Legal Updates

 ·       The Bombay High Court in the matter of Kunal Kamra v. Union of India & Connected Matters., has held the proposed Fact Check Unit under the 2023 amendment to the Information & Technology Rules 2021 directly infringed fundamental rights provided under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) due to the differential treatment between online and print content.

·       Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of XYZ & ABC v. Union of India has held that reproductive health is a facet of personal liberty under the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

·       The Supreme Court in the matter of Rupashree H. R. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors., has held that the right to defend oneself is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

·       The Madras High Court in the matter of S Gurumoorthi v. State has held that the right to attend the funeral falls under the ambit Article 25 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

·       The Allahabad High Court in the matter of M/S Falguni Steels v. State of U.P. & Ors., has held that the writ of certiorari is not issued as a matter of course, but rather it is granted at the discretion of the Superior Court.

·       The Kerala High Court in the matter of Teresa Mary George v. State of Kerala, has held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) cannot be invoked for the execution of a decree.

·       The Supreme Courtin the matter of Lucknow Nagar Nigam & Ors. v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., has held that the right to property as enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) extends to persons who are not citizens of India.

·       The Supreme Courtin the matter of Velthepu Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) & Anr., has held that common intention under the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) cannot be inferred mechanically merely based on the presence of accused near the scene of offence.

·       The Kerala High Court in the matter of Shine Kumar v. State of Kerala, has allowed the plea of insanity as a defence under the provisions of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

·       The Orissa High Court in the matter of Pata @ Pratap Puri v. State of Odisha, has held that evidence adduced from the microscopic hair comparison cannot be solely used to record a conviction for murder against an accused person.

·       The Supreme Court in the matter of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, has held that the mere fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) would not automatically apply. Therefore, before a presumption under Section 113A of IEA is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard.

·       The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Dhirendra & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr., has held that the mere use of abusive language or being discourteous or rude would not by itself amount to any intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

·       The Calcutta High Court in the matter of Sanjay Biswas v. The State has held that filling up gaps in the prosecution case by invoking Section 53A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) would offend Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

·       The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Swarn Singh @ Baba, has held that the Courts cannot issue processes under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to compel the production of documents based on the application made by the accused at the stage of framing of charges.

·       The Bombay High Court in the matter of Bansilal S. Kabra v. Global Trade Finance Limited & Anr., has held that when a Magistrate is conducting a mandatory inquiry under the provisions of Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) before summoning an accused living beyond jurisdiction, the Magistrate should not solely rely on the allegations in the private complaint.

·       The Supreme Courtin the matter of Shiv Jatia v. Gian Chand Malick & Ors., has held that once the Magistrate has called for the police report under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), then the magistrate couldn’t issue a summon unless the report is submitted by the police.

·       The Karnataka High Court in the matter of Junaid B v. State of Karnataka has held that the minor offence within the provisions of Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) should essentially be a cognate offence of the major offence and not entirely a distinct and different offence constituted by altogether different ingredients.

·       The High Court of Kerala in the matter of Litty Thomas v. State of Kerala, has held that before the Judge proceeds to frame the charge under the provisions of Section 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), he has to form an opinion, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence.

·       The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Sanjay Nagayach v. The State of Madhya Pradesh has held that the surrendering of an accused is not necessary before preferring a criminal revision application under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

·       The Supreme Court in the matter of Souvik Bhattacharya v. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office heard the appeal against the decision of High Court which dismissed the appeal of appellant who voluntarily surrendered.

·       The Supreme Court in the matter of Atamjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., has held that the time-barred nature of an underlying debt in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881(NI Act) is a mixed question of law and fact which ought not to be decided by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

·       The Gauhati High Court in the matter of Sri Rajen Nayak v. The State of Assam & Anr., has held that the accused has a right to remain silent and the burden of proof cannot be shifted upon the accused under the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) when multiple witnesses to the crime were present.

·       The Patna High Court in the matter of Sushil Kumar Choudhary v. The State of Bihar & Ors., has held that the question of exercising discretionary power of granting the benefit of doubt does not arise when the evidence on record is absolutely silent in respect of the role of the accused persons.

·       The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Prahalad Gujar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, has held that the use of criminal force upon the child to outrage her modesty, is indicative of the sexual intention of the accused, thereby constituting an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Act, 2012 (POCSO).

·       The Karnataka High Court in the matter of State of Karnataka v. Prathap, has held that a person convicted under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) cannot avail the benefits under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

·       The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Sanjay Agarwal v. Rahul Agarwal and Ors., has held that the objections under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) are not maintainable in execution proceedings for the enforcement of an arbitration award.

·       The Karnataka High Court in the matter of Shahen @ Hanifa v. Shivakumar Bolishetty & Ors., has held that while considering an application made under Rule 2 of Order III of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), the trial court cannot assess and prejudge the evidence that would be given by the Special Power of Attorney.

·       The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Saurabh Kalani v. Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund & Ors. has held that the rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) will not operate as res judicata on deciding issue of limitation raised at the time of final hearing.

·       The Bombay High Court in the matter of Moti Dinshaw Irani and Anr. v. Phiroze Aspandiar Irani and Ors., has held that if the earlier suit itself was pending and no decree therein had been passed, there would be no question of the provisions of Rule 3A of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

·       The Supreme Court in the matter of Vasantha (Dead) Thr. LR V. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) Thr.Lrs., has held that under the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 (SRA) a suit for declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession.

·       The Karnataka High Court in the matter of ABC v. XYZ, has held that if the husband fails to take the wife back to the matrimonial home in the absence of a stay on the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, then it would be open to the wife to seek interim maintenance for herself.

·       The Karnataka High Court in the matter of M R Mohan Kumar & Others v. NIL, heard about issuance of probate in the case where executor has not been named.

·       The Delhi High Courtin the matter of Ranjana Bhasin v. Surender Singh Sethi & Ors., has held once a party has filed the written statement, it forfeits its right to file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act).