Tag Archives: #Advocates

REPORT ON SUSHANT SINGH RAJPUT’S CASE

This article is written by Divya Singh Yadav, Sneha Asthana & Vivek Yadav

On 14th June 2020, the 34-year-old actor, Sushant Singh Rajput was discovered dead at his Bandra house within the urban concentrate on the day, which was claimed to be an instance of suicide by the native police. Mumbai police appeared to have closed the case at by showing people it was a suicide. However, as time passed by and Sushant’s father started acting upon the case, various links were made with Sushant’s death and his manager, Disha Salian’s, who died on June 9th, 2020, by accidentally falling off from the 14th floor from her fiancés’ residence in Malad. The short gap of just five days between both their deaths stirred up several rumours and conspiracies which instigated the Mumbai Police to investigate the case further. Several opinions arose on social media platforms and by Television media. 

  1. Heaps of political motives are being imputed within the case right from the word go. From the alleged involvement of high-profile politicians and screenland biggies in Mumbai to the approaching state elections, all types of conspiracy theories are floating around. Nausea has defendant the BJP of attempting to destabilise its government in a geographic area. A radical probe can prove whether or not these theories have any substance or are mere conjectures?  
  2. Some individuals, deliberately or accidentally, are attempting to form a divide between the states. Rhea is being branded as a Bengali lady who experienced necromancy to own complete management over a Bihari boy’s life, whereas Sushant’s family has been stereotypic, like several different Bihari family, as being ‘toxic’, that couldn’t settle for a giant town lady as his girlfriend. The probe can place finish to such ‘toxicity’ being peddled within the property right. 
  3. The probe will bring out the reality of whether or not the alleged suicide or murder of Sushant’s former manager Disha Salian is connected into Sushant’s death. Sushant was found dead solely six days once Disha’s end. It’ll additionally unravel the reality regarding the alleged involvement of influential individuals during this case. 
  4. It’ll additionally finish to the endless rounds of mudslinging between the police and therefore the politicians of 2 states. Shivsena’s leader has alleged that Sushant was displeased together with his father owing to his second wedding. In contrast, a state BJP leader has concerned a narco check of the Shiv Sena leaders for his or her involvement within the case. 
  5. It’ll additionally settle a big jurisdiction question of whether or not state police were well among its statutory rights to lodge FIR within the case and advocate the CBI probe once their geographic area counterparts had not lodged an FIR in the 1st place over the actor’s “unnatural death”. 
  6. It’ll additionally place screenland below scanner and answer the question if the alleged favouritism within the industry had something to try to with Sushant’s death under alleged depression?  
  7. It’ll additionally build it clear whether or not geographic area police were doing the investigation in right earnest or were attempting to scuttle the case struggling since the day, as alleged by Sushant’s family?  
  8. Finally, honest probe ought to guarantee justice to Sushant, his family, and his admirers if there was immorality so behind his death? And it’ll additionally offer justice to Rhea Chakraborty if she had no role to play some within the unfortunate incident. 

The Mumbai police began to put in all efforts to find out the truth only after an FIR was filed by Sushant Singh Rajput’s father K.K Singh in Bihar. The Mumbai police then put their nose to the grindstone to find out all angles of the reason for Sushant’s death. 

Role of Mumbai Police: Mumbai police, in this case, had the power to act under section 174 of CRPC. The police also said that all the instances and the pieces of evidence clearly stated that his death was suicide, and also there was no accused person, and hence there was no need for an FIR.

They started an investigation after his death and concluded that Sushant’s death was a suicide. The police state that the postmortem report was submitted at the Bandra police station. The deputy commissioner of Mumbai, on 22nd June 2020, said that the cause of his death was asphyxia due to hanging. The final post mortem was submitted on 25th June, which confirmed that Sushant’s death was due to hanging. And on 3rd August, police commissioner of Mumbai; Param Bir Singh said that the investigations of the death of Sushant and his ex-manager Disha Salian were not connected to each other.

Mumbai police also claimed that Sushant initially tried to hang himself with the help of a belt, but when that did not work out, he used a green kurta. They also said that due to the discrepancy of Sushant’s height and the distance between him and the fan, Sushant hanged himself in an inclined position.

On 3rd August, the police commissioner of Mumbai stated that there was no direct transfer of money from Sushant’s bank account to Rhea and there was no misappropriation of his funds. The police had investigated 56 people until 4th August.

