Author: kkslawoffices

The Supreme Court (SC) dismissed a batch of Public Interest Litigations that sought the adoption of gender neutral and religion neutral legislations in matters regarding the divorce, adoption, guardianship, inheritance and maintenance rules across the country. The SC refused to grant relief to the petitioners and stated “The grant of relief in these proceedings would necessitate a direction for the enactment of law. This lies exclusively within the domain of the legislature. It is a well settled position that a mandamus cannot be issued to legislative to enact law.”

The Bombay High Court (BHC), in a review petition, quashed the order of a Sessions Court, which awarded maintenance to the wife in a complaint initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DVA) despite observing that there was no domestic violence involved in the matter, and treating the matter as if it was an application under Sec. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). The BHC further stated that the refusal and neglect to maintain a wife cannot be tested under the DVA and an application under Sec. 125 of the CrPC must be filed.

The Supreme Court (“SC”) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the provisions of the Conduct of Electoral Rules, 1961, that mandates MLAs and MPs to show the ballot paper to a polling agent of a political party in the polls for Rajya Sabha and State Legislative Councils to make their vote valid, as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The SC dismissing the plea stated that the provisions are not per se discriminatory and an open ballot is needed to prevent cross voting and maintain party discipline.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI), imposing a penalty of Rs. 1337.76 crore on Google LLC for abusing its dominant position in the market for licensable smart mobile Operating Systems (OS). The NCLAT stated that the investigation conducted by the CCI was not violative of the principles of natural justice, as contended by Google, and confirmed its anti-competitive behaviour. However, the NCLAT set aside certain directions issued by CCI against Google, to ensure that it altered its conduct to make the market more competitive.

The Supreme Court (SC), dealing with the issue of what should be the parameters available to the Caste Scrutiny Committee (CSC) for verification of caste certificate held that the Affinity Test, used to ascertain whether a person follows the traditional cultural traits of a community, cannot be a litmus test and must only be used as a corroborative exercise. The SC further said that CSC ought to be given some discretion to accept or reject the caste certificates and primary importance must be given to the documentary evidence as is evident from the scheme of relevant statutes and rules.

The Supreme Court (SC), overruling its earlier judgement, that mere membership of unlawful organisation will not amount to an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), upheld the validity of Sec. 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, which makes the membership of an unlawful association an offence, saying it is absolutely in consonance with Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court (SC), dealing with the issue of whether the order passed by the Armed Force Tribunal (AFT) would be amenable to challenge in writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution before any High Court (HC), said that it is unable to appreciate its earlier observations which put an embargo on the HC’s writ jurisdiction. Therefore, relying on the principle that HC could grant appropriate relief when “the said proceedings resulted in denial of fundamental rights….., or if the proceedings suffer from jurisdictional error or an error of law……” the SC made the AFT orders subject to Art. 226.

The Centre’s plea before Delhi High Court The Central Government, in response to a Public Interest Litigation against the notification declaring married men and women ineligible for recruitment of the post of Judge Advocate General (JAG), before the Delhi High Court, clarified that the restriction is only limited for the period of recruitment and pre-commissioned training and is necessary because the same involves high amount of physical & mental stress, strain & rigours. Further, once the training is complete and commission granted, there is no bar from getting married.

The Italian Competition Authority (‘AGCM’) launched an investigation against TikTok Technology Limited, an Irish company, for violating its rules. The main concern of AGCM is that there is publication of dangerous content which could incite self-harm in its users. The ACGM launching the investigation said “adequate systems to supervise the content published by third parties are lacking.”