The Kerala High Court today banned the use of high-decibel crackers and fireworks display after sunset in places of worship across the state in the wake of the temple tragedy in Kollam that has claimed 110 lives.
The court asked the state government to examine whether a CBI probe is necessary into the Paravur Puttingal Devi temple fireworks display tragedy on Sunday.
Treating a judge’s letter seeking a ban as a PIL, the bench of Justice Thottathil B Radhakrishnan and Justice Anu Sivaraman banned the use of sound-generating fireworks between sunset and sunrise across places of worship.
It, however, said that during day time, the sound of explosives cannot exceed the permitted limit.PTI
The Bombay High Court has declined to quash an FIR registered against an editor of a software company website for allegedly using abusive language against a female reporter on the ground that the complaint discloses commission of cognisable offence.
“Prima facie, we find that the complaint discloses commission of a cognisable offence under Section 509 of IPC (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman). The offence is cognisable and bailable,” noted a bench of Justices Naresh Patil and Justice A M Badar recently.
“At this stage, it is not appropriate to observe anything more as investigation is in progress. We expect the investigating agency to probe the matter fairly and complete investigation within three weeks from today,” said the bench while rejecting the editor’s plea to quash the FIR.
During July 20-24, 2015, the complainant had gone with the petitioner and other officers of her company to a hotel for a conference. According to the complaint, the editor allegedly used abusive language during interactions while generally talking to her in front of others.
The complainant alleged those words were used knowingly and with an intention to insult her and she felt ashamed on hearing those utterances.
It was further alleged that on July 22, 2015, a party was hosted, but the complainant, due to her commitments, could not attend it. The complainant was told the petitioner (editor) was not happy as she did not attend the party.
According to the complainant, on July 29, 2015, she received two e-mails from the petitioner, which were abusive in nature. She complained of the same to the HR Head who assured that the CEO was personally looking into the matter.
She further alleged after her complaint to HR, the petitioner started behaving badly with her and and she was allegedly asked to withdraw the complaint and was mentally harassed for not doing so.
On noticing that the management was not taking any step to solve the matter, the complainant said she was constrained to approach the National Commission for Women in New Delhi. The Commission directed her to approach the Amboli Police Station in Mumbai.
The complainant then registered an FIR under Section 509 of IPC and relevant section of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention and Prohibition) Act.PTI
Popular Bollywood songs would not be heard in the ongoing T-20 cricket league, with the Delhi High Court restraining BCCI and seven IPL teams from playing them without the permission of the members of a singers’ association.
The Indian Singers Rights Association (ISRA), a body registered as the first copyright society, has moved the high court seeking an injunction against the IPL teams, excluding Delhi Daredevils, by asserting that playing of songs without the nod of members of the body amounts to infringement of “performer’s rights”.
The court asked event management firm – DNA Entertainment Networks Pvt Ltd – and its Manager of Operations to refrain from playing the songs till April 19, the next date of hearing, when the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) would also response to the notice.
“Till the next date, defendants shall remain restrained from in any manner communicating to the public (via radio, TV, mobile phones or any other medium) ISRA’s repertoire, during IPL matches, comprising of performances of all its members (live or recorded), without obtaining a Performer’s Rights Clearance Certificate from ISRA, or doing any other act infringing the members performers’ rights or doing any act violating the members Right to Receive Royalty,” Justice Vipin Sanghi said.
The lawsuit filed by advocate Pravin Anand on behalf of ISRA, whose members include Lata Mangeshkar, Alka Yagnik, Asha Bhosle and Kailash Kher, alleged that till date, neither the IPL teams nor the event management firm has paid royalty for the previous years and not obtained permission from it for playing of songs of its members in this year’s IPL matches.
The IPL teams which have to reply to ISRA’s allegations are Royal Challengers Bangalore, Kolkata Knight Riders, Mumbai Indians, Sunrisers Hyderabad, King’s XI Punjab, Rising Pune Supergiants and Gujarat Lions.PTI
The Supreme Court today appointed two amicus curiae on appeals of four condemned convicts in the December 16 gangrape and murder case against the Delhi High Court order upholding their death sentence.
A bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra appointed senior advocates Raju Ramachandran and Sanjay Hegde as amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter.
While Ramachandran would assist the court in appeals of the convicts –Mukesh and Pawan, Hegde would appear for convicts Vinay and Akshay in the case.
