LAW COLLOQUY

View

View Post

TOP 10 LEGAL HEADLINES OF THE WEEK 04 Oct 2020

TOP 10 LEGAL HEADLINES OF THE WEEK 04 Oct 2020


                  	

Anjana Gopinath,
Content Writer

1. Constitution Bench Judgement Left Some Questions Unsaid: CJI on Land Acquisition judgement
The Supreme Court noted that the Constitutional Bench Judgement on Land Acquisition, titled as Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors. left certain questions unanswered and required examination. The Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramaniun observed that the said judgement has given the Government laxity, which the Parliament did not want to give to the government.

2. Prashant Bhushan Files Review Petition Against Sentence Order in Contempt Case

Advocate Prashant Bhushan has filed a Review Petition against the Contempt case judgement against him, whereby he was asked to pay Re.1 as fine. Even though he has paid the fine, he seeks to challenge the punishment in default of the file.

3. PIL in SC Seeking CBI/SIT Probe, Transfer of Trial Out of Uttar Pradesh in Hathras Gangrape Case

A PIL has been filed before the Apex Court seeking for investigation by either Central Bureau Investigation or Special Investigation Team in the Hathras Gang rape case. It also seeks for the transfer of the matter from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi, alleging failure of the State Government to take action against the accused.

4. Accused Need Not be Actively Involved in Physical Activity of Assault to Convict Him on the Ground of Common Intention: States SC

The Supreme Court, in the case titled as Subed Ali v The State of Assam observed that it is not necessary that an accused must be actively involved in the physical activity of assault to convict him on the ground of common intention. The observation was made my a three-bench judge comprising of Justice RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee.

5. Length of Sentence or Gravity of Original Crime Cannot be Sole Basis for Refusing Premature Release: Observes SC

The Supreme Court in Satish @ Sabbe v. State of Uttar Pradesh observed that the length of the sentence or gravity of original crime cannot be the sole basis for refusing premature release. It was noted that any assessment regarding predilection to commit crime upon release must be based on antecedents and conduct of the prisoner in jail. The observation was made by a Bench comprising of Justice NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy.

6. Misconception of Fact About Promise to Marry Has to be in Proximity of Time to the Occurrence of Rape: SC

The Apex Court, while acquitting a man accused of raping a woman on the pretext of marriage, noted that the misconception of fact arising out of promise to marry has to be in proximity of time to the occurrence and cannot be spread over a long period of time coupled with a conscious positive action not to protest. This observation was made in the case titled as Maheshwar Tigga v. The State of Jharkhand.

7. Mens Rea for Section 306 IPC Cannot be Assumed to be Ostensibly Present but Has to be Visible and Conspicuous: SC

A Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy in the case of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab stated that Section 306 IPC cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous. The said observation was made while setting aside the conviction of a husband who was accused of driving wife to suicide.

8. SC Reiterates That There Is No Inherent Right to Compassionate Appointment

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, in the case titled as State of Maharashta v. Amit Shrivas, observed the same while stating that compassionate appointments has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing in the date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively.

9. SC Dismisses Plea Seeking Inquiry into Centre’s Alleged Mismanagement of COVID-19

The Supreme Court dismissed the plea by noting that the situation had not been anticipated 6 months back and that latitude had to be given to the government.

10. SC Quashes Gujarat Government’s Notification Extending Work Hours Under Factories Act Without Overtime Pay stating that COVID-19 is Not a Public Emergency

The Supreme Court quashed the notification issued by the Gujarat Labour and Employment Department granting exemptions to all factories in Gujarat from provisions of the Factories Act. A bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud, KM Joseph and Indu Malhotra quashed the same by stating that the pandemic situation cannot be used as a reason to do away with statutory provisions protecting the lights and dignity of workers.


Tags