Kerala High Court Grants Murder Convict Admission to LL.B. Course

by News

The Kerala High Court has given approval for a murder convict to complete the admission process for a Bachelor of Law (LL.B.) course. The convict, Pattakka Suresh Babu, has been directed to complete the admission formalities online through KMCT Law College, Kuttipuram, by October 7. Babu is currently serving his sentence at the Open Prison and Correctional Home in Cheemeni, Kannur. He had previously completed a distant education program in MA (Sociology) from Indira Gandhi National Open University while in prison and secured admission to the law college after passing the law entrance exam.

To facilitate his admission process and allow him to pursue his LL.B., Babu requested bail from the High Court. The Court engaged with the Controller of Examinations and the college’s Principal to determine the feasibility of conducting the admission process and permitting Babu to pursue his studies online. Both authorities confirmed that the admission process could be conducted online, and arrangements would be made accordingly. The Court directed the jail and college authorities to facilitate this process.

Regarding the possibility of Babu pursuing the course online, the college’s Principal stated that she would consult with college authorities and present a proposal at the next hearing scheduled for October 25. This decision opens a path for the murder convict to further his education while serving his sentence.

Court Denies Wife’s Maintenance Claim Due to Adulterous Relationship: Karnataka High Court Ruling

by News

The Karnataka High Court recently issued a significant ruling regarding a wife’s eligibility to claim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). In a case presided over by Justice Rajendra Badamikar, a woman’s revision petition seeking maintenance was dismissed.

The court’s decision hinged on the wife’s alleged involvement in an extramarital relationship with another individual. According to the court, when a spouse engages in an extramarital affair and resides with the person involved, it disqualifies her from claiming maintenance. The judgment emphasized that to be eligible for maintenance, a claimant must demonstrate honesty.

The court took note of the petitioner’s accusations against her husband, alleging that he had an illicit relationship with another woman. However, these allegations were contested, and the court could not disregard the petitioner’s own extramarital affair.

Previously, the petitioner had filed a petition under the DV Act, seeking protection, residential orders, and financial benefits. A magistrate granted her a protection order along with maintenance, rent, and compensation. Nevertheless, the husband successfully appealed this decision, and their marriage had already been annulled by a family court due to adultery and cruelty.

Upon reviewing the case, the High Court found that the magistrate had failed to consider crucial aspects when awarding maintenance and compensation. In contrast, the sessions judge had rightfully rejected the petitioner’s claim, considering her adulterous conduct. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, finding no errors in the sessions judge’s decision.

This ruling underscores the principle that spouses seeking maintenance must demonstrate honesty and adhere to the legal requirements of marriage. In cases involving adultery and extramarital affairs, individuals may not be eligible for maintenance under the DV Act. The judgment establishes an important legal precedent, highlighting the significance of maintaining fidelity and honesty within a marriage to access legal remedies such as maintenance.

Allahabad High Court Rules on ‘Saptapadi’ in Hindu Marriages: Implications for Validity

by News

The Allahabad High Court recently issued a significant ruling regarding the importance of the “Saptapadi” ceremony in Hindu marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the case of Smriti Singh & Ors v. State & Ors, the court quashed a case of bigamy against a woman.

“Saptapadi” is a crucial Hindu wedding ritual where the bride and groom take seven symbolic steps around a sacred fire during the marriage ceremony. This ritual symbolizes their unity and commitment to each other, signifying the sacred bond of marriage. The court’s decision reaffirms that the performance of the “Saptapadi” ceremony is essential for a Hindu marriage to be considered legally valid under the Hindu Marriage Act.

In this particular case, the dispute stemmed from a failed marriage. The parties involved had married in 2017 but eventually grew apart. The wife filed a First Information Report (FIR) against her in-laws, alleging dowry harassment, which led to a chargesheet being filed against her husband and his family.

Subsequently, in 2021, the husband filed a complaint, alleging that his wife had committed bigamy by marrying another man before their divorce was finalized. As a result of the husband’s complaint, a magistrate court issued summons to the wife.

