Author: kkslawoffices

The Bombay High Court (BHC), dealing with the question of applicability of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act), has held that the protection under the said Act can’t be limited to States where the community is officially recognised as SC/ST rather it applies nationwide. Even if a community is not recognised as SC/ST in a particular State they will still be entitled to protection against the atrocities under the Act. The BHC observed that interpretation of the term ‘in relation to that State’ used in Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution is for the purpose of affirmative action, and cannot be applied when it comes to preventing the atrocities against the SC/ST.

The Supreme Court (SC), in an appeal filed against the order of Allahabad High Court directing the Magistrate not to proceed on the basis of protest petition, held that, where the police report is accepted and the accused person(s) are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a protest petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report.

The Karnataka High Court (Kar HC), in a petition to set aside the orders passed by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palika and Ministry of Defence not allowing the Petitioners to proceed with construction of a residential building, has held that fundamental right to carry on one’s occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution cannot be restricted by an executive action. The Kar HC further, noted that the right of the owner of a property to obtain sanction for a building plan – “concomitant right of property” – cannot be abridged by an executive fiat like the guidelines relied upon by the Ministry of Defence while refusing to grant No-Objection Certificate to the Petitioner.

The Calcutta High Court (Cal. HC) has issued guidelines to restrict unnecessary arrest of accused by Police Officers (P.O.) and casual & mechanical detention authorisations by the Magistrates. The Cal. HC held that when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered P.O. shall not arrest the persons automatically but must satisfy itself about the necessity for arrest given under the parameters laid down in Section 41 Cr.P.C., especially under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. Further, the Magistrate shall peruse the report furnished by the P.O. and only after recording its satisfaction, he shall authorize detention. Failure to comply with these guidelines will make the P.O. and Magistrate liable for departmental action but also for the contempt of Court.

The Karnataka High Court (Karnataka HC), dismissing a writ for release of funds received from a foreign charity, has held that obtaining a permanent registration under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 does not create a right in favour of the registration holder to get the amounts credited to the designated bank account and it is always subject to the clearance by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The Karnataka HC noted that the MHA had earlier instructed the bank not to credit the amount received from the particular donor without a clearance from it and therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to funds.

The Supreme Court (SC), overruling a judgment of Mad. HC, has held that ‘Self-respect Marriages’ do not require public solemnization or declaration and that marriage certificate issued by an Advocate thereof is valid. ‘Self-respect Marriage’/ Suyamariyathai/Seerthiruththa is a system of marriage based on Section 7A, inserted by Tamil Nadu State Amendment, in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, according to which a Suyamariyathai marriage can be solemnized, without following rituals or without solemnization by a priest, by declaring marriage in the presence of relatives, friends or other persons

The Supreme Court (SC), in an appeal filed by the accused against the order of conviction passed by the Bombay High Court, has held that merely because the complainant suffered simple injuries that does not absolve the accused from being convicted for the offence under Section 307, attempt to murder, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The SC observed that an intention coupled with the overt act committed by the accused is important for conviction under Section 307 IPC. The SC while noting that the accused tried to assault the complainant with Gupti on his head held that such an overt act by the accused would be covered by Section 307 IPC.

The Delhi High Court (DHC) in a Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) petition held that the Courts can partially set aside an Arbitral Award (AA) if the part of the AA is capable of being severed or validly incised from the rest. The DHC noted that the proviso to Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Arbitration Act acknowledges that AA may sometimes be capable of being severed. Further, that such a course, of partially setting aside AAs, is not only confined to the scenarios enumerated in Section 34(2)(a), but also applicable to all scenarios stipulated under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

The Supreme Court (SC) acquitting a death row prisoner reiterated precautions to be exercised while relying on Dying Declaration (DD) of the victims. The SC noted that DD is substantial piece of evidence provided it is proved that it was voluntary, truthful and made in a fit state of mind. On the basis of two DDs, both the Sessions Court and the Allahabad High Court held the accused guilty. However, the SC held that DD alone cannot be relied as there were discrepancies between them and other eye-witness statements.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has issued draft Commitment Regulations, 2023 (Comm. Reg.) for stakeholders’ comments on newly inserted Section 48B of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act). The draft Comm. Reg. gives liberty to an enterprise/commitment applicant against whom an inquiry, under Section 26(1) of the Act, to offer commitments to remedy the market distortion as set out by CCI in its Section 26(1) order. The Application can be filed within 45 days from the receipt of Section 26(1) Order or prior to receipt of DG report under Section 26(4) of the Act, whichever is earlier. Thereafter, the application must be decided within 90 days.