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.
The Pakistani-origin Canadian businessman was declared a fugitive by India for his involvement in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack.
A U.S. court has rejected the USD 1.5 million bail application of Pakistani-origin Canadian businessman Tahawwur Rana, who has been declared a fugitive by India for his involvement in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack case, describing him a flight risk. Rana, 59, a childhood friend of David Coleman Headley, was re-arrested on June 10 in Los Angeles on an extradition request by India for his involvement in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack in which 166 people, including six Americans, were killed.
Describing Rana as a flight risk, the US government opposed his release on bail, arguing that if he were to flee to Canada, he might escape the possibility of a death sentence in India. Given the stakes, an allowance of bail in any amount would not guarantee Rana’s presence in court. Granting bail would invite the possibility of embarrassing the United States in the conduct of its foreign affairs, straining its relationship with India, Assistant US Attorney John J Lulejian had told the court. On the other hand, Rana’s attorney told the court that he is not a flight risk and has proposed a USD 1.5 million bond for his release. Rana, in his defence, has argued that the US’ decision not to extradite his co-conspirator, Headley, to India is inconsistent and bars his extradition. While Rana has presented a robust bail package and proffered conditions which significantly mitigate the risk of flight, the court cannot find that he has negated the risk of flight and accordingly grants the Detention Request (of the government) on that basis, Judge Chooljian said.
For someone facing conspiracy to murder and murder charges in India, the incentive to flee to avoid extradition is strong, the court said.
If he flees to Canada, he could effectively avoid exposure to the death penalty as such country’s extradition treaty with India contains a provision which allows extradition to be refused if the offence for which extradition is requested is punishable by death in India and is not punishable by death in Canada unless India gives assurances that a death penalty would not be executed, federal prosecutors had said. “There is no question in the court’s mind that given Rana’s significant foreign ties, particularly to Canada, and the potential death penalty awaiting him in India if he is extradited on and convicted of the most serious pending charges, he is a flight risk,” the court said.
According to the federal prosecutors, between 2006 and November 2008, Rana conspired with Headley, also known as “Daood Gilani, and others in Pakistan to assist Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Harakat ul-Jihad-e-Islami, both US-designated terrorist organisations, to plan and carry out the Mumbai terrorist attacks. Pakistani-American LeT terrorist Headley was involved in plotting the 2008 Mumbai terror attack. He was made an approver in the case and is currently serving a 35-year prison term in the US for his role in the attack. India seeks his arrest on several offences, including the conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit forgery for the purpose of cheating, and murder under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He is sought for his role in the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The 2008 Mumbai attack was one of India’s most horrific terrorist attacks in which 166 people were killed, and over 300 injured as ten heavily-armed terrorists from Pakistan created mayhem.
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.
The Allahabad High Court has overturned a 37-year-old conviction under dacoity of three persons from Kanpur Dehat on the grounds that in the absence of involvement of five or more persons, no sentence should be made out under clauses of dacoity.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery overruled the judgment of a special court (dacoity) judge made on March 11, 1983, in Kanpur Dehat district.
“The appellants are acquitted of the charges and are hereby ordered to be set at liberty forthwith,” the court said.
The three had filed an appeal against their conviction under Sections 395 (dacoity) and 397 (dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt). While Balbir and Mohar Pal alias Chhakauri were awarded five-year rigorous imprisonment, Lala Ram (who was charged under Sections 395 and 397) was given a seven-year term. They had been out on bail.
Counsel for the accused cited the Supreme Court’s decisions in Raj Kumar alias Raju vs. State of Uttaranchal (Now Uttarakhand), 2008, and Manmeet Singh alias Goldie vs State of Punjab, 2015, cases to argue that the trial court erroneously convicted the three men under dacoity.
“…it is clear that in case there is a conviction of less than five persons under Sections 395/ 397 IPC, Trial Court must arrive at a finding that there was the involvement of five or more persons,” the High Court observed.
In the absence of such finding no conviction could be made out under aforesaid sections, it noted.
It agreed with the argument of counsel for the convicted men Pranvesh that the trial court did not record any such finding. The trial court judgement simply mentioned that “three accused, facing trial before me, were also along with dacoits who committed dacoity in the house of Raj Kumar,” the High Court said quoting the lower court judgement.
“In my opinion, the above-mentioned finding is not sufficient to conclude that five or more persons were involved in the offence and not sufficient to convict appellants, who are three in numbers under the offence of dacoity,” Justice Shamshery noted.