In response, the wife approached the Allahabad High Court, seeking to quash the summons. She argued that her husband’s allegations were baseless and that she had not remarried during the pendency of their divorce proceedings.

Upon examining the evidence presented, the High Court noted that there was no proof of the necessary ceremonies being conducted to solemnize the alleged second marriage. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act outlines the essential ceremonies required for a valid Hindu marriage, including the “Saptapadi” ceremony.

The court emphasized that, when a marriage is disputed, it is not sufficient merely to establish that a marriage took place. Rather, the rites and ceremonies required to constitute a legal marriage must be conclusively proven. In the absence of convincing evidence, it becomes challenging to accept the complainant’s contention regarding the occurrence of the “Saptapadi” ceremony.

Ultimately, the Allahabad High Court found the husband’s complaint to be an instance of malicious prosecution. Consequently, it quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the wife for the offense of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

This ruling serves as an essential precedent, reaffirming the significance of adhering to customary Hindu marriage rituals, including the “Saptapadi” ceremony, to establish the validity of a Hindu marriage under the law. It highlights the importance of providing clear and convincing evidence when disputes arise regarding the solemnization of marriages, especially in cases involving allegations of bigamy.

Supreme Court Removes ₹50 Lakh Deposit Condition for Bail

by News

The Supreme Court of India has made a significant decision by lifting a bail condition that required an accused individual to deposit ₹50 lakhs for their release. This condition had been initially imposed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in January 2021, leading to nearly three years of the accused person’s incarceration. A bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar found that this condition had unjustly extended the individual’s detention.

The Supreme Court recognized that the charge sheet had been filed, and the trial had already commenced. Given these circumstances, the apex court directed the release of the accused person on bail without the burdensome ₹50 lakh deposit requirement.

This decision resulted from an appeal filed by the accused individual, Mohanlal Maliwad. Advocates Sarvam Ritam Khare, Jayasree Narasimhan, and Akash Shukla represented the accused, while the Madhya Pradesh government was represented by Government Advocate Abhimanyu Singh, along with advocates Bhagwan Jee Thakur and Pashupathi Nath Razdan.

In essence, the Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the importance of upholding an individual’s right to liberty, particularly when a trial is ongoing, and the accused has already spent a considerable period in custody.

High Court Emphasizes Long Detention Deserves Bail, Regardless of Offense Severity

by News

The Bombay High Court recently issued a significant ruling emphasizing the importance of personal liberty and timely trials for undertrial prisoners, even in cases involving serious offenses. The court’s decision came during a bail hearing for Akash Chandalia, who had spent 7.5 years in jail facing charges of double murder.

Justice Bharati Dangre, presiding over the case, made a noteworthy observation during the bail hearing. She stated that undertrial prisoners who have been incarcerated for an extended period should ordinarily be released on bail, regardless of the seriousness of the accusations against them. This decision was based on the belief that depriving individuals of their personal liberty without ensuring a speedy trial contradicts Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

The bail application in question was connected to a case involving gangster Kisan Pardeshi and his associates, including Akash Chandalia. The group faced charges of kidnapping, assault, and murder related to an incident in July 2015. It was alleged that they had injured two individuals who later succumbed to their injuries, and their bodies were subsequently recovered.

During the bail application, Chandalia pointed out that two co-accused individuals, Vikas Gaikwad and Yasmin Sayyed, had already been granted bail in 2022 due to trial delays. Justice Dangre noted that since the delay in trial had led to the release of these co-accused, there was no reason why Chandalia could not be granted bail as well.

The judge’s ruling underscores the idea that while the gravity of an offense and its heinous nature are factors to be considered when granting bail, the extended incarceration of an accused as an undertrial prisoner should also carry significant weight in the decision-making process. Justice Dangre’s decision aligns with the principle that individuals should not be made to endure prolonged imprisonment without the prospect of a timely trial.