Initially, the Mumbai police said the CCTV of Sushant’s home was not working on that day but on 3rd August; they stated that they had access to his CCTV footage and according to the recording there was no party at his house a day before his death.

Soon after the Mumbai police began investigating, there was news regarding K.K Singh, Sushant Singh Rajput’s father had filed an FIR against Rhea Chakraborty in Bihar

On July 25th, Sushant Singh Rajput’s 74 years old father, Krishna Kishore Singh, lodged an FIR in Rajiv Nagar Police Station, Patna, against Rhea Chakraborty, Rhea’s mother, Sandhya Chakraborty, father, Indrajit Chakraborty, brother Showik, house manager Samuel Miranda and business manager Shruthi Modi on the grounds of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code – abetment of suicide.  The charges mentioned in the FIR also include:

  1. Section 306 – abetment of suicide
  2. Section 341 – punishment for wrongful restraint
  3.  Section 342 – punishment for wrongful confinement
  4. Section 380 – theft in a dwelling house 
  5. Section 406 – punishment for criminal breach of trust 
  6. Section 420 – cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

Mr KK Singh has also invoked provisions of the Mental Health Care Act alleging that the ‘machinations’ used by Rhea and her family led to Sushant Singh Rajput’s suicide.

Mr Singh had also claimed that Rhea Chakraborty was handling Sushant’s bank accounts and when the balances were dropping low, she had left with cash, jewellery, laptop, credit card, its PIN and password and essential documents and doctors’ receipts. The FIR also claimed that Rs 15 Crores were siphoned off from Sushant’s account into accounts of unknown persons.

He claimed that Sushant was also threatened by Rhea to show doctor’s receipts to the media to prove him mad, as a result of which he would not get any further work.

Mr KK Singh has alleged that Rhea Chakraborty had only befriended Sushant to further her own career using his contacts and that her parents helped her “purloin the assets of my son worth crores of rupees and started interfering in all aspects of his life.”

He also alleged in the FIR that Rhea convinced Sushant to leave is own residence claiming that his house was haunted.

Mr Singh goes on to allege that Rhea blackmailed Sushant and threatened to make his medical record public due to which Sushant almost gave up his cinema career to settle down in Coorg.



Following the FIR, a team of 4 from the Bihar police reached Mumbai for starting an investigation of the case on the same day and on 31st July, the Enforcement Directorate filed an Enforcement Case Information Report against Rhea Chakraborty under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

When the Bihar Police team landed in Mumbai, Patna Central Superintendent of Police, Mr Vinay Tiwari was sent to quarantine till the 15th of August in compliance with the State Guidelines of quarantining all domestic flyers. The Bihar police team had, however, collected statements of Sushant’s ex-girlfriend, Ankita Lokhande, his sister, his cook and his friends and colleagues. The team also applied to the Crime Branch to seek assistance from the Mumbai police in collecting information regarding Sushant’s financial accounts. The investigation from both the states together led to a tussle, thereby resulting in controversies regarding elections political moves.

However, on 29th July, Rhea Chakraborty moved the Supreme Court seeking the transfer of the FIR from Bihar to Mumbai because no action of the case had arisen in Bihar; therefore Bihar does not hold jurisdiction to probe the matter. Instead, the Mumbai police should be investigating. Until the plea was decided, Nitish Kumar, Chief Minister of Bihar, on public pressure, recommended CBI investigation into the matter. On August 19th, the Supreme Court pronounced the verdict and transferred the case to the CBI and validated the FIR that was filed in Bihar.

CBI had taken over the probe on 7th August after the centre had issued a notice after the Bihar government’s recommendation. Then CBI had re-registered the case against Sushant’s girlfriend Rhea, her mother, father, brother, Sushant’s ex-manager and his flat-mate and others based on the complaint made by Sushant’s father earlier with Bihar police on 25th July. 

On 19th August, the supreme court of India allowed CBI to probe into Sushant Singh Rajput’s death.

The CBI investigation was allowed by the SC due to the following reasons:

  1. Mumbai police had not investigated the case in a bonafide manner

The court had observed that the police was investigating the case under section 174 of CRPC, which has a limited scope, and hence no proper investigation could be done. 

  1. Patna police had the jurisdiction to investigate the case

The FIR lodged by Bihar police was valid and was considered to be crucial for the case it was considered necessary to look into the matter. Sushant’s father had filed a complaint based on criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of money, and therefore, the incident’s consequences would arise in Patna too.

