NEW DELHI: A weekly round-up of the top stories from the Supreme Court of India and High Courts across the country summed up in a 3-minute read.
Supreme Court:
Supreme Courts first online AOR exam faces technical glitches, cancelled midway
The Supreme Court's inaugural computer-based test for the annual Supreme Court Advocate on Record (AoR) Examination encountered technical difficulties today, preventing candidates who chose the online mode from completing their exams.
The AoR Exam for the subject "Practice and Procedure" was scheduled for today (June 10) from 11 AM to 2 PM at the Guru Hargobind Institute of Management & Technology, Anand Vihar, Delhi.
Primary sources at the exam center reported that Supreme Court Registry officials announced the cancellation of the online exam. Candidates were informed that the Committee of Judges overseeing the examination would provide further updates on the next steps.
Supreme Court extends time for AAP to vacate office premises by Aug 10
The Supreme Court on Monday granted additional time till August 10, 2024 to Aam Aadmi Party to vacate its office premises here as a last opportunity since the space has been allotted to the Delhi High Court for expansion of Rouse Avenue district court.
The AAP was earlier directed by the top court to vacate the premises by June 15, 2024.
Taking up an application by the AAP in Malik Mazhar Sultan case related to infrastructure of district judiciary, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, however, rejected a contention by the applicant party that the vacation should be subject to allotment of an alternative office space to it.
The Supreme Court on Monday said it can't pass orders on the basis of newspaper reports as it castigated the Delhi government over its failure to remove defects from its writ petition seeking direction for Haryana and Himachal Pradesh to supply additional water to the national capital due to prevailing heat conditions.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and P B Varale told the Delhi government that it would dismiss the writ petition on the ground of failure to remove defects as an assurance was made on the last date of hearing.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the Haryana government, said it could not e-file the affidavit and the status report as the writ petition by the Delhi government was still lying under the defects.
Supreme Court issues notice to petitioners on NTAs plea to transfer petitions on NEET UG
The Supreme Court on Friday decided to consider a plea by National Testing Agency for transfer of petitions pending in various High Courts to the apex court, arising of alleged irregularities and paper leakage in NEET UG 2024 held on May 5.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to those who filed their respective pleas in Delhi, Calcutta, Chhattisgarh and other High Courts and fixed the matter for examination on July 8, when other petitions for cancellation of June 4 results would be taken up.
A counsel raised the issue of paper leakage in Bihar and sought a direction from the court to suspend the counselling set to begin from July 6.
The court, however, declined the plea, saying it had earlier too rejected such a request.
Supreme Court halts Annu Kapoors Hamare Baarah release, public questions move
A day before Annu Kapoor's 'Hamare Baarah' was slated to hit the theatres, the Supreme Court has stayed release stating, "If teaser is so offensive then what about the whole movie."
The Supreme Court's initial stand has left members of the public questioning the halt, as the same Court in 2014 had refused to interfere in the release of Amir Khan's movie, PK.
Dismissing the plea, the apex court had then told the petitioner, "If you don't like then don't watch the film but don't bring religious facets in it", adding that, "these are matters of art and entertainment and let them remain so."
High Courts:
Hearing a plea by devotees of Shri Krishna of the Pushtimarg sect, the Gujarat High Court has halted the release of actor Aamir Khan's son Junaid Khan's debut film, 'Maharaj' till June 18.
Directed by Siddharth P Malhotra and produced by Bollywood biggie Aditya Chopra, the film was slated to release on Netflix on June 14. Therefore, the stay pushes the film's release for the next available release window.
The Court took the decision hearing a plea on behalf of devotees of Shri Krishna, followers of Vallabhacharya, i.e. the Pushtimarg sect.
The petitioner claimed that the movie would provoke violence against the Pushtimarg sect, Hindus in general, and destabilize law and order.
Allegedly based on the 'Maharaj libel case' of 1862, the petitioner stated that the case decided by English judges of then Supreme Court of Bombay, castigates Hinduism.
Madras High Court sentences Contemnor to 6 months jail for scandalous allegations against Judges
The High Court of Madras has delivered a significant order sentencing PU Venkatesan to six months of simple imprisonment for making scandalous allegations against sitting judges of the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court.
In an order passed on June 13, 2024, a Division Bench comprising Justices M.S. Ramesh and Sunder Mohan found the contemnor guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This was due to letters he wrote containing unsavory remarks and scandalous allegations against three sitting judges of the Madras High Court and a sitting judge of the Supreme Court.
Plant 30 Trees: Delhi High Court orders senior citizen accused of outraging womans modesty
Quashing a criminal case against a 61-year-old man accused of outraging a woman's modesty, after he reached a settlement with her, the Delhi High Court has directed the man to plant 30 trees.
As the matter had been settled between the parties, the Court ordered, "Consequently, FIR under Sections 354 IPC registered at police station Vasant Kunj, South, and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed."
"Instead of imposing the costs upon the petitioner, he is directed to plant 30 saplings of trees, which are up to three feet in height in the local part or in the area of P.S. Vasant Kunj, South after getting in touch with the competent authority...," it ordered.
