Law News and Updates - 15.12.2020

 Indian Content:  Compiled by Absolute Guilt for M&J Services - The Eclectic Law Bookstore. 

-----

Portuguese Civil Code, 1867

https://tinyurl.com/y886mxzq

-----

‘STAND IN THE QUEUE’

https://tinyurl.com/ybqgzpny

Source: The Leaflet

-----

Can Emergency Be Declared Unconstitutional Now? Supreme Court To Examine

https://tinyurl.com/y6zspj4k

Source: NDTV

-----

Supreme Court sends notice on PIL over forced sacramental confessions

https://tinyurl.com/y878kbv3

Source: Hindustan Times

-----

Madras High Court recalls order after senior counsel cries injustice

https://tinyurl.com/yap47f8j

Source: India Legal Live

-----

How the Covid pandemic has transformed the practice of law & legal work culture

https://tinyurl.com/yck2a75x

Source: Forbes India

-----

India’s Decadent Criminal Justice System Cries for Reform

https://tinyurl.com/yafzxkdc

Source: NewsClick

-----

High court junks govt’s interlocutory application

https://tinyurl.com/ycma4jky

Source: Times of India

-----

When Supreme Court Crushed Veerappan’s Ultimatum & Saved Democracy

https://tinyurl.com/y84rpted

Source: The Quint

-----

Subscribe to our Free e-Paper https://goo.gl/J7rhGN - The Law News and Updates

-------------

Disclaimer: Law News and Updates sources material from the public domain. Readers are advised to exercise their discretion and cross-check on the authenticity of the same. Law News and Updates will not be responsible for any consequences arising out of the use of the said material.

Bombay HC tells serial litigant to pay CISCE Rs 5 lakh

Source: Times of India dated 06.09.2019

By Rosy Sequeira

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Thursday imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on a serial litigant for misusing the court's orders to raise money on a crowd-funding site to "fight corruption" in schools affiliated to the Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations board (CISCE).


A bench of Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Bharati Dangre also directed the board to file an FIR for extortion against Dombivli resident Sapan Shrivastava. Bengaluru-based crowd funding platform Milaap Social Ventures India Private Limited has been directed to block the page put up by him seeking funds.

The order came on Shrivastava's PIL to direct filing of a criminal case against the board for cheating and conspiracy. He contended CISCE, which operates 2,200 schools across India and 200 schools in Maharashtra, hid the fact that it's not recognised by the HRD ministry "since last 50 years". He claimed he learnt through RTI the Centre recognises only CBSE and NIOS boards.

The judges pointed out that though the RTI reply states that since education falls under the Concurrent List, boards are also set up by states, he moved against CISCE without checking with the states.

Senior advocate Raju Subramaniam explained that CISCE is recognised by almost all states and said Shrivastava had "threatened" some schools. He added that Shrivastava has been crowd-funding by presenting himself as "championing the cause of education" and putting up the court's orders. Shrivastava said "crowdfunding was for a social cause".

The judges saw it as "yet another case of frivolous PIL misusing the process of this court" and decided "strict action is required to be taken against the petitioner". Dismissing the PIL, the judges directed Shrivastava to compensate CISCE within four weeks and asked the board to file an FIR of extortion against him. They also directed the high court registry not to entertain any petition from him until he files proof of the cost paid.

When Subramaniam said CISCE would not like to accept the amount, the judges said it could donate it to a student fund. Noting that Shrivastava's webpage is on Milaap, they directed it to block it since he is using it to generate funds by misusing the orders of this court. Milaap co-founder Anoj Vishwanath said a user had pointed out a discrepancy in Shrivastava's petition in July, and it has been blocked since then.

