https://www.facebook.com/107437827781900/

Euinac Legalite, Lucknow (2026)

21/05/2024

The Supreme Court on Monday urged senior lawyers to allow their junior lawyers to argue cases during the vacation.

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sanjay Karol had a brief courtroom exchange with Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta.

"I would request all Seniors to give this vacation time to the younger members of the Bar (to argue). We want the younger bar to grow, that is all; vacation was meant (to be an opportunity) only for the younger people," Justice Karol remarked.

Euinac Legalite

16/02/2021

Former CEO of Broadcast Audience Research Council, Partho Dasgupta told the Bombay High Court on Monday that the controversial WhatsApp chats between him and Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami were mere "loose talks" and that he should not be kept in detention on that basis.

Those WhatsApp chats are not admissible as evidence and need corroboration, Dasgupta told the Court during the hearing of his plea for bail in the case relating to the Television Rating Points scam (TRP Scam).

Ponda along with advocate Shardul Singh placed reliance upon the voluminous chargesheet filed by the Mumbai Police against Dasgupta, to claim that WhatsApp chats could not be relied upon by the Mumbai Police to keep Dasgupta in detention.

Ponda also submitted that those alleged conversations between Dasgupta and Goswami which were part of the chargesheet took place at a time when Republic TV was not even in existence and Goswami was part of the Times Now news channel.

Another ground raised by Dasgupta was that the other accused named in the chargesheet were granted bail or protection from coercive action.

Ponda referred to the statement made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal during the hearing of the plea filed by ARG Outlier Media Private Ltd., parent company for Republic TV channels, of not taking coercive steps against the employees of Republic TV including Goswami.

Ponda argued it was unfair that Dasgupta was still under detention.

Ponda along with advocate Shardul Singh placed reliance upon the voluminous chargesheet filed by the Mumbai Police against Dasgupta, to claim that WhatsApp chats could not be relied upon by the Mumbai Police to keep Dasgupta in detention.

Ponda also submitted that those alleged conversations between Dasgupta and Goswami which were part of the chargesheet took place at a time when Republic TV was not even in existence and Goswami was part of the Times Now news channel.

Another ground raised by Dasgupta was that the other accused named in the chargesheet were granted bail or protection from coercive action.

Follow .legalite

16/02/2021

The Bombay High Court on Monday observed that there was a prima facie case found against Priyanka Singh, the sister of late Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput, in the FIR lodged against her at the instance of Rhea Chakraborty alleging criminal conspiracy and abetment to su***de of Sushant Singh.

The Court has however quashed the proceedings against another sister of Sushant, Meetu Singh, who was also named as an accused in the FIR. "There is prima facie case found against Priyanka Singh and there should not be any impediment against investigation against her", a bench comprising Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik observed. The Court said that the FIR will survive as regards Priyanka Singh and Dr Tarun Kumar of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital Delhi, on whose prescription the medicines were allegedly procured for Sushant by Priyanka Singh. The FIR was registered on a complaint by actor Rhea Chakraborty against the sisters and Dr. Tarun Kumar - an associate professor of cardiology from Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, on September 7, 2020 under sections 420(cheating) and 306(abetment of su***de), under the Indian Penal Code, as well as offences related to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS). The case was subsequently transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation that is looking into the late actor's death. Chakraborty has alleged that the medicines provided by Sushant's sister combined with the joint given to him by the house help may have led him to take his life on June 14, 2020. The sisters, in their petition filed by advocate Madhav Thorat, have cited discrepancies in Chakraborty's statement in the complaint and in an interview to say that the "complaint is an afterthought and only filed to digress the investigation in the death of the late actor." They have further cited a 91-day delay in registration of FIR.

Follow .legalite

13/02/2021

Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has said that a Dalit converting to Islam or Christianity would not receive reservation benefits and those who have converted to Islam or Christianity will also lose eligibility to contest parliamentary or assembly election from constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes.

