1. Kolkata doctor rape and murder case: Supreme Court on Day 2 of hearing
On Thursday (August 22, 2024), the Supreme Court urged doctors to return to work and care for the patients who need them most. CJI D Y Chandrachud spoke of the heartbreaking scenes of patients waiting for hours for just a few minutes of medical attention and their families sleeping on hospital floors. In response to the court's order, the Resident Doctors' Associations of AIIMS Delhi, Indira Gandhi Hospital, and Dr. RML Hospital called off their 11-day strike. The court also assured that no action would be taken against the doctors for protesting as long as their protests remained peaceful.
2. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court started a hearing on August 28 to discuss an important issue
Can someone not allowed to be an arbitrator still choose or appoint an arbitrator?
The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was considering the issue. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud emphasised the need for both parties involved in arbitration to feel confident in the fairness and independence of the arbitrator selection process. He noted that for justice to be perceived as impartial, appointing arbitrators must be transparent and fair to all parties involved. The hearing will address concerns about the potential bias in arbitration processes where one party, typically a powerful public entity, controls the arbitrator's selection, raising questions about the integrity and neutrality of such proceedings.
3. Supreme Court Upholds Employment Rights of Kinnara Bank Employees Reclassified from SC to General Category
The Supreme Court ruled that employees of Kinnara Bank hired under the Scheduled Castes (SC) quota with valid certificates could retain their jobs even though their caste was later removed from the SC list. Karnataka issued a circular allowing these employees to remain employed but reclassified them under the General category instead of the SC category. The Court upheld this decision, ensuring that while these employees won't get SC-specific benefits, they can still keep their positions and be protected under the General category, safeguarding their employment rights.
4. Child Victims of Sexual Assault Shouldn't Be Forced to Testify Multiple Times: Supreme Court
Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea from an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, to recall the victim for further cross-examination after the defence had already had ample opportunities. Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted that recalling the victim after extensive cross-examination would undermine the POCSO Act’s purpose. The Court emphasised that Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act requires Special Courts to avoid repeatedly summoning child victims, protecting them from being re-traumatised by frequent court appearances. This approach ensures that children are not subjected to repeated questioning about their traumatic experiences.
5. High Court Retains Power to Quash FIR Even After Charge-Sheet Filing: Supreme Court
On August 28, the Supreme Court confirmed that high courts can quash an FIR even after a charge sheet is filed if continuing the case would abuse the legal process. Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan quashed an FIR and charge sheet against a complainant's husband and in-laws in a cruelty case. The complainant had filed the FIR in 2002 and divorced her husband in 2004. The Gujarat High Court had previously rejected the appeal to quash the FIR. The Supreme Court noted that the complainant did not appear in court to oppose the appeal.
6. Cancels 47-Year-Old Government Eviction Notice for Indian Express: Delhi High Court
On Friday, the Delhi High Court overturned a 47-year-old eviction notice issued by the Central government to The Indian Express newspaper, aiming to remove it from its office on Bahadur Shah Zafar Road, Delhi. The Court ruled that the eviction efforts were intended to suppress the press and cut off its income.
Justice Prathiba M Singh found that the eviction notice had never been properly served to The Indian Express and was part of a malicious attempt by the government to stifle the newspaper. The Court criticised the government's actions as arbitrary and awarded 5 lakh in costs to The Indian Express. The land for the Express Building was initially granted in the 1950s. Despite previous Supreme Court rulings in 1986 that had already quashed similar notices, the government continued its efforts. The High Court also criticised the government’s claim of 765 crore in dues, deeming it excessive and unreasonable. The final amount The Indian Express needs to pay is about 64 lakh.
7. Supreme Court Orders CBI to Investigate Defence Colony RWA's Occupation of Lodi-Era Gumti Tomb
The Supreme Court has asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate how the Defence Colony Welfare Association (DCWA) in Delhi took control of an old Lodi-era tomb called the Gumti of Shaikh Ali. The Court is concerned because the government and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) initially wanted to protect the tomb as a historical site but later changed their minds. The judges want to know why this happened and if any illegal changes were made to the tomb by the DCWA. The CBI has been given two months to investigate and report back.
8. Notice issued on Plea Alleging Non-Vegetarian Ingredient in Patanjali's Divya Manjan Product: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has issued a notice in response to a plea claiming that Patanjali's Divya Manjan product contains non-vegetarian ingredients. Justice Sanjeev Narula has requested responses from the Central Government, Divya Pharmacy (the manufacturer), Patanjali Ayurveda (the seller), Yoga Guru Ramdev, Acharya Balakrishna, and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), among other involved parties. The case raises concerns over the product's ingredients and compliance with food safety and labelling standards. The court will examine the matter further based on the responses received.
9. Dispute Under Negotiable Instruments Act Still Recognizes Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court, under Justice Prateek Jalan, ruled that a party’s claim that ongoing proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881 prevent arbitration implies acknowledgement of an arbitration clause. The case involved Dhanlaxmi Sales Corporation, which sought an arbitrator for disputes under a Dealership Agreement. One party argued that because there were ongoing Negotiable Instruments Act proceedings, arbitration could not proceed. The Court determined that this claim indirectly accepted the existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement. Justice Jalan’s decision confirmed that the arbitration clause remains valid and enforceable, even when other legal proceedings are underway, indicating that such claims recognise the clause’s validity.
10. Central Government: LGBTQIA+ Couples Can Open Joint Bank Accounts and Name Partner as Nominee
The Central Government has announced that LGBTQIA+ individuals can now open joint bank accounts and designate their partners as nominees without restrictions. This clarification ensures that members of the LGBTQIA+ community have the same banking rights as others, allowing them to share financial accounts and name their partners for account benefits. The move is part of a broader effort to ensure equal treatment and recognition of LGBTQIA+ rights in various sectors.
