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.

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.

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.

BCI Chairman Writes Letter to CJI, Requests to declare National Court Holiday on Jan 22 for Ayodhya’s Ram Mandir Pran Pratishtha Mahotsav

by News

Bar Council of India Chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra, has written a letter to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, requesting the declaration of a nationwide holiday for all courts on January 22. This appeal is tied to the upcoming consecration ceremony of Lord Ram at the newly constructed Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.

Scheduled for January 22, the Pran Pratishtha Mahotsav (consecration ceremony) will witness the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and various dignitaries. In the letter, Mishra refers to the Supreme Court’s November 9, 2019, judgment, which granted Hindus a clear title to the entire Ram Janmabhoomi. The court affirmed that the Babri Masjid area was indeed the birthplace of Lord Ram.

Highlighting the significance of this event, Mishra argues that declaring a holiday on January 22 would symbolize a “harmonious blend of legal processes with the cultural ethos of the nation.”

In simpler terms, the Bar Council of India is asking the Chief Justice to let courts across the country take a break on January 22. This is because an important ceremony is happening in Ayodhya – the consecration of the idol of Lord Ram in the new Ram Mandir. The Bar Council refers to a past Supreme Court decision that confirmed Hindus’ ownership of the Ram Janmabhoomi. According to them, making January 22 a holiday would demonstrate a good balance between following legal rules and respecting our cultural values.

Judge did not receive the salary: Patna High Court judge moves to the Supreme Court

by News

A judge from the Patna High Court, Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra, has taken his case to the Supreme Court, stating that he hasn’t received his salary since being promoted to the High Court in November 2023. He argues that the delay is because he hasn’t been given a General Provident Fund (GPF) account, even though he completed all the required paperwork.

The Supreme Court has accepted Justice Mishra’s plea, where he is requesting the opening of a GPF account and the release of his salary. A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, issued notices to the Union of India, the State of Bihar, and the Registrar General of the Patna High Court. The court has set the case for consideration on January 29, 2024.

Justice Mishra, through his lawyer Advocate Prem Prakash, sought interim relief, but the court didn’t make any interim decisions. The judge claims that not having a GPF account has caused financial and mental instability, preventing him from receiving his salary since the promotion.

In his plea, Justice Mishra refers to Section 20 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, seeking a declaration that he is entitled to a GPF account. The Act states that every judge can subscribe to the General Provident Fund, with a provision for judges who held other pensionable civil posts before their appointment to continue their subscription to the Provident Fund they were enrolled in previously.

This case follows a similar issue involving seven sitting judges of the Patna High Court who approached the Supreme Court last year. They faced the closure of their GPF accounts based on a letter from the Law Ministry. In response, the Supreme Court, led by CJI Chandrachud, directed the immediate release of salaries for these judges.

Justice Mishra’s case emphasizes the importance of prompt administrative processes for judges, particularly concerning financial matters like the GPF account, which affects their livelihood and well-being. The Supreme Court’s decision on January 29 will clarify the resolution of this matter and may establish a precedent for judges facing similar challenges.

In a broader context, these incidents underscore the need for streamlined administrative procedures to ensure the timely and efficient handling of judges’ financial matters, safeguarding their rights and well-being within the judicial system.

PIL Questions Recent Amendments to Criminal Laws in Supreme Court

by News

A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging three recent criminal law amendment Acts—Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. These Acts are intended to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act, aiming to reform India’s criminal justice system.

The laws, passed in the winter session of Parliament and approved by the President on December 25, are yet to come into effect. While information is available on the Rashtrapati Bhavan website, it has not been published in the Gazette of India, and rules are still pending.

Vishal Tiwari, the petitioner, raises concerns about the laws, pointing out defects and discrepancies while emphasizing that they ignore recommendations from the Law Commission. The petitioner stresses that the laws were passed without proper parliamentary debate, as many members were suspended during that period. Additionally, the petitioner notes that the titles of the proposed bills are unclear and do not convey the purpose of the statutes.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, according to the petitioner, largely retains offenses from the Indian Penal Code of 1860. The new CrPC, as per the petitioner’s arguments, could make obtaining bail during police custody more challenging.

The three laws were initially introduced in Lok Sabha on August 11, 2023, and later referred to a parliamentary committee for further examination, headed by Brij Lal. Following this, they were approved by the Lok Sabha on December 20 and subsequently passed by the Rajya Sabha on December 21.

In summary, a PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court questioning the validity and effectiveness of the new criminal law amendment Acts, emphasizing concerns about their passage without proper parliamentary discussion and the potential implications of changes to bail procedures.

Supreme Court to Inspect If Women Can Be Charged Under IPC Section 375

by News

In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court of India finds itself grappling with a unique question: can a woman be charged with rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)? This intriguing scenario unfolded when a 62-year-old widow claimed she was falsely implicated in a rape case against her son.

The court, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol, raised doubts about whether the existing legal framework allows for a woman to be booked for rape. Section 375 of the IPC explicitly refers to a “man” as the perpetrator of rape, hinting that only men can be accused of this offense. The court issued a notice and adjourned the anticipatory bail plea filed by the widow, signaling a deeper examination of this legal conundrum.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that women cannot be charged with rape, emphasizing that legal precedent excludes women from sharing common intention in gangrape cases. This case revolves around allegations that the widow and her son were involved in the rape of a woman earlier this year.

The complainant had reportedly been in a long-distance relationship with the widow’s elder son, whom she “married” through a video call without any traditional rituals. The widow claimed that family pressure led to a compromise agreement, terminating the relationship and involving a substantial sum of money.