  1. An independent organisation’s investigation necessary to avoid conflict between the two states

The court had observed that there were conflicts between the governments of both the states, and a lot of allegations were made that the Mumbai police did not do an excellent job in investigating the case.

The judgment said that both the states were making allegations that there was political interference into the matter, and the validity of the investigation was in question. 

  1. Justice for Rhea and Sushant’s family

The court also was in the opinion that the actor had died long before the world could realise his full potential. And the court added that Rhea herself wanted CBI investigation.

  1. To avoid uncertainty due to multiple investigations

The court said that one organisation should be in charge of investigating to avoid confusion about the case.

The court had denied Rhea’s request to transfer the investigation to Mumbai police stating that the provision 406 of CRPC does not grant the power to the supreme court to transfer investigation from one state to another when the matter is only at the investigation stage.

CBI had divided its team into three parts to investigate the matter. The main interrogation and investigation of the accused and other people involved in the matter will be done by the team led by Nupur Prasad (superintendent of police). The deputy Inspector general (DIG) Suvej Haq will be in charge of coordinating with Mumbai police in collecting all the documents regarding the case.

Since the CBI probe has begun, various pieces of evidence have appeared in the open convincing people of murder. The case has highlighted call records, text messages, drug traces, political links, Bollywood Mafia and several other matters. If the world ever knows the truth behind the case, then it could be very detrimental for some of the most influential people of the country. Terror links have also been traced, and the entire film industry has been put under the spotlight through the entire investigation. Remarks about Rhea’s character, her family and her career have also been made by the media channels to create bias.

However, the legal justice system does not depend on such remarks and works on a proof. Several questions need to be answered. 

  1. Why was no action taken once Rajput’s family had alerted in Feb. that his life might be in danger?  
  2. What came of the probe in Rajput’s former manager, Disha Salian’s, case who died six days before Sushant underneath mysterious circumstances?  
  3. Why is not anyone talking and concerning the missing CCTV footage, the duplicate keys, and therefore the fifty SIM cards?  
  4. Are Rajput’s friend Siddharth Pithani‘s statements inconsistent with the menage staff’s?  
  5. How did Rhea manage to rent the foremost costly professional person to assist her case?  
  6. Did Rhea resist Bihar Police’s involvement, and was geographical region government against the CBI probe?  
  7. Why is that the IPS officer sent from Bihar unbroken in quarantine?  
  8. Is there political involvement within the case on the far side mere suspicion?  
  9. Why was it declared an ‘open and shut’ suicide case inside minutes of Sushant Singh Rajput’s body was found?  
  10. Why are details of Sushant Singh Rajput’s medical and treatment reports accessible within the public domains? 
  11. Did Sushant Singh Rajput have mental health issues? 
  12. Was there a party the night before Sushant took his life? 
  13. Was Aditya Thackeray ever at the alleged party? 
  14. Did Salman Khan scold Sushant for ‘misbehaving’ with Sooraj at a party? 
  15. What happened to all the ‘nepotism’ and ‘Bollywood mafia’ debates? 
  16. Why were big Bollywood names dragged into the investigation in the first place? 
  17. Did Rhea Chakraborty take Rs 15 crore of Sushant Singh Rajput’s money? 
  18. Did Sushant’s relationship with his family turn sour over the years? 
  19. Did Steve Huff speak to Sushant Singh Rajput’s spirit, or was it a sham? 

A stricter probe and continuous questioning are what is required. India has seen sudden deaths of actors like Jiya Khan and Sridevi as well. They remained mysteries for the nation too. Commenting on Sushant’s death, Jiya Khan’s mother has tweeted in support for the CBI probe claiming that she is absolutely sure that politics and the Bollywood mafia are involved in the death of Sushant as they were in the death of her innocent daughter. She believes there are people so influential in the industry that cannot tolerate such competition and threaten innocent people to give in to the apparent filthy politics. Unlike Jiya and Sridevi’s case, the country today, especially with the help of the media, strives to find the truth behind Sushant’s death. 

The certainty of an answer in the coming times is mild, but there is hope to find out if what actress Kangana claims to be the game of the Bollywood Mafia is in fact true. The social media attention on the case has definitely led our forces to fight this one out and bring justice to who deserves it. 

