1. Incarceration Due to Delay in Trial Violates Article 21; Bail Can Be Considered in CT Such Cases Despite Bar Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that undue trial delays can justify bail under the NDPS Act despite Section 37's stringent conditions. Prolonged incarceration violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. In a case with over two years of custody without trial completion, the Court granted bail, noting panch witnesses did not support the prosecution. This decision, by a bench comprising Justices I.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, follows similar rulings in previous cases, emphasising that extended delays can override Section 37's bail restrictions.
2. We are in the deep fakes era, photos to show a partner's adultery must be proven in a trial: Delhi High Court
Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court upheld a family court order directing a husband to pay ?75,000 monthly maintenance to his wife and child, rejecting his appeal based on allegations of the wife’s adultery. The judges noted that the photographs presented as evidence could be deepfakes and must be proven in trial. They highlighted that the issue of alleged adultery, not mentioned in the family court's judgment, should be addressed through a review petition in the family court. The husband’s appeal was dismissed, and the couple, married in 2018, has a 5-year-old child.
3. Excise policy case: Delhi High Court issues directions to ensure speedy trial
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court directed the trial court to expedite the Delhi excise policy case involving politicians like Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha. The trial court was ordered to begin arguments on charges immediately, assigning "block dates" for each accused, with written submissions due the same day. Supplementary chargesheets should be provided to the accused promptly, and document scrutiny must not be delayed. The directions were issued in response to a plea by Arun Ramachandran Pillai, challenging the timing of charge arguments. The High Court refused to interfere, noting no issues with the trial court’s process.
4. Now Is the Time for Countries Like India to Promote a Culture of Commercial Arbitration: CJI DY Chandrachud
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, speaking at the UK Supreme Court on May 6, emphasised the importance of building a robust commercial arbitration culture in India. He highlighted institutions like the India International Arbitration Centre but stressed that professionalism, transparency, and accountability are crucial. He noted India's overburdened courts and advocated for arbitration and mediation to reduce the load. Chandrachud discussed the Group of Companies doctrine, upheld by the Indian Supreme Court, and emphasised arbitral autonomy and the importance of arbitrators' independence and impartiality. He praised efforts to enhance arbitration law efficiency in the Global South.
5. Ensure No Hoarding Collapse Happens During Monsoons: Supreme Court to Mumbai Authorities; Refers to Ghatkopar Tragedy
The Supreme Court's directive to Mumbai authorities regarding hoardings during the monsoon season stems from a case involving the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act's applicability to hoardings on Railways' land. This issue arose after a tragic incident in Ghatkopar, emphasising the need for clarity on jurisdiction and regulatory matters between the Municipal Corporation and Railways. The court requested further information and clarification, with the case scheduled for another hearing next week.
6. Supreme Court Questions ED For Recording Statement of Accused At 3.30 In Night
The Supreme Court, in a hearing, questioned the Enforcement Directorate for interrogating an accused at 3:30 AM, expressing concerns about the timing of arrests and confinements. The case challenges the legality of an arrest following late-night summons and intensive interrogation, with arguments focusing on whether confinement constitutes an official arrest regardless of timing. The Court declined interim bail, opting to hear further arguments, and scheduled the next hearing for July.
7. Subsequent Change in Law Can't Be a Ground for Condonation of Delay: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, with a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuvan, recently addressed a batch of land acquisition cases involving the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and subsequent reforms under the 2013 Act. The Court observed that a subsequent change in law cannot be a valid ground for condonation of delay, as it would lead to endless re-openings of cases based on new interpretations. The Court permitted condonation of delay on other grounds, including "public interest," resulting in the allowance of most appeals.
8. Inconsistency in bail orders undermines public confidence in the judiciary: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court recently criticised inconsistent bail decisions, stating they undermine public trust in the judicial system. Justice Krishan Pahal emphasised the need for consistency and clear justifications in court orders to avoid creating an impression of unpredictability. The remarks were made while addressing an anticipatory bail case involving physical assault charges. The Court granted bail to the applicant, Abhishek Yadav, highlighting the lack of differentiation in evidence between Yadav and the co-accused granted bail previously, questioning the judicial officer's conduct in the process.
9. Liberty will override statutory embargo on bail under NDPS Act if the trial not concluded within a reasonable time: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently granted bail to Ankur Chaudhary under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The Court observed that prolonged incarceration without trial completion violates the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21. The statutory restriction on bail under Section 37(1)(b) NDPS Act was overridden due to the delay in trial, leading to Chaudhary's release after over two years in custody.
10. Terrorism must be dealt with sternly: Delhi High Court rejects ISIS convict's plea
The Delhi High Court recently rejected Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed's plea seeking concurrent sentences for his convictions related to ISIS involvement. Sayyed, convicted under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), pleaded guilty to planning terrorist attacks during the Haridwar Kumbh Mela and targeting a leader of Hindu Mahasabha. The Court emphasised the seriousness of terror offences, noting that leniency had already been shown in sentencing. Sayyed's plea was denied, upholding the separate sentences awarded by the Trial Courts in Mumbai and Delhi.
