Delhi High Court: Man expecting wife to do household chores is not cruelty

by News

The Delhi High Court recently addressed a case in which a husband sought a divorce, alleging cruelty by his wife. The court held that a husband expecting his wife to perform household chores cannot be considered cruelty. Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna, overseeing the appeal, emphasized that when a couple enters marriage, they intend to share responsibilities for their future life. The judges highlighted that asking a married woman to handle household work should not be equated to employing a maid; rather, it should be viewed as an expression of love and care for the family.

In this specific case, the husband argued that the marriage had been tumultuous due to his wife’s quarrelsome and uncompromising behavior. He claimed she was reluctant to perform household chores and shoulder responsibilities. The wife countered these allegations, asserting that she had fulfilled her household duties, but her efforts went unappreciated by her husband and his family.

The court granted the husband a divorce on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, overturning the previous order. The judges noted that the husband had arranged separate accommodation to please his wife, but she predominantly stayed with her parents. The court emphasized that this temporary separation caused insecurity for the spouse and criticized the wife for not fulfilling her matrimonial obligations, thereby keeping the husband away from their son by choosing to live with her parents.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court’s decision suggests that expecting a wife to handle household chores is not inherently cruel. However, the judgment also considered the overall conduct and actions of the parties involved in this specific case.

Mumbai Court Allows Withdrawal of TRP Scam Case Against Arnab Goswami

by News

In a recent update, a Mumbai court has allowed the city’s crime branch to withdraw the case related to the alleged Television Rating Points (TRP) scam of 2020, in which Arnab Goswami, the Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV, is a key accused. The decision was made after Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray conveyed to the court that continuing the legal proceedings might not result in a conviction and could only serve to consume valuable judicial time.

The court, under Metropolitan Magistrate LS Padhen of Esplanade court, allowed the withdrawal of FIR no. 843 of 2020. Shishir Hiray, the Special Public Prosecutor, shared insights into the matter, stating that the prosecution had filed an application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, following a government decision. This section allows the withdrawal of a case, and the prosecution sought the court’s consent for such withdrawal.

Hiray explained that no party had come forward, including the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC), or advertisers, asserting that an offense had occurred. He emphasized that the lack of supporting evidence and the absence of complaints from relevant authorities led them to believe that pursuing the case might not lead to a conviction and would only burden the judiciary and the government.

The prosecutor also highlighted conflicting reports submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which contradicted the allegations made by the Mumbai police. The ED, which had initiated a money laundering case based on the Mumbai police FIR, ultimately cleared Republic TV and R Bharat of charges related to manipulating TRP numbers.

Hiray informed the court about the conflicting evidence presented by the ED during the investigation. The TRP scam originally surfaced in 2020 when the crime branch uncovered fraudulent activities by some employees of Hansa Research Group. These individuals were found manipulating ‘sampling metering services’ by bribing people to watch specific TV channels.

Vishal Ved Bhandari, one of the individuals arrested, disclosed that he increased TRP ratings for media channels by offering money to households with monitoring devices. Subsequent interrogations revealed that homeowners were paid to keep their TV sets tuned to specific channels, even if they had no intention of watching them.

BARC, an organization under the Ministry of Information, Broadcasting, and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, used barometers to measure TRPs. In November 2020, the Crime Branch filed a chargesheet indicating that Republic TV had benefited from the scam, manipulating viewership numbers to enhance revenue.

Surprisingly, Arnab Goswami was formally charged in June 2021, despite the arrests of over 10 individuals earlier in the case. All the accused were subsequently granted bail. In November 2023, the Crime Branch submitted an application seeking the withdrawal of the case under section 321, citing the State home department’s decision based on various factors, including contradictions in the Mumbai police probe.

The court approved the prosecution’s request to withdraw the case, issuing an order to that effect. A more detailed order is expected in due course. This decision marks a significant development in the TRP scam saga, raising questions about the evidence and the validity of the case against Arnab Goswami and others involved.

Compensation Ordered as Traffic Cop Mistakenly Issues E-challan to Wrong Vehicle

by News

In a recent incident in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, a traffic cop faced consequences for mistakenly issuing an e-challan against the wrong vehicle. The Magistrate Court ordered the traffic cop, Shah Nawaz, to pay ₹1,000 as compensation for the error.