“We must express our concern in the matter. We feel the gravity in the whole issue. Sometimes there are many perceptions and we don’t want to miss anything. We would like to be assisted by the amicus curiae in the matter. We appoint two senior counsels Raju Ramachandran and Sanjay Hegde as amicus in the case,” the bench, also comprising Justice V Gopala Gowda and Kurian Joseph, said.
The matter is listed for next hearing on July 18.
On April 4, the court had commenced arguments on the plea of Mukesh and Pawan.
Besides Mukesh and Pawan, the other two convicts, Vinay Sharma and Akshay Kumar Singh, had approached the apex court against the Delhi High Court’s March 13, 2014 verdict, which had termed that their offence fell in the rarest of rare category and upheld the death sentence awarded to them by the trial court.
A 23-year-old paramedic was brutally assaulted and gangraped by six persons in a moving bus in South Delhi and thrown out of the vehicle with her male friend on the night of December 16, 2012. She had died in a Singapore hospital on December 29.
The prime accused, Ram Singh, had been found dead in a cell in Tihar Jail in March 2013 and proceedings against him were abated.
On August 31, 2013, another accused, a juvenile at the time of the crime, was convicted and sentenced to three years in a reformation home. He was released from observation home in December last year.PTI
A PIL has been moved in Delhi High Court seeking directions to the government to recruit married women law graduates into the Judge Advocate General (JAG) department of the Indian Army like similarly placed men.
The petition has contended that “at present, Judge Advocate General Department of Indian Army recruits males (married/unmarried) and females (only unmarried) for serving in the Indian Army. Due to this institutionalised discrimination, married female candidates who are law graduates are being deprived of their right to serve in JAG department of Indian Army.
“This discrimination on grounds of gender is violative of fundamental right of equality before law, right not to be discriminated on the ground of sex, equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, fundamental right to practice any profession and occupation and human rights of the women.”
Petitioner Kush Kalra, in his plea, has also sought that the eligibility conditions prohibiting the entry of married female candidates in the JAG department be declared unconstitutional.
He said that aggrieved by the “discrimination against females”, he had written a letter on September 19, 2015, to the Army requesting it to recruit married female candidates in the JAG department. However, till date he has not received any reply, the petition said.
The petition, filed through advocate Jyotika Kalra, has also alleged “uneven distribution/allocation of seats for women” in recruitment into JAG as vacancies advertised for men were 10 and only four for women.PTI.
The Bombay High Court today refused to grant interim stay on the release of Bengali movie ‘Dark Chocolate’, which is based on Sheena Bora murder case, and said it has faith in Central Board of Film Certification(CBFC) to analyse everything before approving the film for release.
A division bench headed by Justice S C Dharmadhikari was hearing a petition filed by Sheena Bora’s step-father Peter Mukerjea, one of the arrested accused in the case, challenging the release of the movie on the grounds that it would violate his fundamental right to have a free and just trial.
Mukerjea had sought the High Court to stay the release of the movie and a direction to the producers to let him see the movie first.
The High Court today, however, said that the movie is not yet ready and will be presented before the CBFC as and when it is ready for release.
“We have complete faith in the CBFC…it works on guidelines. It may analyse the movie and then decide whether to grant certification or not. After the movie is certified for release, you (petitioner) can approach the court again, then we will see if it causes prejudice to you or the trial,” the court said.
Earlier, the makers of the movie told the court that the film is inspired from material available freely in public domain on the murder.
Director Agnidev Chatterjee and the producers said that the aspersion that the accused will not get a proper trial is actually casting perverse aspersions on the very foundation of honesty, integrity, sincerity and dignity of the honourable judiciary in whom the makers of the film and the entire country has unstinted and unconditional confidence and trust.
Chatterjee had earlier informed the court that shooting of the film is complete and post-production was going on. He clarified that it will soon be sent to the Censor Board and then be released.
The movie stars Mahima Chaudhry in the role of Indrani Mukerjea and Riya Sen as Sheena Bora.PTI
A plea has been filed in the Delhi High Court against “illegal” surcharge levied on transactions done through debit and credit cards across the country while no such charge is imposed on cash payments.
Advocate Amit Sahni in his public interest litigation, likely to be heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice G Rohini, said the “unlawful, unequal and arbitrary treatment is visible on the payment of petrol charges through credit and debit cards”.
The plea said the Ministry of Finance and Reserve Bank of India (RBI) be directed to take “appropriate steps to frame guidelines so as to prevent the charging of unlawful and discriminatory surcharge being levied on the transactions whose payment is made through debit and credit cards, while no such charge is levied when payment is made in cash”.
