Top News Headlines 21st Feb 2022: Hindi National Language: Bombay HC Rejects Bail: Accused Files SLP In SC

Hindi National Language: Bombay HC Rejects Bail; Accused Files SLP In SC

• Is Hindi our National Language? This question has come up for consideration before the Apex Court in an SLP filed by an accused in a narcotics case when his bail application was rejected by the Bombay HC while calling Hindi our national language.
• In November 2021, Justice Nitin Sambre rejected the appellant Gangam Sudhir Kumar’s bail application despite the police’s failure to explain the reasons for his arrest in a language that he understands. This, according to the appellant, was a non-compliance of section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
• The accused was arrested by the Anti-Narcotics Cell of the Mumbai Police in 2019 under section 8(c) read with section 20(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. Commercial quantity of ganja was found from a vehicle which was in the name of the accused’s wife. He is a resident of Telangana and the drugs were seized in Mumbai.
• While rejecting the bail application the Court observed that the applicant was communicated his statutory rights under section 50 of the Act, in Hindi. But he has later claimed that he does not understand Hindi.
• The Court also observed that he is the owner of a Tours and Travels business and the basic necessity of such a business is the person's ability to communicate with his clients. The Court also said that the applicant was communicated about his rights in Hindi which is a National Language.
• In his SLP, the applicant/accused claimed that under Article 22 of the Constitution, he has to be told of his grounds of arrest which has not happened in the present case as he was told of his rights in Hindi and not in Telugu, a language in which he was fluent in.
• As regards calling Hindi a National Language, the SLP states that this notion is wrong and that the Indian Constitution does not provide for any national language and there are only official languages.
• The keenest controversy in the Constituent Assembly, as per the applicant, was regarding the official language and there was no mention of a national language in the Draft Constitution. The only languages that were mentioned were the official languages of the Union Parliament and the State Legislature and the language used by the SC and the HCs.
• Thus, the SLP seeks a release on bail on the grounds of violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

Application For Premature Release Of A Convict Must Considered On The Basis Of Past Criminal Record, Behaviour In Jail, Etc: SC

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC or Court), in the case of Sharafat Ali v State of Uttar Pradesh, has allowed a Petition seeking premature release. Setting aside the impugned order of the State Government, the SC remarked that the premature release application must include prior criminal record history, conduct and behaviour of the convict in the jail and if such release would pose danger to the society.
• The Court further noted that a general observation that the premature release may result in resentment on the side of the victim would essentially govern all criminal offences and this approach would leave the order bereft of an application of mind.
• The Petitioner was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Trial Court and the same was affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court (HC) of Allahabad.
• In July 2021, after serving 17 years, 9 months and 26 days of imprisonment, the Petitioner submitted an application for premature release which was rejected by the State Government basis the report received from the District Magistrate which stated that a pre mature release may cause resentment to the victim’s family and the release might also lead to the possibility of the crime being committed again.
• Aggrieved, the Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the SC under Article 32 for enforcement of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21.
• After hearing both sides, the Court observed that an application has to be considered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the date when the applicant was convicted of the offence. The Court also observed that the order did not address the relevant considerations bearing upon whether the release of the petitioner would pose a danger to society.
• The SC held that the Petitioner’s application shall be considered afresh without requiring him to file any fresh application for premature release. The Court also directed to dispose of the application within two months from the date of the instant order after due consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances.

Damages In Lieu Of Specific Performance Cannot Be Decreed Unless Specifically Claimed: SC

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC or Court), in the case of Universal PetroChemicals v BP Plc, has disallowed the claim for damages in lieu of specific performance of the contract stating that the Plaintiff did not specifically pray for such relief in the complaint.
• Appeal before SC arose on account of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (HC) where the Court denied the relief of specific performance on account of specific bar laid down under Section 14(1) (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Act).
• Upholding the judgment of the Learned Single Judge, the HC observed that since the contract involved performance of future unspecified obligations and duties, it would not be possible for the Court to enforce specific performance of the material terms of the contract. The HC, however, granted a decree of perpetual injunction.
• The Appellant entered into a Collaboration Agreement (CA) with a company (later acquired by the Respondent, BP Plc) by which it was given exclusive licence regarding the distribution, blending, rebranding and marketing of certain lubricants in India. All requisite approvals had been duly obtained in this regard.
• When the date of lapse of the approval was nearing, the Appellant sought an extension of the earlier approval. Upon receipt of the approval, the same was made an integral part of the CA by virtue of a Supplementary Agreement.
• However, the Respondent issued a termination notice on the ground that the Collaboration Agreement would come to an end and there would be no extension thereafter.
• Relying on earlier SC decisions in Jagdish Singh v Natthu Singh; Urmila Devi & Ors. v Deity, Mandir Shree Chamunda Devi, and Sukhbir v Ajit Singh, the Appellant argued that since specific performance of the contract could not be granted in the current stage of appeal, the Appellant should be entitled for damages even though such a relief was not specifically sought for earlier.
• Referring to the proviso to Section 21 (5) of the Act to contend that the Appellant should be allowed to seek compensation at any stage of the proceeding, it was further submitted that the Appellant is also entitled to compensation owing to breach of contract under Section 73 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Contract Act).
• The Counsel for the Respondent, distinguishing the cases relied upon the Appellant as inapplicable to the given facts and placing reliance on SC’s decision in the case of Shamsu Suhara Beevi v G. Alex and Anr, submitted that since the Appellant failed to plead relief for damages either in the Civil Court or HC for 13 years and even in the instant appeal before the SC, the same should not be granted.
• Observing that the HC did not err in setting aside the termination notice, the SC affirmed the grant of perpetual injunction.
• On the point of damages, the Court refuted the Appellant’s reliance on Section 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act on the grounds that Section 21 (5) requires the aggrieved person to seek relief and where no relief has been sought, the same must be sought by amending the plaint. The Court observed that the Appellant neither sought relief at any stage of the appeal nor took steps to amend its appeal in this regard. Thus, the request of the Appellant on account of damages was rejected.