The situation unfolded when a scooty owner received an e-challan, imposing a ₹1,000 fine for not wearing a helmet. However, the twist was that the traffic ticket was mistakenly issued to another scooty with a similar number plate. Feeling unfairly targeted, the scooty owner contested the e-challan, citing wasted time and money due to the negligence of the traffic department officials.

To address the matter, Judge Mudasar Farooq of the Special Mobile Magistrate (Traffic) Court in Srinagar summoned the traffic cop responsible for the error, Shah Nawaz. During the hearing, Shah Nawaz admitted to making a mistake, acknowledging that he had unintentionally issued the e-challan against the wrong scooty.

In response, the Court not only ordered the cancellation of the incorrect e-challan but also directed officials to issue a new e-challan to the actual violator of the traffic rules. Additionally, recognizing the inconvenience caused to the scooty owner, the Court ruled that Shah Nawaz, the challaning officer, must pay ₹1,000 as compensation to cover mental distress, harassment, and legal fees incurred by the applicant.

The Court’s order went further by requiring the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Traffic at Srinagar, to obtain an affidavit from Shah Nawaz. This affidavit would serve as an assurance that the challaning officer would exercise caution and care when issuing e-challans in the future.

Importantly, the incident prompted the Court to express concern about the proper functioning of the e-challan system. It pointed out that either the traffic cops operating the system lacked sufficient training or were not exercising due care during the initiation of e-challans. Consequently, the Court directed the SSP Traffic at Srinagar to sensitize traffic officials dealing with the e-challan system to prevent innocent individuals from facing similar difficulties in the future.

In its order dated February 5, the Court emphasized the need for proper training and caution among traffic officials to ensure the smooth operation of the e-challan system. The directive aimed to avoid wrongful issuances and protect innocent persons from unnecessary hassles related to traffic violations.

Supreme Court Reverses Decision on Wine Shop Closure Near School

by News

The Supreme Court has reversed its earlier decision to close a wine shop located 150 meters from a school in Puducherry. The court reconsidered its order, noting that restrictions on liquor shops near highways, as outlined in a 2016 judgment, had been relaxed in subsequent rulings in 2017 and 2018.

In March 2023, the Supreme Court had directed the closure of the Puducherry wine shop, relying on its earlier decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. K Balu (2016). However, the court acknowledged that it might not have been aware of the modifications made in 2017 and 2018 when it issued the closure order.

The recent decision came in response to review petitions filed by the Puducherry government and the affected liquor licensee. The government contested the accuracy of the March 2023 judgment, which had prohibited wine shops within 500 meters of educational institutes, temples, or mosques.

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, concluded that the Puducherry case needed a fresh examination in light of the updated legal position. The matter has been sent back to the Madras High Court for a new decision.

The original 2016 judgment, known as the K Balu case, imposed restrictions on the placement of liquor outlets in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. In March 2017, the Supreme Court modified its order concerning the ban on liquor shops along State and National Highways. Notable changes included reducing the distance from 500 to 220 meters for towns with a population under 20,000 and exempting Sikkim and Meghalaya due to their natural geography.

The March 2023 closure order for the Puducherry wine shop, issued by a different bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar, was based on the belief that it violated the earlier K Balu judgment. The Puducherry government, however, argued that subsequent Supreme Court orders clarified that distance limits in municipal areas would be determined by the State government. The Puducherry government had set the limit at 50 meters and granted permission to the wine shop.

Considering these arguments, the Supreme Court recalled its March 2023 order, setting aside the High Court’s decision and returning the case to the Madras High Court for a fresh decision.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s recent decision emphasizes the importance of considering updated legal positions and modifications in earlier judgments. The case highlights the need for a nuanced approach in applying restrictions on liquor outlets, taking into account specific circumstances and subsequent clarifications by the court.

India’s New Three Criminal laws to come into force from July 1

by News

Starting from July 1, three new criminal laws will be implemented in India, replacing the current Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and Indian Evidence Act. These new laws are called Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. The Union Home Ministry announced this change through a gazette notification on Friday.

However, there’s a temporary hold on a specific provision in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita related to ‘causing death by rash and negligent driving of a vehicle.’ This provision, under Sub Section (2) of Section 106, increases the maximum prison sentence to ten years for offenders who flee the scene of the crime instead of reporting it to the police or magistrate. This particular aspect had sparked protests in various parts of the country.