Kapila Hingorani, 'Mother of Public Interest Litigation' Dies

Source: The Times of India dated 2.1.2014

Kapila Hingorani, Mother of PILs, dies

Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN 

New Delhi: Kapila Hingorani, who more than three decades ago became the first woman lawyer to file a PIL on behalf of undertrial prisoners in Bihar, earning the title ‘the Mother of PILs’, has passed away. She was 86. 
    In her nearly 60-year practice as advocate, she and her three practicing lawyer children — Aman, Priya and Shweta — fought more than 100 cases in the SC through PILs. PILs may have become a fad these days, but the 1979 case she fought for Hussainara Khatoon remains a pioneering effort as a true harbinger of justice to the voiceless. 
    The court, in 1979, laid down important guidelines on undertrial prisoners in the Khatoon case. It said: “A procedure which keeps large number of people behind bars without trial for long, cannot possibly be regarded as ‘reasonable, just or fair’ so as to be in conformity with the requirement of Article 21 (right to life)… Speedy trial is of the essence of criminal justice and, therefore, delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of justice.” Importantly, the SC, for the first time, talked of the necessity of free legal aid to poor persons. 
    Eight years after the judgment, the National Legal Services Authority was constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, to provide free legal services to weaker sections of society and to organize Lok Adalats for amicable settlement of disputes. 
    The second most important PIL, which Hingorani herself filed in the SC, related to denial of salary — accrued over four to 94 months — to thousands of Bihar government employees. She alleged that hundreds of government employees had died of penury-actuated poverty. 
    On Tuesday, the ‘Mother of PIL’ may have breathed her last, but she has left behind a rich legacy of selfless pro-bono fights for the underprivileged and a mighty weapon in the form of PILs.

HC poser to govt: Why no death for minors?

HC poser to govt: Why no death for minors?

Source: DNA

HC poser to govt: Why no death for minors?

DNA Correspondent l New Delhi

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to respond to a petition seeking annulment of certain provisions in the juvenile law, including those that spare minor convicts from life imprisonment and death penalty. “Issue notice to respondents (the Union ministries of parliamentary affairs and law and justice). Put up for hearing on February 14,” a bench of Chief Justices D Murugesan and VK Jain said. Additional solicitor general Rajeev Mehra appearing for the Centre said, “So far as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act is concerned, I will have to take instructions and so far as the other prayer (seeking harsher punishment for rape) is concerned, a committee has already been constituted to look into it.” The counsel for Shweta Kapoor, a Supreme Court lawyer who filed the PIL, said various provisions of the Act, including section 16, require to be held as ultra-vires as it prohibits a juvenile above the age of 16 years from being awarded life imprisonment and death penalty. The petition also highlights the alleged contradiction in various provisions of the Act which allows a juvenile convict to go out of a special home after attaining majority.The Act provides that delinquents, above 16 years, shall be kept in special homes away from other minors and the period of detention would be of three years, while another provision says that a juvenile can only be kept in the special home till he attains 18 years of age.

Published Date:  Jan 10, 2013

PIL for relook at laws for juveniles

 Source: The Times of India
  By Abhinav Garg, TNN | Jan 9, 2013

Growing disenchantment with the lenient provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act that allows convicted teens to get away with lighter sentences has led a lawyer to file a PIL in the Delhi high court.

Citing the alleged brutality of the juvenile accused in the Nirbhaya gang rape and other instances reported by TOI, Shweta Kapoor's plea urges the high court to quash certain sections of the Juvenile Justice Act. PIL: Impose stricter punishment for rape Recent incidents have shown that it is society which "needs care and protection," instead of the juvenile offenders, it says. The PIL which is to come up for hearing before the Chief Justice on Wednesday, also seeks enhancement of the punishment for rape.

"Issue an appropriate writ ...or direction declaring the provisions of section 16(1) (1st part without proviso), the proviso to subsection 2 of section 16 ...of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, as ultravires to the Constitution..," the PIL says.

It argues that recent incidents show that juveniles, who have attained the age of 16 years, are involved in serious crimes and are "quite well developed and they do not need the care and protection of the society, rather the society needs the care and protection against them". Section 16 of the Act, which deals with the protection extended to juveniles, says they cannot be "sentenced to death or life imprisonment". The provision also says that delinquents above 16 years shall be kept in special homes away from other minors and the period of detention would be three years.

"In other words section 16 envisages a different class of juveniles who have committed an offence of serious nature and cannot be kept in special homes. Therefore subsection 1 of section 16 (1st part) of the Act is ultra vires," the PIL claims.

The PIL assumes significance in the backdrop of the December 16 gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old student in which investigations have indicated that a minor, 17, was allegedly the "most brutal" of the six accused. The PIL also goes into the dilemma of the accused being allowed to walk if he is convicted and given three years — as he cannot be kept with minor convicts and cannot be jailed with adults either, having been tried under the Juvenile Justice Act.

"The very fact that gruesome acts and heinous crimes have been committed by a number of juveniles between the age of 16 and 18 years would show that certain provisions of the Act are ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that unequals have been clubbed together and given the same benefit though the same benefit cannot be given to the class of juveniles between the age of 16 to 18 years who have been found involved in heinous and grave crimes," the PIL argues.

It wonders why "a person committing a serious crime after attaining the age of 17 years and 364 days cannot be treated differently from the person who commits the same crime after attaining the age of 18 years and one day."