In response to a question by BJP member G.V.L. Narasimha Rao in the Rajya Sabha on Friday, Prasad clarified that those who have adopted Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist faiths would be eligible for contesting from reserved seats and will enjoy reservation benefits. Prasad, however, made it clear that there exists a clear distinction between Dalits adopting Islam and Christianity with those choosing to remain Hindus.

Referring to the Para 3 of the Constitution, Prasad said Para 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order defined the state-wise list of SC categories. According to this, a person who is not a Hindu, a Sikh or a Buddhist, will not be considered to be a member of the Scheduled Castes. Any person with a valid Scheduled Caste certificate is eligible to contest from reserved seats.

In 2015, the Supreme Court had said that when a person leaves Hinduism to become a Christian, then the person cannot be considered to belong to the Scheduled Castes category.

Recently, BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj had raised a demand to sn**ch the quota benefits of those who leave Hinduism and become Christians. He had also claimed that some people convert from Hinduism to become Christians to take advantage of double reservation with fake certificates.

Follow .legalite

13/02/2021

Bombay High Court additional judge Justice Pushpa Ganediwala, who had delivered two controversial POCSO rulings, was on Friday given a fresh one-year term instead of two years as recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium.

The government modified the proposal and instead gave her an extension of just one year as an additional judge overruling the recommendation made by the Supreme Court Collegium to extend the woman judge’s tenure by two years.

The SC collegium, which had asked for giving Justice Ganediwala a further term of two years, comprised Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde, Justices N.V. Ramana and Rohinton F. Nariman. Justice Ganediwala’s new tenure will be effective from today as her earlier tenure as an additional judge ended Friday.

Justice Ganediwala had first acquitted a man accused of sexually assaulting a 12-year-girl on January 19. The man was accused of groping a 12-year-old girl’s breast and because he did not make skin-to-skin contact, the judge cleared him of punishment under POCSO charges. A few days later, Justice Ganediwala ruled that holding hands of a five-year-old girl and unzipping trousers do not amount to “sexual assault” under POCSO Act.

On January 27, the Supreme Court stayed the order acquitting the man of POCSO charges after Attorney General K.K. Venugopal said it would set a dangerous precedent in other similar crimes.

Justice Ganediwala’s extension was notified by the Union law ministry on Friday evening. Since the judge’s tenure as an additional judge was ending on Saturday, it was incumbent to notify her extension by the end of Friday so as to maintain continuity of her judgeship and not affect her seniority. Under constitutional provisions, an additional judge can be appointed for a maximum period of two years unlike permanent judges, who hold office till the age of 62.

Follow .legalite

17/01/2021

The Delhi Police has informed the Delhi High Court that AAP MLAs Raghav Chadha and Atishi Marlena cannot be allowed to hold a protest outside the residence of Home Minister Amit Shah and Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal as the political gathering is prohibited as per the orders of the Delhi Disaster Management Act (DDMA) till January 31, 2021.

It further said in view of the sensitive nature of the area which is residence of the dignitaries, Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is imposed prohibiting protests and demonstrations in the Central Delhi area.

The reply has been filed in the petitions filed by Chadha and Atishi, who want to hold a peaceful protest in order to voice the misappropriation of funds by the BJP-led North Delhi Municipal Corporation amounting to more than Rs 2,500 crore, which is a serious concern of the citizens of NCT of Delhi, according to the petitioners.

The present matter was listed today before Justice Prathiba M. Singh but no hearing took place as the counsel for police had sought an adjournment as the proceedings were to be held in a physical court.

In its affidavit, the police has also said that protests in the national capital can only be held at two locations, Jantar Mantar and Ramlila Maidan, which are designated for the purpose and nowhere else.

The Police has also said in its affidavit that in view of the DDMA notification of September last year, which was extended from time to time and now stands extended till January 31, no political gathering of any number of persons is permitted in the national capital.

The Delhi Police in their affidavit has cited the Supreme Court judgment in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan Vs Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324 wherein the Court, while upholding the right of citizens to hold peaceful protests and demonstrations under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, had directed the Commissioner of Police to frame appropriate guidelines for regulation of protests and demonstrations.