Allahabad HC orders Dr Kafeel Khan’s release, sets aside detention order under NSA

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday dropped charges under National Security Act against Dr Kafeel Khan, the pediatrician directing his immediate release. Dr Kafeel Khan has been incarcerated in Mathura jail for the last six months. 

The HC bench comprising Chief Justice Govind Marhur and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh cancelled his detention in a habeaus corpus petition filed by a Kafeel’s mother. The Uttar Pradesh government had earlier extended his detention by three months till November 13.

In its last hearing, the HC bench adjourned the matter as parties prayed to file additional documents and the court wanted to pursue original records of the proceedings under the NSA, resulting in the detention of Khan and further extension of the same.

According to the plea, Khan was earlier granted bail by a court and he was supposed to be released. However, the NSA was imposed against him. Hence, his detention was illegal, the plea said.

Under the NSA, people can be detained without a charge for up to 12 months if authorities are satisfied that they are a threat to the national security or law and order. Khan is currently lodged in a Mathura jail.

The Gorakhpur doctor was arrested on January 29 by Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force (STF) for an alleged provocative speech against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) at Aligarh Muslim University in December 2019.

Supreme Court fines Advocate Prashant Bhushan with Rs 1

After finding Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of Court for his tweets on the Judiciary, the Supreme Court Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari finally sentenced him on August 31st, 2020 to a token fine of Rs. 1. The Bench also stated that if Advocate Prashant Bhushan defaults on this payment then he may be sent to prison for three months and may be debarred from practicing for three years.

The Court had given several opportunities to the Advocate to express his regret and apologise. However, Bhushan had issued a supplementary statement standing by his tweets and refusing to apologise. The Court also pointed out that Bhushan had given publicity to the events of his case by involving the press in it. That being said, the Court added that its decisions are not to be influenced by publication of opinions in the press.

Source: Bar and Bench

National Online Quiz Competition on Constitutional Law and IPC: Organised by Team Attorneylex and Legal Monkey

About Team Attorneylex

Team Attorneylex is a newly developed organization that is devoted to the law students of the country. Our primary purpose is to guide the law students in their legal research, content writing, analysing the case laws, read or understand the courts’ judgments, etc. because we believe that these things are an essential part of the legal profession.

About Legal Monkey

Legal Monkey was founded by two young engineers in the year 2019, Legal Monkey was born to provide business solutions, Consultation, Conceputed Education With Legal Advice. Our aim is very clear to spread legal literacy and develop more entrepreneurs in India.

Our key concept is to provide the easiest business solutions & consultation to new startups and Existing companies to grow rapidly.

We have an Educated and professional legal & financial advising team that help each and every individual & client on our key concept.

About the National Online Quiz Competition

Team Attorneylex is organizing its First Online National Quiz Competition on Constitutional Law and IPC scheduled to be held on 5th September 2020.

Eligibility

Team Attorneylex looks forward to participation from school students, law aspirants, students pursuing 5-year law and 3-years law, and LLM courses. Professionals from the legal fraternity are also invited to participate in the Quiz.

Important Dates & Timing

  • Last date for registration: 4th September 2020, 11:59 PM
  • Competition Date: 5th September 2020, 05:00 PM
  • Declaration of Results: 7th September

Venue – Online (Google forms)

Details

  • The quiz competition is not a team-based competition, and thus, each student shall participate individually.
  • The Quiz shall consist of Constitutional law and IPC questions, including significant/landmark judgments.
  • It shall consist of 50 MCQs.
  • The total time limit for the Quiz is 25 minutes
  • Every question carries one mark, and there will be no negative marking.
  • In the case of a tie, Time will be considered (Person who submits early will be given preference).

Registration Fees

Rs. 20/- per participant.

Payments details

Paytm/ G-pay/Phonepe- 9616696008 (Gaurav yadav)
Paytm UPI- 9616696008@paytm
Bhim UPI- 9616696008@upi

Bank details-

Name- Gaurav Yadav
Bank – Oriental Bank of Commerce
Account Number- 03842193000248
IFSC Code- ORBC0100394

Registration Link

Interested candidates can fill the registration form – Click here

or, https://forms.gle/GREHkf1YZUcFmmnbA

General Rules

  • The registered candidates will be added to a WhatsApp group for updates.
  • The Quiz results will be declared on the social media platforms of the Team Attorneylex and the Website of Team Attorneylex.
  • Team Attorneylex will not be responsible for any technical error in paying the registration fee for the quiz competition or any connectivity/device failure during the Quiz.
  • The results declared would be final and the authority vests with Team Attorneylex to change or modify the same.

