Evidence Act Provisions Won’t Apply In Straightforward Document With No Ambiguity: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that proviso 6 to Section 92 of the Evidence Act would not be applicable where the document is clear. Proviso 6 to Section 92 talks about the admission of external facts to the document to interpret the document whereas Section 92 bars any oral testimony to the contents of documents.
The Court gave this decision in Mangala Waman Karandikar v. Prakash Damodar Ranade, the question in this case related to the interpretation of a document as to whether the document is a lease or a license. The court said that the document is clear it is neither lease nor license. It is a document through which business has been transferred from appellant to respondent.
What do you think of the decision of the Court?
Big Data Revolution In The Supreme Court
As soon as COVID started, the transformation of Indian judiciary in technological field started. The Courts started functioning virtually; Moreover the Supreme Court’s artificial intelligence agency has been working to deploy certain technologies in the Court process. Last month they brought forward the iconic Supreme Court’s Portal for Assistance in Court’s Efficiency (SUPACE) was launched which will work to identify the details of the petitions.
They have also introduced Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software (SUVAS) which is a technology to convert the language of the documents into 9 different vernacular languages. This huge step by the judicial system of the country is a breakthrough for the ease of the future lawyers. The use of Artificial Intelligence has been predominant in the world and this step was a much needed initiative for the judicial system.
What is your stand on the introduction of the AI in judicial system?
Fundamental Right To Religious Processions, Festivals Cannot Be Resisted: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court stated “If religious intolerance is going to be allowed, it is not good for a secular country. Intolerance in any form by any religious group has to be curtailed and prohibited”. The fact that a specific area has a majority of one religious community does not entail that the other religious communities are not allowed to have their religious festivals and processions in that area.
This observation came as an eye opener for the case of dispute between the Muslims and Hindu on the usage of the Government Poramboke land. The festivals of the Hindus were objected by the Muslims stating that the area was a Muslim majority area. The roads or streets are to be sued by the people irrespective of their religion, caste or creed and issued guidelines that are to be followed in such disputed areas.
What is your take on religious intolerance?
Standing Counsel Of ECI Resigns
After the Madras High Court made oral remarks regarding the role of ECI in spread of the second wave of the deadly corona virus, the ECI had initiated a petition before the Supreme Court requesting for the remarks to be expunged and the media reporting to be stopped which was dismissed by the Apex Court.
Mohit D. Ram who was the standing counsel of the ECI resigned from his post stating that his values are not in consonance with the working of the ECI. In the letter of his resignation, he clarified that it has been pleasure for him to represent the ECI but decided to withdraw from the responsibility of being the counsel.
What is your opinion on this sudden resignation? Do you think there was actually some fault on the part of the ECI?
Supreme Court: Intervention In Prisons Must Ensure Centre Exercises Responsibility
The Supreme Court of India while hearing a suo moto Writ Petition In Re: Contagion of Covid 19 Virus in Prisons noted that there are 1339 prisons in the country with lakhs of inmates. The prisoners are regularly visited by their kith and kin and their lawyers which puts them at high risks to become a breeding ground for the contagious virus.
The initiative of Kerala and Tihar Jail to test the inmates for the virus and then allowing the entry of new inmates was highly appreciated. The court suggested the availability of a monitoring team along with consultation facilities from medical experts to maintain efficacy. It is important to ensure the well-being of the prisoners as well, on the grounds of Human Rights.
What is your opinion on the rights of the prisoners? Let us know in the comments below!