This ruling by the Bombay High Court sets an important precedent, highlighting the need for a balanced approach in bail decisions, particularly for undertrial prisoners who have spent a considerable amount of time in custody. It emphasizes the significance of protecting the fundamental right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution and ensuring that justice is not delayed to the detriment of individuals awaiting trial.

In summary, the Bombay High Court’s decision in the Akash Chandalia case reaffirms the importance of safeguarding personal liberty and conducting trials in a timely manner. It recognizes that extended periods of undertrial incarceration should be a compelling factor in bail considerations, irrespective of the seriousness of the charges.

Delhi High Court Grants Domino’s Pizza Victory in Trademark Battle Against Dominick Pizza

by News

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Domino’s Pizza in a trademark dispute against Dominick Pizza, a pizza outlet in Ghaziabad. The court issued a permanent injunction, preventing Dominick Pizza from using the name ‘Dominick Pizza’ and registered trademarks like ‘Cheese Burst’ and ‘Pasta Italiano,’ as it found these to be deceptively similar to Domino’s Pizza.

Justice C Hari Shankar emphasized that the phonetic and visual similarities between ‘Domino’s Pizza’ and ‘Dominick’s Pizza’ could lead to customer confusion. The court stressed the importance of preventing such imitative attempts in the food industry, where the reputation of established brands is vital.

The case began with Domino’s filing a trademark infringement suit against Dominick Pizza, leading to an interim order in August 2022. Justice Shankar noted that using a deceptively similar mark to capitalize on an established brand’s reputation could raise concerns about compromising quality.

The court concluded that Dominick Pizza had indeed infringed upon Domino’s Pizza’s trademark and ordered Dominick Pizza to cease using the name and the marks ‘Cheese Burst’ and ‘Pasta Italiano.’ Additionally, Dominick Pizza was instructed to withdraw its trademark registration application and transfer its internet domain names to Domino’s.

DNLU Introduces Menstrual Leave Policy for Female Students

by News

The Dharmashastra National Law University in Jabalpur, India, has introduced a new policy allowing female students to take leave during their menstrual cycles. This decision came in response to a request from the Student Bar Association (SBA) to provide special leave for female students facing difficulties during their periods.

Before this policy, the university allowed students to take leave for up to 36 lectures each semester, which is equivalent to missing six classes for each of their six subjects. With this new policy, full-time female students at DNLU can use these leaves specifically to address challenges related to their menstrual cycles.

The university’s circular announcing this policy states that the Dean of Student Welfare will be responsible for approving these leaves. The SBA worked hard to explain to the university authorities why these leaves were necessary and why they shouldn’t be seen as unfair to male students.

Kartik Jain, former Vice-President of the SBA, explained that this policy is an addition to an existing make-up leave policy that already included six criteria for taking leave. Now, menstrual leave has been included as a valid reason for students to use make-up leave.

This change was only possible because of the efforts of DNLU students, and they are thankful to the administration for accepting their request.

DNLU previously made headlines for introducing audio-visual learning for students, and this new policy is another step towards providing better support to its students. Additionally, Khaitan & Co, an Indian law firm, recently announced a similar menstrual leave policy for its female employees, starting from October 1.

Uttar Pradesh Government’s Defense: No Police Fault in Atiq Ahmed’s Killing

by News

The Uttar Pradesh government is standing firm in its defense of the state’s police force amidst the controversy surrounding the killing of Atiq Ahmed, a former gangster turned politician. Ahmed, along with his brother, was fatally shot by unidentified attackers outside a hospital in April. What makes this case particularly alarming is that the incident occurred while Ahmed was in police custody. The state government’s response to this issue was recently filed in the Supreme Court, which is currently considering two petitions related to Ahmed’s killing outside a Prayagraj hospital.

In an affidavit submitted on September 29, the Uttar Pradesh government asserted that it has conducted comprehensive investigations not only into Ahmed’s killing but also into seven other alleged fake encounter cases. These include the deaths of Ahmed’s son (who was killed in an encounter just two days before Ahmed’s murder), Ahmed’s brother, and the case of gangster Vikas Dubey, who was killed in July 2020. The government emphasized that in each of these cases, exhaustive investigations were carried out, and in instances where investigations have been completed, no wrongdoing was found on the part of the police.

