Much before the enactment of RTI Act, which came on the statute book in the year 2005, Supreme Court repeatedly emphasised the people’s right to information to be a facet of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It has been held that the right to information is a fundamental right and flows from Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees right to speech. This right has also been traced to Article 21 which concerns about right to life and liberty. There are umpteen number of judgments declaring that transparency is the key for functioning of a healthy democracy.
Framing of question of law:
High Court framed 6 questions of law at the time of admission of appeal but delivered no judgement on those questions. However it framed two other questions in the judgement and decided the appeal. Procedure if legal?
First, though it rightly framed six substantial questions of law at the time of admission of the appeal on 30.11.2002 as arising in the case but erred in not answering these questions.
The High Court had the jurisdiction to decide the second appeal only on the six substantial questions of law framed at the time of admitting the appeal. In other words, the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the second appeal was confined only to six questions framed and not beyond it. Continue reading “Procedure for disposal of Second Appeal by High Court.”
Whether the MAFs are operating in India in violation of law in force in a clandestine manner, and no effective steps are being taken to enforce the said law?
If so, what orders are required to be passed to enforce the said law.
Acts constituting violation of law:
i) There is a bar under CA Act to practice as CAs for a company which includes a limited liability common partnership which has company as its partners. Continue reading “Legality of Multi-Nation Accounting Firm”
Decision without opportunity of hearing.
On behalf of the appellants it is urged that the appellants had received notice dated 08.07.2014 from the National Commission and, thereafter, they had sent a reply on 25.07.2014 praying that the matter may be heard in the Camp Sitting of the National Commission at Bengaluru. According to the appellants, no reply was received to this letter. On behalf of the claimants/respondents it is urged that the appellants were aware of the case and that the matter had been settled on the basis of a compromise arrived at by the appellants with another consumer and there is no need to set aside the order. After going through the record we find that the appellants had made a request that their matter be heard at Bengaluru. Copies of the orders passed thereafter have been placed on record and the record does not show that the appellants were ever informed that their request for having the matter heard at Bengaluru was either accepted or rejected. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the National Commission erred in not issuing fresh notice to the appellants. Accordingly, the order of the National Commission is set aside and the matter is remitted to the National Commission for hearing the same on merits.
[Source: Mangalam Homes & Resorts Pvt. … vs Joy Kaliyavumkal decided by SC on 10 January, 2018]
Effect of non-supply of Enquiry Report to dismissed employee:
Test of prejudice:
When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual.
Death Row Convicts
“Prisoners awaiting death sentence are not suffering imprisonment but are merely in safe custody to suffer sentence of death”
In view of the disparities in implementing the already existing laws, Supreme Court directed to frame the following guidelines for safeguarding the interest of the death row convicts.
1. Solitary Confinement:
Solitary or single cell confinement prior to rejection of the mercy petition by the President is unconstitutional. Almost all the prison Manuals of the States provide necessary rules governing the confinement of death convicts. The rules should not be interpreted to run counter to the above ruling and violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Continue reading “Prison conditions for death row convicts”
Judicial Review of rejection of mercy petition.
Can an accused keep on filing successive mercy petitions and claim right to challenge it’s rejection in court with a hiatus on death warrant for 14 days in between?
The instant petition is a clear expose of the manipulation of the principle of rule of law. The petitioner was tried for which is known as “Bombay Blast Case’ and stood convicted in the year 2007. Almost 22 years have passed since 1993 when the incident occurred. We have not perceived any error in the issue of the death warrant as per our order dated 29.07.2015 passed in W.P. (Crl) No.129 of 2015. The only exception which has been enthusiastically carved out by learned counsel is that they are entitled to get 14 days’ time to assail the rejection of the mercy petition.
Application of mind
Framing of charge is the first major step in a criminal trial where the court is expected to apply its mind to the entire record and documents placed therewith before the court. Taking cognizance of an offence has been stated to necessitate an application of mind by the court but framing of charge is a major event where the court considers the possibility of discharging the accused of the offence with which he is charged or requiring the accused to face trial. There are different categories of cases where the court may not proceed with the trial and may discharge the accused or pass such other orders as may be necessary keeping in view the facts of a given case.
Section 498-A of Penal Code.
Section 498A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression ‘cruelty’ in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the women to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand.8 It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498A alleging harassment of married women.
Big relief to relatives of accused:
Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.
Directions by Supreme Court:
Proper procedure or withdrawal of a contesting candidate.
Relevant law is section 37 of Representation of Peoples Act, which is as under:
37. Withdrawal of candidature.—
(1) Any candidate may withdraw his candidature by a notice in writing which shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and shall be subscribed by him and delivered before three O’clock in the afternoon on the day fixed under clause (c) of section 30 to the returning officer either by such candidate in person or by his proposer, or election agent who has been authorised in this behalf in writing by such candidate.
(2) No person who has given a notice of withdrawal of his candidature under sub-section (1) shall be allowed to cancel the notice. 3[(3) The returning officer shall, on being satisfied as to the genuineness of a notice or withdrawal and the identity of the person delivering it under sub-section (1), cause the notice to be affixed in some conspicuous place in his office.
Election result in case of fraudulent withdrawal:
When there are only two contesting candidates, and one of them is under a statutory disqualification, votes cast in favour of the disqualified candidate may be regarded as thrown away, irrespective of whether the voters who voted for him were aware of the disqualification. This is not to say that where there are more than two candidates in the field for a single seat, and one alone is disqualified, on proof of disqualification all the votes cast in his favour will be discarded and the candidate securing the next highest number of votes will be declared elected. In such a case, question of notice to the voters may assume significance, for the voters may not, if aware of the disqualification have voted for the disqualified candidate. Continue reading “Election Law: Withdrawal of Nomination.”