https://www.facebook.com/106332124418984/

The Legal Label, Delhi NCR, NCR (2026)

18/12/2020

The case revolves around a press conference held by Tiwari which was subsequently uploaded to Twitter by multiple media outlets, in which he alleged that Sisodia had indulged in corrupt practices, in connection with the construction of Delhi government school classrooms. Sisodia filed a defamation case against Tiwari and other BJP leaders. A special MP/MLA court had then issued summons to Tiwari and other BJP leaders.

While challenging the summons and the subsequent proceedings, Senior Advocate Pinky Anand appearing for Tiwari argue that the entire case was based on legally inadmissible evidence such as newspaper reports. She further argued that the evidence that was filed in the form of a CD was done so without the requisite compliance of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, appearing for Sisodia argued that this was not the stage to test the admissibility of the evidence. He further stated that the value of Sisodia’s evidence would be tested at the time of trial, when witnesses would be summoned before the court.

The court held that whether the uploading of the press conference to Twitter was for the purpose of any public good, could only by determined by their defence at the stage of trial.

Further, the court stated that as held in the Supreme Court order of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar bs Kailash Khushanrao Gorantyal & Ors, Section 65-B did not specify a stage at which such a certificate must be furnished and thus the contents of the CD, pen drive that were submitted as evidence would be admissible.
#2020

18/12/2020

The bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde was hearing petitions seeking removal of the protesting farmers and stated “We are of the view that at this stage the farmers’ protest should be allowed to continue without impediment and without any breach of peace by either the protesters or the police.” The bench further stated that “This court will not interfere with the protest in question. Indeed, the right to protest is part of a fundamental right and can as a matter of fact be exercised subject to public order. There can certainly be no impediment in the exercise of such rights as long as it is non-violent and does not result in damage to the life and properties of other citizens.”

Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing one of the petitioners argued that no right was absolute and wanted the court to directive police to ensure that life in Delhi was not affected by the farmers’ protest. However the bench suggested that an independent committee should be constituted to end the stalemate between the farmers and the government.

It further sought the Centre’s view on whether it can put the implementation of the new laws on hold until the court comes to a decision. While Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that this was not possible, Attorney General K K Venugopal stated that he would discuss the issue with the government.
#2020

17/12/2020

The Gorakhpur based doctor was arrested in Mumbai in January, over an allegedly “inflammatory” speech that he gave at the Aligarh Muslim University last year against the CAA. He was charged under the National Security Act for "disturbing public order in the city and creating an atmosphere of fear and insecurity within the citizens of Aligarh".

The Yogi Adityanath led UP government had challenged the Allahabad High Court’s order dated September 1 that had cancelled Dr. Khan’s detention under the NSA, deeming it “illegal.” While confirming the Allahabad Court order, Chief Justice SA Bobde stated "Criminal cases will be decided on their own merits. You cannot use a preventive detention order in another case.” He further stated "It seems to be a good order by the High Court. We see no reason to interfere with the order. But the observations will not affect the prosecution on criminal cases.”

Upon hearing of the order, Khan stated "Once again the UP government has failed they tried to imprison me and put me behind bars on the day my brother is getting married. Anyway, thanks to the judiciary and to all of those across the globe who prayed for me and have supported me for the past three and a half years.”

#2020

16/12/2020

The suit was filed on 19 September, 2019, days before Modi’s event in Houston, Texas. It challenged the Indian Parliament’s decision on to abrogate Articles 370 and 35A which stripped the state of its special privileges and carved out two union territories. It sough USD 100 million from Modi, Shah and Lt. General Kanwal Jeet Singh Dhillon.

US District Court Southern District of Texas Judge Frances H Stacy said in his order dated October 6 that the Kashmir Khalistan Referendum Front have done nothing to prosecute this case and have failed to appear at two set scheduling conferences and hence he recommended that the case be dismissed.

Two weeks later, the case was terminated by Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the US District Court in Texas.
#2020

15/12/2020

The bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan made this observation while hearing a petitions moved by the Board challenging an order which held that the Board’s reassessment theme for students whose board exams got cancelled due to COVID-19 would apply to students who were meant to give improvement exams also.

The order had been passed by a single Judge on August 13, and the bench asked if the scheme benefited improvement students too, “what is the harm in it?”. The court further stated "We don't like this anti-student attitude of the CBSE. You are dragging students all the way to the Supreme Court. Should they be studying or going to court? We should start imposing costs on the CBSE.”

The order had come on a petition filed by a student who had appeared in the CBSE Class 12 exams in February/March last year and had scored 95.23%. In order to improve upon his marks, he had dropped one year and decided to reappear for the Accounts, English, Economics and Business Studies examinations. All of the exams were held except for the Business Studies paper, which was cancelled due to lockdown. The student sought that he should be treated the same as any other student with respect to the cancelled improvement paper.

The High Court had directed the Board to issue a corrected mark sheet to the student, who then took that mark sheet and got admission in a Delhi University College on its basis. After this, the CBSE challenged the decision of the single judge. The bench stated “the impugned order has been implemented. The child has taken admission. Why should we upset the applecart now?”

The high court, nevertheless, issued a notice to the student and sought his reply to the CBSE's plea.
"We will put you to an exam now," the bench said to the CBSE and listed the matter for hearing on February 5, 2021.
#2020

12/12/2020

The court took notice of the stigmatisation of patients’ due to posters being put up outside their homes and told States and Union Territories that they are not required to do unless ordered by a competent authority under the DMA.