The government’s response also took a strong stance against the petitioner’s allegations, characterizing them as an abuse of the court’s process. It argued that the petitioner was essentially attempting to rehash issues that had already been settled.

Regarding Atiq Ahmed’s specific case, the government informed the court that the criminal trial is currently underway, with preliminary hearings focused on framing the charges. The next hearing is scheduled for October 3, and the government is committed to ensuring a fair trial.

Furthermore, a five-member commission, chaired by retired Justice Dilip Babasaheb Bhonsle, has been diligently investigating the killing of Atiq Ahmed. This commission has held 23 sittings and has sought input and suggestions from various stakeholders, including the public, media, government, and organizations, with the aim of preventing similar incidents in the future.

Addressing the broader issue of encounter incidents, the government stated that since 2017, detailed information about criminals killed in encounters and the outcomes of investigations or inquiries has been regularly collected and reviewed at the police headquarters level on a monthly basis.

Atiq Ahmed, a former Member of Parliament (MP), had served in this role from 2004 to 2009. Before his tenure as an MP, he had been a Member of the Legislative Assembly for a period of 15 years. Notably, he was in police custody when he was fatally shot, raising concerns and questions about potential security lapses.

In essence, the Uttar Pradesh government is firmly defending the actions of its police force in response to allegations of misconduct in several encounter cases, including the killing of Atiq Ahmed. As investigations and legal proceedings continue, the government remains committed to upholding the rule of law and ensuring a fair trial for all parties involved in these cases.

Supreme Court Urges Priority for 40-Year-Old Rape and Murder Conviction Appeal

by News

The Supreme Court has urged the Calcutta High Court to prioritize the appeal of a 75-year-old lawyer convicted in a rape and murder case dating back to 1983. While the Supreme Court typically doesn’t set specific timeframes for lower courts, it made an exception due to the exceptionally lengthy trial process, which took 40 years to conclude. The convicted lawyer had been found guilty of raping and killing his niece. His appeal was admitted in the Calcutta High Court, but his application for bail was initially dismissed due to his refusal to provide a semen sample for investigation. However, the Supreme Court, considering the trial’s delay, the appellant’s age, and the case’s age, decided to grant him bail on stringent terms and conditions pending the final appeal outcome. The Court also emphasized the lawyer’s responsibility to ensure the appeal’s expeditious resolution and discouraged unreasonable adjournments. The State was given the liberty to request bail cancellation if the lawyer’s actions caused further delays in the appeal process.

Madras High Court’s Interim Order: BJP MLAs Directed to Return Allegedly Illegally Acquired Temple Land

by News

The Madras High Court has issued an interim order instructing two Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLAs from Puducherry and their family members to return a temple property that they were accused of obtaining illegally. The BJP legislators, A John Kumar and his son Vivilian Richards John Kumar, were alleged to have secured ownership of land belonging to the Kamatchiamman Temple in Puducherry through fraudulent means. The temple trust claimed ownership of the land dating back to 1935 and had been in continuous possession for over 80 years.

The court, while hearing the case, directed the MLAs and their family members to return the land until the investigation is completed to determine the rightful owners. It was alleged that government officials in the Puducherry administration were involved in the land-grabbing scheme.

The court found “shocking revelations” in the investigation reports regarding the fraudulent documents and the actions of government officials. The accused MLAs asserted their innocence and stated they were willing to return the land if the temple authorities could prove ownership. However, the court ordered the Puducherry administration to take possession of the temple land and return it to the temple administration.

Justice SM Subramaniam emphasized that public representatives, such as the accused MLAs, should be truthful and trustworthy servants of the people. They are constitutionally obligated to represent the interests of their constituents and uphold the principles of law. Therefore, the court directed the MLAs to cooperate with the ongoing probe conducted by the Puducherry CB-CID. The case will be listed for further proceedings after six weeks following the completion of the investigation.