those named in the case. The petition states,
“The SIT had come to the conclusion that no case was made out and it was accepted by the Magistrate and this finding was erroneously reiterated by the High Court, despite large amount of documentation and contemporaneous evidence that existed which meritoriously made out a triable case against all the accused.”
The petitioners are represented by Senior Counsel CU Singh and Advocate Aparna Bhat, while Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the SIT.
The Court adjourned the hearing in the case today, and the matter will be listed on Monday, November 26.

16/11/2018

14/11/2018

DJS 2018

04/11/2018

Notice to stop lawyer in Everest masala commercial advertisement, Initiative by BCD

04/11/2018

RJS VACANCIES DETERMINED FOR 2019

23/10/2018

23/10/2018

SC Imposes Rs 25,000 Fine on Lawyer for Filing PIL Seeking to Lower Marriageable age of Men
A Supreme Court bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justice SK Kaul on Monday dismissed a PIL seeking to lower marriageable age of men to 18 years, and imposed...
Read more: https://www.soolegal.com/news/sc-imposes-rs-25-000-fine-on-lawyer-for-filing-pil-seeking-to-lower-marriageable-age-of-men

Research, Opinions and Reviews:Registered Users can write a blog/article/post up to 2,000 characters. The entire Law Fraternity is keen to hear from Lawyers, Solicitors, Judges and Legal professionals from respective Bar associations, state and territory to share ideas, give opinions and light on im...

18/10/2018