However, weeks after the compromise, the complainant filed a criminal case against the widow and her younger son, accusing them of rape, wrongful confinement, hurt, and criminal intimidation. The widow, after being denied pre-arrest bail by lower courts, sought relief from the Supreme Court.

The complainant’s version alleges that she had promised to marry the elder son, who threatened suicide if she married someone else. The complainant claimed the elder son instructed her to live with his mother until he could come to India, marry her in court, and take her to the USA. According to her, the widow and younger son pressured her into marrying the latter, resulting in rape and other offenses.

In response, the widow dismissed the allegations as a fabricated case with false claims made after a significant delay. The High Court, while rejecting her anticipatory bail plea, deemed these matters suitable for trial.

Interestingly, a related legal precedent from the Allahabad High Court suggested that although women cannot commit rape, facilitating gang-rape could lead to prosecution. This nuance, according to the court, stems from amended provisions in the IPC.

This legal saga underscores the complexity of addressing gender-specific elements within the legal system. As the Supreme Court contemplates whether a woman can be accused of rape under Section 375, it raises fundamental questions about the interpretation of existing laws and the need for legal clarity.

In conclusion, this case presents a legal quandary that challenges conventional understanding. As the judiciary delves into the intricacies of this matter, it becomes crucial to balance legal interpretations with a nuanced understanding of societal dynamics. The outcome of this case could potentially shape future legal discourse and contribute to evolving perspectives on gender-specific legal provisions.

Supreme Court Rejects Ban on Pakistani Artists

by News

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a petition urging a complete ban on the employment of Pakistani artists in the country. The plea, previously rejected by the Bombay High Court in October, sought to prevent Indian citizens from engaging or seeking performances from Pakistani artists.

A Bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision. Justice Khanna, before dismissing the case, advised the petitioner not to adopt a narrow-minded perspective.

The Bombay High Court, in its earlier ruling, found the petition lacking in merit, describing it as a regressive step against cultural harmony, unity, and peace. The High Court highlighted the recent participation of the Pakistani cricket team in the Cricket World Cup held in India, citing positive measures taken by the Government of India for overall peace and harmony.

Moreover, the High Court reasoned that the petitioner’s notion of patriotism was misplaced, emphasizing that imposing such bans would violate the fundamental right of Indian citizens to carry on business and trade.

The petitioner, Faaiz Anwar Qureshi, a self-proclaimed cine worker, referred to a resolution by the All Indian Cine Workers Association (AICWA), which decided against involving Pakistani artists in the Indian film industry. Qureshi argued that not granting the relief sought might lead to discrimination against Indian artists in Pakistan.

He further contended that allowing Pakistani artists in India could potentially harm Indian citizens’ commercial opportunities. The petitioner expressed concerns that Pakistani artists might exploit business opportunities in India, to the detriment of Indian citizens.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s rejection of the plea reinforces the principles of cultural inclusivity and underscores the importance of fostering harmonious relations in the entertainment industry. The decision highlights the judiciary’s stance against measures that could impede cultural exchange and cross-border collaboration in the arts.

Supreme Court Recommends Lawyers to Use ‘Sir’ to Address Judges Instead of ‘My Lords’

by News

The Supreme Court of India has recently taken a unique step in urging lawyers to alter their traditional way of addressing judges during court proceedings. They are advocating for lawyers to discontinue the use of customary phrases like “My Lords” or “Your Lordships” and instead adopt a simpler and more direct term, “Sir.” This unconventional request was made by a bench of justices, including AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha. Their motivation for making this request became evident when a lawyer repeatedly used the older honorifics during a court session.

Justice Narasimha, in a surprising move, went even further by offering the lawyer an intriguing proposition. He stated that he would personally give the lawyer half of his own salary if they agreed to make the switch to using “Sir” in place of “My Lords.” He playfully remarked, “How many times will you say ‘My Lords’? If you stop saying this, then I will give you half of my salary. Why don’t you use ‘Sir’ instead?” This offered a unique and somewhat humorous dimension to the situation.

This initiative is not entirely novel, as it resonates with a resolution that the Bar Council of India (BCI) passed in 2006. The BCI had called upon lawyers to refrain from using “My Lord” and “Your Lordship” when addressing judges. The BCI’s guidelines prescribed that lawyers should demonstrate respect for the court and its dignity. In the Supreme Court and High Courts, they should use “Your Honour” or “Hon’ble Court.” In Subordinate Courts and Tribunals, lawyers have the option to address the court as “Sir” or use equivalent terms in their regional languages.

This call for modernizing language and etiquette in the courtroom has not been limited to the Supreme Court alone. Judges in various high courts across India have extended similar advice to lawyers. For instance, the Orissa High Court, under the leadership of then Chief Justice S Muralidhar, advised that advocates and parties-in-person appearing before the court avoid “My Lord,” “Your Lordship,” “Your Honour,” and the prefix “Hon’ble.” In the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi requested lawyers not to use “Your Lordship” and recommended avoiding certain terms, such as “obliged” and “grateful,” during case arguments. Justice Devan Ramachandran of the Kerala High Court indicated a preference for being addressed as “Sir.”

This shift in addressing judges reflects a broader movement to simplify language and formalities in the courtroom. It underscores a commitment to promoting a more straightforward and respectful approach within the Indian legal system. By moving away from traditional colonial-era phrases and embracing more direct and contemporary language, the legal community in India is signaling its readiness to modernize court etiquette.