The three bills, aiming to overhaul India’s criminal justice system, had received the President’s approval in December 2023 and were officially notified on the Rashtrapati Bhavan website. The bills were initially introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 11, 2023, and later referred to a parliamentary committee headed by Brij Lal for further examination. They were eventually passed by the Lok Sabha on December 20 and the Rajya Sabha on December 21.

In summary, starting July 1, these new laws will reshape the legal landscape in India, addressing various aspects of criminal justice, with a temporary hold on a contentious provision related to reckless driving offenses.

Supreme Court Senior Advocate Fali S Nariman Dies At 95

by News

Renowned jurist and senior Supreme Court advocate Fali Nariman passed away today at the age of 95 in his Delhi residence. Nariman, honored with the Padma Bhushan in 1991 and Padma Vibhushan in 2007, commenced his legal career at the Bombay High Court, later relocating to Delhi.

As the Solicitor General of India in 1972, he resigned in 1975 to protest Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Emergency declaration. Serving as the Bar Association’s President from 1991 to 2010, Nariman argued significant cases, including the National Judicial Appointments Commission case.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed condolences, acknowledging Nariman’s lifelong commitment to justice for all citizens.

Delhi High Court received a bomb threat via email on Wednesday

by News

The Delhi High Court has heightened security measures in response to a bomb threat received via email by the Registrar General, written in the name of Balvant Desai. The alarming message, “I will blow you up with a bomb on 15/02/2024. This will be the biggest blast. You may enhance your security as much as possible and call all the ministers. Everyone will be blown up,” prompted serious concern. The High Court is taking the threat seriously, implementing increased security within and around the complex. An inquiry into the email is underway, accompanied by a security drill today to ensure preparedness and protect individuals at the court.

Punjab and Haryana High Court Demands Post-Meeting Update in Ongoing Farmers’ Protests

by News

The Punjab and Haryana High Court is actively involved in addressing the ongoing farmers’ protests, with a recent focus on the scheduled meeting between representatives of the Central government and farmers’ unions on February 15. The Court, led by Acting Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji, has requested the government to submit status reports after the meeting to address concerns raised in two petitions related to the protests.

The primary demands of the protesting farmers include the enactment of a law ensuring a minimum support price (MSP) for crops. The farmers had planned a ‘Delhi Chalo’ march, leading to the imposition of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in parts of Haryana to restrict their movement and block roads leading to Delhi. Two petitions were filed in response to these events, one challenging the restrictions imposed on the farmers and the other seeking action against the protestors.

Uday Pratap Singh, a resident of Panchkula and an advocate at the High Court, filed a petition challenging the restrictions placed on the farmers, including the sealing of borders and suspension of the internet. Singh argued that the farmers’ march was an expression of their democratic right to peaceful protest. The other petition, filed by Advocate Arvind Seth, sought action against the protesting farmers and requested measures to maintain law and order in Punjab and Haryana.

The High Court, which issued notices to the Central government and the governments of Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi on February 13, is set to hear the matter next on February 20. During earlier hearings, the Court emphasized the need for dialogue between the government and the farmers, leading to the announcement of a meeting on February 15.

The Central government expressed its openness to engaging in a dialogue with the farmers, and the Punjab government assured the Court that, despite the tense situation, the state had the protests under control. The state government also expressed support for peaceful protests.

In an affidavit, the Haryana government raised concerns about the potential impact of farmers’ protests on national highways, citing potential disruptions to the movement of people, goods, and essential services. The government highlighted the possibility of tractors entering Delhi for a massive protest and suggested the identification and prevention of such entries to maintain law and order. Section 144, CrPC orders were imposed in 20 districts of Haryana in response to these concerns.

The government’s affidavit also referenced the protests against the now-scrapped Farm Laws in 2020-21, citing substantial losses and expressing fears of protests escalating into violence. Reports of clashes between protestors and police in Jind District and at the Shambhu border in Ambala District raised additional concerns.

The Haryana government proposed the identification of six districts for peaceful protests, namely Yamunanagar, Charkhi Dadri, Kurukshetra, Jhajjar, Panchkula, and Karnal. Similarly, the State of Punjab was encouraged to earmark areas for peaceful protests to avoid disruptions to normal movement.

As the government and farmers’ representatives prepare to meet, the High Court seeks to address the concerns raised in the petitions and encourages a resolution through dialogue. The situation remains dynamic, and the Court will reconvene on February 20 to assess the progress made in addressing the issues related to the ongoing farmers’ protests in Punjab and Haryana.