Perks

  • 1st Position: cash prize Rs. 250/- + certificate of Excellence + Article publication on the website + Online Internship opportunity with the Team Attorneylex.
  • 2nd Position: cash prize Rs. 150/- + certificate of Excellence + Article publication on the website + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
  • 3rd Position: cash prize Rs. 100/- + certificate of Excellence + Article publication on the website.
  • Certificate of merit to top 20 performers.
  • E – participation Certificate will be provided to all the participants.

If you have any queries feel free to contact

Vanshika – 07055460463
Gaurav -09616696008

Emailcontact@teamattorneylex.in

Website:

teamattorneylex.in

legalmonkey.in

Hadiya Marriage Case

           

Facts:-

The petitioner (father )filed a case on the ground that Hadiya (originally Akhila Ashokan) was deceived into marrying her husband, Mr. Shafin Jahan and forcibly converted to Islam. I.e, He alleged that Hadiya had been misled and forced to become a Muslim.

Question of law:- 

  • Does the High Court have the power to annul the marriage of an adult under Article 226?
  • Does marriage being the most crucial decision of life, can be taken only with the active involvement of her parents, and no legal adult consent is necessary?

Held:- 

  • The writ of habeas corpus is ‘a great constitutional privilege’ or ‘the first security of civil liberty.’ It is a remedy against illegal detention, which affects the liberty and freedom of the detainee. In this case, the High Court misused the habeas corpus. When Hadiya appeared before the High Court, she stated that she was not under illegal confinement. The High Court has no power to decide the ‘just’ way of life or ‘correct’ course of living for Hadiya. 
  • Parens patriae is the power of the State to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent or guardian. The State acts as the parent of such an individual. The courts can invoke this role only in exceptional cases where the individual is either mentally incompetent, underage, or has either no parent/legal guardian or abusive one.
  •  The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21. The High Court was wrong in using its powers under Article 226 to annul Hadiya’s marriage with Shafin Jahan.

Submitted By: Priya Singh

https://lawmentor.in/2022/03/13/hadiya-marriage-case/

BHRC Issues Statement Raising Concerns Regarding Conviction of Adv. Prashant Bhushan

Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales, working on challenging human rights violations, protecting lawyers, judges, social rights activists, and journalists, etc., on the 19th of August raised concerns over the Supreme Court’s judgment convicting Advocate Prashant Bhushan of contempt of court over his two tweets. BHRC has issued a statement saying the August 14th Supreme Court judgement delivered by Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari should go through a review process and until the review process is completed Mr Bhushan’s sentencing shall stay.

BHRC has also included in the statement that the Supreme Court, in concluding Mr. Bhushan’s tweets as ‘scurrilous’ and ‘malicious’, “did not hold in contemplation that lawyers are entitled to, and should have, the freedom to voice publicly legitimate criticism of how justice is administered.” The Committee has also urged to abolish Section 2(c)(i) speaking of criminal contempt of court.

Source: Bar and Bench

Writ petition filed in SC challenges MHA Notification, UGC guidelines calling for conduction of final terms exams.

The plea prays for the promotion of students based on the performance in the previous semester by aggregation of scores instead of mandatorily having students take exams.

Writ Petition was filed by the Yash Dubey through Raj K. Verma, Advocate on record, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Petitioner is a Final Year law student of Creer College of Law, Barkatullah University, Bhopal, and also circle head (student wing) of Youth Bar Association of India. 

Earlier the Petitioner on 10.07.2020, had moved a letter petition seeking suo-moto cognizance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the issue of compulsory conduct of examination for final year students, in view of the notification dated 06.07.2020 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (hereinafter referred to as ‘MHA’). 