Follow .legalite

15/01/2021

High Court took note of ground realities and practical problems The judgment of the High Court(Safiya Sulthana v State of UP), which came in a habeas corpus petition filed by a couple, makes a note of this unintended consequence of the procedure under the SMA.

Follow .legalite

12/01/2021

An Uttar Pradesh Court on Monday sent Aam Aadmi party leader, Somnath Bharti to judicial custody for 14 days.

Bharti, who is a Member of Delhi Legislative Assembly, has moved an application for his release on bail.

It will be heard by the court concerned on January 13.

Bharti is in Uttar Pradesh to visit and see the condition of schools and government-run hospitals in the State.

Bharti was arrested by Uttar Pradesh Police for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 147 [Punishment for rioting], 332 [Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty], 353 [Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty], 505(2) [Statements conducing to public mischief], 153A [Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony], 504 [Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace], 506 [Punishment for criminal intimidation] of the Indian Penal Code.

BJP's Somnath Sahu had filed a complaint against Somnath Bharti at Jagdhishpur Police Station, Amethi for his allegedly objectionable remarks against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and State hospitals.

Thereafter, another FIR was filed registered against Bharti at Rae Bareli, on a complaint by Atul Kumar Singh, a police personnel.

Earlier today, complainant Singh had gone to arrest Bharti in connection with the case lodged at the Jagdishpur police station.

As per the complainant, Bharti, instead of cooperating with officers, misbehaved with the police personnel and threatened to strip them off their uniforms. It is also alleged that the Bharti's supporters resorted to sloganeering and created an undesirable situation.

The FIR informs that the Bharti was subsequently take away by the Jagdishpur SHO.

Follow .legalite

12/01/2021

The Supreme Court today stayed the implementation of the three farm acts, directed that the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for crops be maintained, and that landholdings of farmers are protected.

The three laws - the Farmers (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance & Farm Services Act, the Farmers Produce Trade & Commerce (Promotion & Facilitation) Act, and Amendment to the Essential Commodities Act have been stayed until further orders.

While doing so, the Bench of Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian expressed hope that its directions would encourage the farmers to put an end to the protests. The order passed today states,

"While we may not stifle a peaceful protest, we think that this extraordinary order of stay of implementation of the farm laws will be perceived as an achievement of the purpose of such protest at least for the present and will encourage the farmers bodies to convince their members to get back to their livelihood, both in order to protect their own lives and health and in order to protect the lives and properties of others."

The Court has further hoped that a stay on the controversial farm laws "may assuage the hurt feelings of the farmers and encourage them to come to the negotiating table with confidence and good faith."

The Bench also directed for the formation of a Committee to listen to the grievances of the farmers relating to the farm laws. The four-member Committee comprises:

Bhupinder Singh Mann, National President, Bhartiya Kisan Union and All India Kisan Coordination Committee;

Dr. Parmod Kumar Joshi, Agricultural Economist, Director for South Asia, International Food Policy Research Institute;

Ashok Gulati, Agricultural Economist and Former Chairman of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices; and

Anil Ghanwat, President, Shetkari Sanghatana

Notably, the Court has called upon the representatives of all the farmers’ bodies to participate in the deliberations of the Committee and put forth their view points.

Follow .legalite

04/01/2021

In a press release dated 02.01.2021, the Bar Council of India has proposed a new framework for students to appear for the Judicial Service Examination- that applicants would need to have a minimum of 3 years of experience at the Bar.

Reasons for this move

The notification says that “Presently, fresh law graduates are being allowed to sit for Judicial Service Examination throughout the territory of India without having any practical experience at the Bar. Judicial Officers not having practical experience at the Bar are mostly found to be incapable and inept in handling matters…

The inexperience at the Bar is one of the primary and major reasons for delays in the disposal of cases in the sub-ordinate Judiciary.”

The notification also says that this has led to “impolite and impractical” behaviour by Judicial Officers toward Members of the Bar and Litigants.