The petitioner said the ministry and RBI are “responsible for making rules/guidelines and for monitoring banks across the country”.
He further said levying surcharge is not only illegal and discriminatory but it also promotes the circulation of black money in cash.
“The petitioner has noticed that the illegal, unequal and arbitrary treatment is seen across the country on transactions being done through credit and debit card by levying surcharge at the rate of 2.5 per cent or more, while such surcharge is not levied when the payment of such transaction is done by making cash payment in that regard…,” the plea stated.
It further said India is one of the most cash-intensive economies in the world and there is urgent need to incentivise credit or debit card transactions and dis-incentivise cash transactions.PTI
Congress today moved the Uttarakhand High Court challenging a central ordinance authorising expenditure in the state, which is under President’s rule, as the party has contended that the Assembly had duly passed the Appropriation Bill on March 18.
A writ petition challenging promulgation of the ordinance was mentioned by senior Supreme Court lawyer and former Union minister Kapil Sibal before the division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice K M Joseph and Justice V K Bisht and the hearing was under way.
The Uttarakhand Appropriation (Vote on Account) Ordinance, 2016 was promulgated by the President yesterday.
The ordinance is to provide for withdrawal of certain sums from and out of the Consolidated Fund of the State of Uttarakhand for the services of a part of the financial year 2016-17, it said.
The Supreme Court today dismissed petitions challenging the validity of amendments made in the 114-year-old Land Acquisition Act to save a portion of a five-star resort in Goa which was earlier ordered to be demolished.
“We find no merit in the petitions. We uphold the validity of the amendments made to the Land Acquisition Act,” a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C Pant said.
In 2009, Goa government promulgated an ordinance to amend the law in order to save a portion of five-star resort of Cidade de Goa, owned by Fomento Resorts and Hotels, which had been ordered to be demolished by the Supreme Court.
The apex court, on January 21, 2009 had ordered the demolition of the portion which houses 54 hotel rooms besides a health club, conference and business rooms and other facilities.
The court had given the order as the hotel management violated certain guidelines in the agreement reached between the government and the resort.
The state had decided to promulgate an ordinance amending the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 so that the government is empowered to modify any agreement with the hotel management to meet any exigencies.
The Dona Paula-based resort was given land by the government under certain conditions, including public access to the beach.PTI
The Delhi High Court today sought the response of Delhi Police and a woman volunteer of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) on a plea filed by its leader Kumar Vishwas seeking quashing of an FIR lodged against him for alleged offence of sexual harrasment.
Justice Sunita Gupta issued notice for July 21 to the police and the woman volunteer on whose complaint a magisterial court had on March 16 ordered registration of the FIR against Vishwas in the matter.
The FIR for alleged offences under sections 354 A (sexual harassment) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman) of IPC was registered against Vishwas at Sarojini Nagar Police Station here in pursuance to the direction of the magisterial court.
In its order, the magistrate had observed that the accused had made “sexually coloured” remarks and made advances towards the complainant which required police probe.
During the hearing today, senior advocate H S Phoolka, appearing for Vishwas, claimed that allegations levelled against his client were false and the complainant woman had regularly made incorrect accusations against the AAP leader.
Phoolka said that police has initially probed the matter but they had not found any cognisable offence against Vishwas.
“The complainant (woman) has regularly stated against me in the media. She has filed a number of complaints against me.
The order passed by the trial court is wrong,” he said while seeking quashing of the FIR.
Phoolka also claimed that there were contradictions in the statement of the complainant and she had taken Vishwas’ name only in August last year.
Advocate C L Gupta, also appearing for Vishwas, claimed that allegations against his client were false and motivated.
The counsel for the police said that they had filed a status report before the magisterial court and that no cognisable offence was made out against Vishwas.
Police had on March 17 informed the magistrate that an FIR has been lodged on a complaint against Vishwas in the matter.
In the FIR, the complainant has accused Vishwas of making sexually coloured remarks towards her, alleging that he was “trying to exploit” her “physically” and had made advances towards her several times before in 2014 and 2015.
The woman had earlier claimed that she had approached the police but no action was taken against the leader.
In its status report filed before the trial court earlier, the police had said that during its probe, nothing was found to substantiate the allegations levelled by the woman against Vishwas to register any criminal case against him.PTI
Recent Comments