Supreme Court: Bail cannot be revoked only due to the accused’s absence in court

by News

The Supreme Court recently made it clear that just because someone accused of a crime didn’t show up in court in person, their bail cannot be automatically canceled. This decision came in the case of Krishna Kumar Sharma from West Bengal.

The person seeking bail explained that he couldn’t make it to the Calcutta High Court because of a traffic jam caused by VIP movements. Also, his lawyer couldn’t be there because he had withdrawn from the case the day before.

The Supreme Court judges, BR Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, pointed out that canceling bail is a different matter and should only happen if the person violates the conditions or misuses the freedom given, like tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. They said that just not showing up in person is not a good enough reason to cancel bail.

In this case, the court noticed that the order to cancel bail didn’t have the usual reasons mentioned. So, they decided to overturn that order and reinstate the person’s bail.

The ruling emphasizes that there needs to be a proper reason, like breaking the rules, for canceling bail. The decision favored Krishna Kumar Sharma, accused of cheating and forgery.

Krishna Kumar Sharma’s legal team included advocates Ashok K Singh, Ankita Baluni, Vinita Singh, Anchal Bindal, and Aftab Ali Khan. On the other side, advocates Atarup Banerjee, Arindam Sen, Sunando Raha, Sampriti B, and Anupam Raina represented the complainant, while advocates Srisatya Mohanty, Lihzu Shiney Konyak, and Astha Sharma represented the West Bengal government.

In simple terms, the Supreme Court said that just not showing up in court doesn’t mean your bail should be canceled, and there should be valid reasons for doing so.

PM Modi Announce Rs 800 Crore Budget for Supreme Court Building Expansion

by News

Exciting news emerged as Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced a substantial budget of Rs 800 crore dedicated to enhancing the Supreme Court. This revelation unfolded during the 75th celebration of the Supreme Court’s journey.

PM Modi underlined the government’s strong commitment to upgrading court infrastructure, recognizing the challenges faced by lawyers and litigants. The substantial budget allocation is intended not only for expanding the Supreme Court but also for improving overall facilities.

In a light-hearted manner, PM Modi expressed hope that this investment would not face the same criticism as the Central Vista project. He emphasized that the government is not only focusing on improving daily life but also collaborating with the Supreme Court to make the pursuit of justice more accessible.

Expanding the Supreme Court: A Quick Overview

The Supreme Court of India commenced its journey in the Parliament building on January 28, 1950, due to the absence of a dedicated space. The original plan included a Chief Justice of India and seven judges, with flexibility for Parliament to increase this number. Over time, the number of judges has expanded to 34 as of 2019.

New Initiatives Unveiled During the Celebration

Beyond the budget announcement, PM Modi introduced several initiatives during the celebration. Notably, a new website for the Supreme Court was launched, aligning with the government’s digital initiatives. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud received commendation for his efforts to digitize court processes.

CJI Chandrachud shared plans to shift the Supreme Court’s digital data to a cloud-based infrastructure for improved management. Additionally, he announced the creation of a ‘war room’ equipped with technology to monitor judicial data in real-time across the country.

Addressing Challenges: Holidays, Pending Cases, and Inclusivity

CJI Chandrachud addressed the issue of court vacations, suggesting a need to shorten them to tackle the growing backlog of cases. He urged the legal community to maintain professionalism and avoid unnecessary delays in judicial outcomes.

Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal highlighted the increasing representation of women in the judiciary and the government’s commitment to improving judicial infrastructure. Programs aimed at raising awareness among underprivileged citizens and leveraging artificial intelligence to overcome language barriers are underway.

Bar Council of India chairman Manan Kumar Mishra acknowledged the backlog of cases and stressed the necessity for more judges. He also clarified that decisions on case listings are primarily at the Chief Justice’s discretion.

Justice Sanjeev Khanna emphasized the need to address the rising cost of litigation, pointing out the expenses associated with court hearings and delays. He advocated for the adoption of technology to make the legal process more citizen-driven and cost-effective.

In summary, the substantial budget allocation for Supreme Court expansion, coupled with the introduction of digital initiatives, reflects a collaborative effort between the government and the judiciary to enhance the accessibility and efficiency of the legal system. These measures aim to tackle longstanding challenges and introduce a more modern and effective approach to justice.