The undersigned has challenged the compulsory conduct of examination of the final year students, inter alia on the following grounds –

  • That the present model of conduct of online examination will give rise to an elitist culture where the advantage will go to the rich, who have access to online facilities and also to those institutions which are privileged to provide online facilities and online teaching;
  • That it is baffling to note that just one semester of the examination will be determinative of the integrity and value of a degree for which students worked hard for six to ten semesters, as the case may be and have also appeared for internal examinations for the sixth or tenth semester.
  • That the issue in the present matter is similar to the matter of Amit Bathla v. Central Board of School Education 2020 SCC Online 537, wherein the issue concerning the conduct of examination of Class X and XII of CBSE and ICSE was involved;
  • That the Revised Guidelines are in sheer violation of the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India, as it fails to consider the principles of health, safety, fair and equal opportunity for the students;
  • That in view of unprecedented health emergency and rising numbers of the Covid-19 cases in the country, the conduct of examination (either online/offline/blended) will expose the examinees to high risk and will undeniably sacrifice the basic principle of integrity by neglecting equal basis and treatment to all examinees;
  • That the conduct of offline exams will entail students (who have already traveled to their hometown) to migrate from one place to another, in order to attend the examination. This will also involve the risk of staying in shared accommodation as various colleges and hostels have been converted into quarantine centers;
  • That issuance of provisional degree for the final year students is the need of the hour and the repeated insistence on the conduction of final year examination in the current circumstances is practically impossible and is altogether a discriminatory process, in. That insistence on the conduct of examination and non-issuance of provisional degree will jeopardize the future of students in their final year.
  • That while India has already crossed the tally of 10.38 lakh and while the number of states is bringing back lockdown of various types, the deadline of September 2020 for the conduct of examination is unattainable and if the virus continues to spread, no university/college administration will be in a position to announce examinations and the students will continue to be in limbo about their future.
  • That it will be unjust to neglect the problems that will be faced by thousands of students, who will sit for the online examination as the same will indubitably work against the interest of students whose access to the internet is precarious and who do not have personal computers or laptops in their house, which are imperative to conduct online examination;
  • That in view of the COVID induced lockdown, many parents have undergone substantial pay cuts and even layoffs and in light of the same, it will be extremely difficult for a large section of the students to pay their examination fee or to bear the stay and travel expenses to the source where the examination will be conducted;
  • That the suggested model of conduction of compulsory examination takes the students backward rather than forward. It effectively brings in the second phase of postponement of examination, which creates a cloud of uncertainty for the states like Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chattisgarh, Punjab and West Bengal, which already decided to cancel examination;
  • That it is most humbly submitted that the Revised Guidelines not only provides for a model which is extremely dangerous for the lives of thousands of attendees (students of final-year/semester cohorts) but at the same time it is extremely dangerous for the Professor’s who will be invigilating the exams;
  • That it is relevant to note that the UGC has cited examples of top-ranking Universities such as MIT, Cambridge for conduction of examination during the Covid-19 Pandemic. However, by doing so, the UGC has totally neglected the unprecedented difficulties that our country is facing in times of pandemic. To say the least, in these testing days, a section of our society is not able to arrange bread and butter for a day. Therefore, given the current difficulties that our country is facing, it is quite unrealistic to justify the reasoning of the conduction of virtual examination by relying on examples of the premier institutions of the world. 

The Petitioner has sought the following prayer: 

  • Issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the notification dated 06.07.2020 issued by MHA and subsequently the Revised UGC Guidelines dated 06.07.2020; and
  • Issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to provide for an alternative mode of assessment of the final year students, in the wake of Corona Virus disease outbreak (‘Covid-19); and
  • Issue a writ of Mandamus, or any appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No. 2 to call upon universities to submit a set of parameters for evaluation of the students based on students past performance and accordingly award provisional degrees to the students; 
  • Issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents to promote the students based on the performance in the previous semesters by taking an aggregate score for all the semesters and extrapolating them to calculate the marks for the final semester.

Source: Team Attorneylex

Permit advocates to take up alternative works, plea filed in the Supreme Court

A plea has been filed with the supreme court of India by a practising lawyer and Senior standing counsel to the Income-tax department, Charanjeet Chanderpal.
It seeks issuance of directions to the bar council of India till march 2021 so that other paralegal work can be taken up to earn the livelihood amid the pandemic and allow other ways of sustenance.
The plea says that the rules and regulations should be changed so that lawyers from middle and lower-middle-class can sustain themselves.
The plea highlights that instead of providing 3000,5000 to the advocates for sustaining themselves in the short term, a long term solution has to be provided.
It also highlights the loss of income that have been faced by the advocates in the pandemic during the lockdown which resulted in many reports of suicides, depression and inability to sustain. So it is requested in the plea to alter the rules and regulations in the advocate’s act,1961.

Source: Live Law