[2nd July] Daily Legal Current Affairs: Case Laws & News
-Tamil Nadu government has filed SLP in SC against the non-implementation of reservation for Backward Classes in admission to those seats shared by the State to the All India Quota in Medical colleges in Tamil Nadu. (State of Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India & others)
–The Centre in reply to the plea of foreign nationals (Talighi Jamaat) who have been blacklisted by Ministry of Home Affairs, has said that Article 19 of the Constitution guarantee, the right to reside & settle in any part of the territory of India as well as right to move freely throughout the territory of India is available only to the citizens of India. Also, the Centre has said that Right to grant visa is a sovereign right of state and therefore talighi member cannot be deported unless criminal trial is completed. (Maulana Ala Hadrami & others vs. Union of India)
– A PIL is filed before the SC seeking uniform maximum relief in the school fee for the period of national lockdown. The Petition stated that there is no Force Majeure clause in the said admission form, therefore, demanding fee & expenses without rending service is illegal & against the principle of natural justice. (Reepak Kansal vs. Union of India & others)
High Courts & Other Legal Developments:
-The Delhi HC has issued notice to the Central & state government seeking e-registration of all property documents such as Wills, Deeds at the Sub-Registrar office in NCT of Delhi.
-The Rajasthan HC has observed that “Application for interim bail cannot be used as a substitute rather a subterfuge (decietful means to reach one’s goal) for regular bail, particularly when petitioner’s six bail application have been rejected.” (Paras Vishnoi vs. The Director, CBI)
-The Madras HC on Thurday while hearing suo moto case of Jayaraj & Bennix has directed the Tamil Nadu government to continue with police Wellbeing Programme, which is aimed to robust mental health of the Police force.
-The Permanent Court of Arbitration has unanimously held (3:2 majority) that India is entitled to claim compensation from the Italy. (Enrica Lexie Case)
– Bombay HC has directed the Income Tax Department to refund Rs. 833 Crores to the Vodafone-Idea Limited within two weeks. (Vodafone Idea Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of IT & others)
-A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court has issued notice to the State Government that the rules of SC/ST Act, 1989 are implemented in its true letter & spirit. (Parishistha Jaathi vs. State of Karnataka & others)
-A PIL was filed by a transgender person that during the lockdown period transgender community is facing food, medicines etc crisis. Taking the note of it Kerala HC has directed the State government to ensure that the free supply of medicines & food supply is made in consonance with the policies of state government. (Kabir vs. State of Kerala & others)
– The Madras HC has directed the Bar Council of India & Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry to file their audited financial statements for the periods 2018-19 & 2019-20. The direction has come on the failure to make pay-outs to needy Advocates & Clerks during lockdown. (Dr. A.E. Chelliah vs. Chairman of Bar Council of TNP & Others)
-All work including virtual hearing is suspended in NCLAT till 10th July after detection of two Covid-19 cases.
-The Orissa HC has deplored that the offence of drug trafficking involves more stringent penalties than the trafficking of girls for sexual exploitation, despite the latter being “more serious”. The HC also said that though it involves clandestine & unlawful trafficking of girls but the law makers have missed the opportunity to prescribe a stringent punishment regime. (Panchanan Padhi vs. State of Orissa).
– Tiktok has issued a statement that they do not have any plans to pursue legal action.
-A Single-bench od Delhi HC has observed that “Marriage is a relationship to which sanctity is still attached in our society. Merely because rules of evidence favour a liberal approach for admitting evidence in court in aid of dispensation of justice, this should not be taken as approval for everyone to adopt any illegal means to collect evidence, especially in relationships of confidence such as marriage.” (Deepti Kapur vs. Kunal Julka)