The Allahabad High Court has recently issued a significant ruling regarding cheque bounce cases involving merged bank accounts. The court held that dishonoured cheques from a bank that has undergone a merger cannot attract liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The court was hearing an application seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
"If a cheque is presented after the validity period for cheques of a merged bank, dishonouring it will not attract liability under Section 138 of the NI Act," the court observed while allowing the application.
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to veteran journalist Rajat Sharma, his show 'Aap Ki Adalat' and television channel India TV interim relief in a plea for protection of their trademark and personality rights.
India TV and Rajat Sharma had moved the Delhi High Court seeking protection against the alleged misuse of the India TV logo and the Aap Ki Adalat show and mark by one 'Jhandiya TV' utilizing the name and logo "Baap Ki Adalat".
A single judge bench of Justice Anish Dayal restrained the defendant Ravindra Kumar Choudhary from using photos, videos or name of Rajat Sharma either as trademark/logo/trading style, domain name, social media posts, audio video content, or in relation to any services violating the rights of the journalist or India TV. Issuing a three-fold order in favour of India TV and Rajat Sharma, the Delhi High Court barred the infringing party from using the disputed trademark/logo, such as Baap Ki Adalat, or any deceptively similar marks/logos to India TV and Aap Ki Adalat across mediums including domain names, social media posts, audio-video content, and related services.
The Madras High Court recently directed the state governments of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to implement welfare schemes for lawyers and ensure that junior advocates are paid minimum stipends by seniors engaging their services.
A division bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Kumarappan passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Farida Begam seeking enforcement of the Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 2001 in the Union Territory of Puducherry.
During the hearing, the court noted with concern that around 200 applications from lawyers seeking benefits under Tamil Nadu's welfare fund scheme were pending before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu (BCTN). Expressing displeasure over the delay, the bench observed, "Safeguarding the rights, privilege, and interest of the advocates is one of the functions of the State Bar Council."
The Bombay High Court, on Wednesday, denied bail to three individuals linked to the banned terrorist organization, the Popular Front of India (PFI). The court cited plans by the accused and the organization PFI to convert India into an Islamic state by 2047 as the basis for the denial.
The division bench, consisting of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak, reviewed the bail pleas of Razi Ahmad Khan, Unais Umar Khayyam Patel, and Kayyum Abdul Shaikh. They upheld the earlier decision of the Special Judge, Nashik, who had rejected their bail applications.
The prosecution argued that the three accused attended a secret PFI meeting where young Muslims were radicalized. It was alleged that during the meeting, several instances of crimes against Muslims, such as mob lynching, were discussed. The prosecution further claimed that the meeting involved discussions on uniting Muslims and waging war against the State of Maharashtra and the Government of India.
The Bombay High Court has permitted one Mohammed Sajid Marghoob Ansari, a convict in the 7/11 Maharashtra serial train blasts case, to appear for his law exam online, from the Nashik central prison, where he is currently lodged.
Refusing to accept the prosecutions submission that this should not be taken to set a precedent, the bench enquired, "Why not? If people want to improve their educational qualifications, then why not? We want more lawyers."
Ansari, who is enrolled with the Siddharth Law College in South Mumbai had sought permission to appear for his second semester law examination from May 3 to May 15.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently refused to quash an FIR filed against popular folk singer Neha Singh Rathore for allegedly promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, etc., under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The court was hearing a criminal miscellaneous case filed by Neha Singh Rathore seeking to quash the FIR registered against her at the Kotwali Baidhan Police Station in Singrauli district by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
"Even if the entire allegations are accepted, it is clear that an offence punishable under Section 153A of IPC is made out," observed Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia while dismissing Rathore's application.
The Bombay High Court has criticized the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC) for failing to provide adequate space for burial grounds in the city, despite repeated court directives.
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar, passed the order while hearing a public interest litigation filed by Shamsher Ahmed Shaikh and others, highlighting the scarcity of decent burial spaces in Mumbai.
"Such callousness on the part of the authorities cannot be appreciated. The right of the dead to be given a decent and respectful last rite is as important as any other right available when he is alive. Moreover, it is the statutory duty and obligation of the Municipal Corporation to provide adequate places for the burial of the dead. The authorities of the Municipal Corporation, thus, cannot shirk their shoulders away from such statutory responsibility," the Court observed.
![Indian Courts this Week: Law Street Journal's Weekly Round-Up of SC & HCs [May 6 - May 10]](/secure/uploads/2024/05/lj_8735_court-this-week-new-article.webp)
![Indian Courts this Week: Law Street Journal's Weekly Round-Up of SC & HCs [May 13 - May 18]](/secure/uploads/2024/05/lj_6979_17da0e79-6a3d-43d3-ae51-cbcfe5c15201.jpg)
![Courts this Week: Law Street Journal's Weekly Round-Up of SC & HCs [May 20 - May 25]](/secure/uploads/2024/05/lj_7654_fed10f96-f7fb-440a-8714-0a4cae086414.webp)
![Courts this Week: Law Street Journal's Weekly Round-Up of SC & HCs [June 03 - June 08]](/secure/uploads/2024/06/lj_5202_2429d32d-aaaa-4a8b-b961-87ab318544bc.webp)