This direction came while the bench, headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan was giving its verdict on a petition seeking directions to do away with the pasting of posters outside the homes of COVID-19 patients. The Centre had earlier informed the Court that not of its guidelines contained instructions regarding posters and signs outside patients’ homes.

#2020

12/12/2020

On Friday, the US Supreme Court rejected a Texas lawsuit backed by President Trump, seeking to throw out voting results in 4 states. The Court stated that Texas did not have the legal standing to bring the case against the other states.

Trump and many other Republicans had made claims that the expansion of the mail in voting system during the pandemic led to Biden fraudulently winning numerous battleground states. The case was filed on Tuesday by Trump’s ally, the Republican Attorney General of Texas.

After the case in Pennsylvania, this was the second time this week that a conservative majority Supreme Court ruled against the attempts to overturn the will of the voters. The lawsuit stated that changes made to to the voting procedures in the 4 states were unlawful and asked the court to block the 4 states from using their voting results to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College.

The court stated "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stated: “It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court decided not to take this case and determine the constitutionality of these four states' failure to follow federal and state election law.”

#2020

03/12/2020

The H-1B visa programme allows for American companies to hire foreign workers for specialty occupations.

Judge Jeffrey White of the US District Court of Northern California held that the unemployment crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic was not a ‘good cause’ for the Departments of Homeland Security and Labour to bypass the administrative requirements while making changes to the visa programme. The two rules in question had been notified without a notice period or any public comments, which violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

As per the two rules, the minimum wage levels for workers under this visa was increased by 40% on average, which would discourage companies from hiring them. Further, the definition of a ‘specialty occupation’ was changed and also the validity of the visa was limited to one year instead of three as it was earlier.

The US Chamber of Commerce along with other industry association and universities had filed the case challenging these changed. On of these was Nasscom, an Indian IT lobby group which stated that “We viewed the rule as unjustified and had sought for rescinding the IFRs in its entirety, given the significant harm it would do to American businesses, American workers, and to the United States’ economy as a whole. It clearly was not supported by statute or procedure,” #2020

03/12/2020

The state government stated that it would pay Rs. 138.41 crore as compensation for the trees and that more trees would be planted elsewhere to replace the the,. But the court disagreed and stated that planting a new sapling was not the same as cutting down a 100 year old tree. The bench stated "Living trees give oxygen and it cannot be evaluated simply on the basis of their value. The oxygen-producing capacity of the trees must be evaluated over its remaining life span,"

The court also gave the UP government 4 weeks to conduct another evaluation of the proposed project and dismissed suggestions that the trees “needed” to be cleared to ensure faster movement of traffic.

The court also observed "The only effect that is likely if the trees are retained would be roads which may not be straight and therefore capable of high-speed traffic. Such an effect may not necessarily be deleterious since high-speeds on highways are known to cause accidents,"
#2020

29/11/2020

The court stated that the lawsuit’s demand that the entire election be retroactively overturned was breathtaking, since “they have failed to allege that even a single mail in ballot was fraudulently cast or counted.”

The lawsuit was filed by Pennsylvania Republican congressman, Mike Kelly who along with other Republican plaintiffs had sought to either throw out the 2.5 million mail in ballots submitted, or to wipe out the election results and direct the state’s Republicans controlled legislature to pick Pennsylvania’s presidential electors. This request too flew in the face of a century old law, which grants power to pick electors to the state’s popular vote.

Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here” and added ““Voters, not lawyers, choose the president. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections. [The] campaign’s claims have no merit.”

The state’s attorney general, Democrat Josh Shapiro, called the court’s decision “another win for democracy”.
#2020

24/11/2020

The bench held that “Right to live with a person of his/her choice irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty,” and asserted that the matter of a religious conversion was irrelevant if both parties were adults and in a consenting relationship. The bench further stated “We fail to understand that if the law permits two persons even of the same sexto live together peacefully then neither any individual nor a family nor even State can have objection to relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together.”

The bench which consisted of Justices Vivek Agarwal and Pankaj Naqvi held that the two previous orders- one passed in September of this year and the other one in 2014 were not ‘good law’. As a result, the bench observed that the intervention of the courts into an individual’s personal choices is an infringement to Article 21 of the Constitution of India which includes right to freedom of choice and the right to live with dignity.

Hence, the bench quashed the FIR filed by the woman’s father in this case alleging offences under Sections 363, 366, 352 and 506 of the IPC (kidnapping, abduction, forcing a woman to marry) and stated that the man and woman had been living together peacefully as husband and wife for over a year, and the conversion in question was voluntary and not forced.

The court remarked that, “We do not see Priyanka Kharwar and Salamat as Hindu and Muslim, rather as two grown-up individuals who out of their own free will and choice are living together peacefully and happily over a year.”
#2020

21/11/2020

On Friday, in a 2-1 decision, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with two therapists who said the laws in the city of Boca Raton and Palm Beach County violated their free speech rights.
Circuit Judge Britt Grant said that while enjoining the laws “allows speech that many find concerning--even dangerous,” the First Amendment “does not allow communities to determine how their neighbours may be counselled about matters of sexual orientation or gender.”
Conversion therapy aims to change people’s sexual orientations or gender identities.
Therapists, Robert Otto and Julie Hamilton, said their clients mostly had “sincerely held religious beliefs conflicting with homosexuality,” and sought counselling to conform their identities and behaviours with those beliefs.
#2020

The Legal Label

18/12/2020

18/12/2020

17/12/2020

16/12/2020

15/12/2020

12/12/2020

12/12/2020

03/12/2020

03/12/2020

29/11/2020

24/11/2020

21/11/2020

Address

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category