Author: kkslawoffices

The Supreme Court (‘SC’), while hearing bail appeals of 18 convicts on the ground that they have spent more than 7 years in jail yet their appeals against convictions are not listed for regular hearing in the Allahabad High Court (‘AHC’), came down on the AHC and said “If you find it very difficult to do, then we would take the burden. There is problem with both the HC and the State. You cannot put these people behind bars indefinitely.”

The SC in May had asked the AHC, which is at present hearing an appeal made in 1980, to club and decide the pleas of all the one-time offenders who have spent more than 10 years in jail and grant them bail.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court (‘HC’), in a writ filed on behalf of a child who was asked to withdraw his name from school because he suffered from Down Syndrome, upheld the right of special children.

The HC observed that right to elementary education & right to grow up in the society up to their optimum potential is a Fundamental Right, under Article 21-A, of every child and held “The State is thus duty bound to ensure that education of such children is not prematurely interrupted and that adequate facilities are made available to them as well as to the schools in accordance with the statutory provisions.”

The Bombay High Court (‘HC’), in an application filed under Section 482 CrPC, 1973, which talks about inherent power of the HC, quashed criminal proceedings against applicants who were independent Non-Executive directors of a company.

Relying on Section 149(6) (9) and (12) of the Companies Act, 2013 the HC held that “Non-executive director not being a promoter of or key managerial persons shall be held liable, only in respect of such acts of omission or commission by a company which had occurred with his knowledge, attributable through Board processes, and with his consent or connivance or where he had not acted diligently.”

The division bench of Bombay High Court (‘HC’), in a reference made to it, relying on Article 14 of the Constitution, observed that any protection available to any person under the law is available also to a child as defined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act’).

The HC stating “When a child in conflict with law is apprehended, his liberty is curtailed. Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. affords a valuable right to a person, who is likely to be arrested or in other words, whose liberty is likely to be curtailed. Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. does not make any distinction between different persons” held that a child in conflict with law, under JJ Act, can file an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, 1973.

The Central Government, to replace the 155-year-old ‘Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867’, is planning to introduce a new ‘Press and Registration of Periodicals Bill, 2022’ in the monsoon session.

The bill is aimed to make the procedures of the existing Act simple from the view point of medium/small publishers and uphold the values of press freedom. The bill will also setup a press registrar general and bring digital media under its ambit.

On Central Government’s (‘Centre’) request, as the Centre had sought inputs from various departments and ministries on the issue, the Supreme Court, in a petition filed for making comprehensive well-defined laws/rules ensuring adherence to Fundamental Duties under Part IV-A of the Constitution, has given the Centre 2 months’ time to reply.

Consumer Commission, Gondia, Maharashtra, observing that “financial loss due to misleading advertisement is biding upon website companies”, directed Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd and Meta Platforms, Ind. to pay Rs. 25000 as compensation to a Facebook user. The user had purchased a pair of shoes for Rs. 599 on Facebook but the same was not delivered to him.

The Supreme Court, remanding a matter back to Patna High Court (‘HC’), observed that “The anguish expressed by the Division Bench about the brazen action of the appellant of absconding and defeating the administration of justice can be well understood. However, that is no ground to dismiss an appeal against conviction, which was already admitted for final hearing, for non-prosecution without adverting to merits.”

The HC had dismissed an appeal filed under Section 374, which deals with appeals from conviction, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused, on the sole ground of absconding.

The Supreme Court, in an appeal by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in relation to delay in service by insurer, held that delay in processing the claim and delay in repudiation could be one of the many factors to hold an insurer guilty for deficiency in service however, it could not be the sole ground to prove deficiency in service.