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on the intervening night of June 26 and 27, 1981, when the three accused, along with four others committed dacoity in three houses in village Badra Majra Bakauthia under Kakwan area of Kanpur Dehat. At 11 p.m. that day, four dacoits jumped into the courtyard of one Raj Kumar and opened the door, which allowed six other dacoits to enter inside. They started beating the inmates and looted the belongings of the resident, who ran away. The dacoits then looted the houses of Ochhey Lal and Ganga Ram in the same village. They also used a firearm in the course of dacoity.
As per the prosecution version, the witnesses saw the features of known dacoits in the light of lantern, torches and burning straw and recognized Balbir, Mohar Pal and Lala Ram.
A letter petition has been sent to the CJI, stating that the Government order directing Universities to compulsorily conduct the examination of final year students is in “sheer violation of the fundamental enshrined in the Constitution of India, as it fails to consider the principles of health, safety, fairness, and opportunity for the students.
The representation has been made by Yash Dubey, a final year law student at the Bhopal University, also the Circle Head at the Youth Bar Association of India (Student Wing). He has urged the Apex Court to take suo-moto of the issue and to put the Academic Calendar for the Universities “in abeyance,” till the situation of Covid-19 normalizes.
Dubey has challenged the compulsory conduct of examination of the final year students, inter alia, on the following grounds:
• 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;
• In view of rising numbers of the Covid-19 cases in the country, the conduct of examination (either online/offline/blended) will expose both the examiners and examinees to great health risks:
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;
• It will be absolutely 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;
He has, therefore, urged the Sc to take steps for the formulation of an ” alternative system of evaluation”, so as to do complete, equal, and fair justice to the students and to exclude the possibility of discrimination, disadvantage, and risk of life.
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the appeals by members of the erstwhile Travancore royal family in the case of the management of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy temple in Thiruvananthapuram.
It said that the District Judge of Thiruvananthapuram would head the administrative committee to manage the affairs of the Temple.
Noting that the family’s role will continue despite the death of the head, the apex court said that the scheme given by the District judge would continue.
Shebaitship of the erstwhile Travancore royals survives on the death of the ruler as per custom, the Court said, adding that the death of ruler does not result in escheat in favor of government despite 26th Amendment of the Constitution.
The Chhattisgarh High Court and the State Legal Services Authority organized the country’s first-ever e-Lok Adalat on Saturday, amid the restricted judicial functioning owing to Covid-19 outbreak.
The session was inaugurated by the Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court, Justice P R Ramachandra Menon. The e-Lok Adalat is cited as the first such attempt in the country.
About 195 benches were constituted at different places of the state, including remote areas like Sarguja, Kanker, Bastar, Surajpur, etc. via video conferencing, and 3135 cases were identified for compromise 2270 cases were settled in a single day through virtual mode.
The inaugural ceremony was presided over by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Executive Chairman of SLSA, Chhattisgarh. High Court judges Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastav (Chairman computerization committee) and Goutam Bhaduri(Chairman of HCLSC) were also present during the ceremony.
The e-Lok Adalat was held with the joint efforts of Mr. Shahabuddin Qureshi CPC, High court, Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Member secretary, SLSA, and the entire team of DLSAs across Chhattisgarh.
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.
Supreme court has decided today to hear the plea on June 29 of the foreign nationals who were blacklisted by the Indian government. The Thai women have challenged the order that came on April 2 and June 4. According to it, the Government blacklisted 2500 foreign nationals from 35 countries because they were alleged to be involved in Tablighi jamaat activities. The bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari will hear the plea. The foreign nationals argue that they have not been given a chance to be heard at any place and have been blacklisted. This has infringed their right of locomotion and they are unable to go back to their place of nationality. In addition to it, the petitioners say it has resulted in the violation of article 21 (protection of life and liberty) of the Constitution.
The Delhi High Court on Monday 22nd June 2020 stayed the proceedings filed by Delhi Government contending that Ganga Ram Hospital is not obeying the standards provided for the Pandemic COVID’19. The proceedings were kept up by a single bench Justice Hari Shankar against the Hospital.
In retrieval, Ganga Ram Hospital has moved a plea stressing the quashing of the FIR against the Hospital which was filed by the Health Department of Delhi Government for the infringement of Epidemic Diseases COVID19 Regulations 2020. The FIR certainly asserted that the Hospital is being violative in attending the Epidemic Diseases COVID19 Regulations 2020 and not attending the standards of using the RT-PCR for testing data as provided under the regulatory act. The petition by Ganga Ram Hospital asserted that the Hospital including the Petitioner Hospital is the nerve of the healthcare system and is frequently referred to as the “front-line COVID warriors” in the face of Pandemic COVID19.