History of the Exam

As per the notification, in the case of All India Judges Association & others Vs. Union of India, the requirement of 3 years experience at the Bar had been done away with. The Court accepted the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, on the reasoning that with the passage of time the best in the legal field would not be incentivized to join the judiciary. Therefore a fresh graduate must be allowed to sit for the exam, and upon selection must be given training (of one/two years). The Bar Council is filing an application before the Supreme Court to seek a modification of the order.

Recently, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission had invited applications for appointment of Civil Judges Junior Division in the AP State Judicial Services for Advocates having a minimum eligibility requirement of 3 years as practicing advocate. This has been challenged by way of a writ petition. The Bar Council is also filing an application to get itself impleaded as a party in this case.

Follow .legalite

28/12/2020

Acting on a complaint over the use of caste names on vehicles and number plates, the office of the UP Transport Commissioner has issued a directive to all the regional offices of the Transport Department to “take necessary action against such vehicles as per the already existing rules”.

According to officials, routine challans could be issued to violators as per the existing rules as there is no rule that allow seizure of such vehicles.

The practice of boasting about one’s social status by putting up the names of their caste and sub-caste on their vehicles has become a trend in the state.

“We had received a complaint regarding this, and quoting the complaint we asked the authorities concerned to take necessary actions as per the existing rules… There are already rules prohibiting doing such things. Whatever action needs to be taken, it should be taken, and the same has been conveyed to the authorities,” UP Transport Commissioner Dheeraj Sahu said.

According to the transport officials, the complaint was received over the Integrated Grievances Redress System (IGRS) in which the complainant had sought seizure of such vehicles. The complainant said that such glorification should be stopped as such a trend could start caste rivalries, which could create law and order situation.

“The purpose of engraving cast names is nothing but superiority complex over other castes which is not good. Caste-based names must be stopped to curb future caste-based crimes as India has been very sensitive when it comes to caste,” the letter issued by Additional Transport Commissioner (Administration) Mukesh Chandra to the regional transport department officials read.

Additional Chief Secretary (Information) Navneet Sehgal said that as per the Motor Vehicles Act no person can write anything else on the vehicle number plate.

Follow .legalite

09/12/2020

After a meeting of opposition leaders with the President, NCP chief Sharad Pawar said there was a request from all opposition parties to have in-depth discussion on farm bills but no suggestion was accepted and bills were passed in a hurry. Farmers are sitting on roads in the cold and expressing their unhappiness. It’s the duty of the government to address their issues and resolve the deadlock.

Former Congress President Rahul Gandhi said the parties informed the President that it is absolutely critical that these anti-farmer laws are taken back.

CPI-M chief Sitaram Yechury said the opposition parties have given a memorandum to the President asking to repeal agriculture laws and electricity amendment bill as they were passed without proper discussion.

Union Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar reaches Home Minister Amit Shah’s residence in Delhi.

President of Krantikari Kisan Union at Singhu (Delhi-Haryana border), Darshan Pal has said the union doesn’t accept the Centre’s amendment proposals. He said the farmers will block Delhi-Jaipur highway by 12th December.

Ahead of the meeting with President Ram Nath Kovind regarding the farm laws, CPI-M chief Sitaram Yechury said more than 25 opposition parties have extended their support towards the demand of withdrawing the three laws. The laws threaten India’s food security, he added.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has reached Rashtrapati Bhawan to attend a joint delegation meeting of opposition leaders with President Ram Nath Kovind in view of intensifying farmers’ protest.

The Shiromani Akali Dal Spokesperson Prem Singh Chandumajra on Wednesday said it is important to pressurise the government. If the farmers’ and the Centre don’t reach an agreement, then what sort of opposition political support can be given to the farmers will be decided by the 3rd week of December. The leaders of the political parties are due to meet President Ram Nath Kovind, ANI reported.

Euinac Legalite

21/05/2024

16/02/2021

16/02/2021

13/02/2021

13/02/2021

17/01/2021

15/01/2021

12/01/2021

12/01/2021

04/01/2021

28/12/2020

09/12/2020

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category