Top News Headlines 12th August 2021: Bail Granted To Ashwini Upadhyay Arrested In Connection To Jantar Mantar Anti-Muslim Sloganeering Case

Bail Granted To Ashwini Upadhyay Arrested In Connection To Jantar Mantar Anti-Muslim Sloganeering Case

The former Delhi BJP Spokesperson and SC lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay was arrested and remanded to two days of judicial custody for raising anti-Muslim slogans at an event at Jantar Mantar. He was asked to deposit a surety of Rs. 50,000 for his bail by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate.

The Court observed that there was no record to show the hate speech to promote enmity between the groups and there is nothing in the video as evidence against the accused. Though there is conspiracy behind the doors and the investigation is going on, the liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed on assumptions and apprehension though the prosecution argued prima facie involvement of the accused. Even considering the COVID situation, unlawful assembly and the sensitivity of the issue, the accused did not pay any heeds to the warnings of the police to which the defence claimed his absence at the spot of the incident during the time of hate speech and he had also cooperated with investigation.

Do you think the SC lawyer did this intentionally and is now trying to avoid the consequences with his knowledge of law?

Directions Issued to Centre for Conducting Legislative Impact Study of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

The Union of India was given directions to fill the vacancies in NCDRC in the same time frame of 8 weeks as stipulated for SCDRCs by the Supreme Court in a suo motu case on the unfilled vacancies in the consumer dispute redressal commissions. The Union was also directed to present a legislative impact study of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 in 4 weeks.

The Court observed that a legislative impact study should have been done before the Act when a new Avatar of an Act is to be enacted which has not been done and now only a post-facto exercise would be done to analyse the increase in pecuniary jurisdiction.

What do you think of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer redressal commission?

Contempt Proceedings Dropped after Apology from Davanagere Bar Association

The District Bar Association at Davanagere had openly called for the members to abstain from Court work. The members of the bar association tendered an unconditional apology and an undertaking to abide by the judgment of the Supreme Court and assurance that the Courts will not be boycotted henceforth.

The litigants and members of the association were adversely affected by the pandemic and when normalcy is being restored, recourse to boycott cannot be taken. The Court considered the details of the Bar Association given by the Registry which had called on for their members to abstain from Court work and the Chief Justice had earlier requested the members to not indulge in such illegalities.

What do you think of the action taken by the Bar Associations?

Delhi Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister and 9 Others Discharged in Chief Secretary Assault Case

The former Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash had registered a complaint alleging that he was called to the Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s residence where he was assaulted by the people present to criminally intimidate and cause hurt to him for deterring him from lawfully discharging his duty. The CM of Delhi and 12 others were booked under several sections of the Indian Penal Code including Sections 186, 353, 332, 323, 342, 504, 120-B and 149.

The Court did not find any unlawful assembly with a common unlawful object or criminal conspiracy merely on the fact that during the course of the meeting two of the accused assaulted and hit the complainant or the fact that some of the MLs shouted, abused and threatened him for which common intention cannot be shown. Since the meeting was during the discharge of official duties, the meeting cannot be termed as unlawful assembly even though it was called at midnight. There was no prior conspiracy or meeting of minds to commit an offence against the complainant. The CM, Deputy CM and 9 other accused were discharged and only two of the accused, Amantullah and Prakash Jarwal were charged.

Do you think it was a false allegation or was it really a conspiracy?

Karnataka HC: Government Order to Withdraw Prosecution Won’t Apply to MPs and MLAs

The Chief Justice of India ordered for non-withdrawal of criminal prosecution against the MPs and MLAs without sanction of the concerned High Court. Owing to the order, the Karnataka High Court stated that the order of the Government to withdraw criminal proceedings would not apply to the sitting or former MPs and MLAs.

The Government of Karnataka had granted withdrawal of prosecution in 61 cases under Section 321 of CrPC which was challenged in the case. The Supreme Court had given directions that the withdrawal orders passed after September 16, 2020 must be examined by the High Courts, therefore, the High Court decided to scrutinize the withdrawal orders allowed by the trial courts.

Do you think the public prosecutors apply their minds while withdrawing a case on government orders?

Constitution 127th Amendment Bill Passed: State’s Power to Specify SEBCs Restored

After the 102nd Constitutional Amendment, in the Maratha Quota case, the Supreme Court interpreted that the amendment reduces the powers of the State to identify SEBCs and it lied only with the President. The review petition filed against this interpretation was also dismissed. The Constitution (One hundredth and twenty-seventh amendment) Bill 2021for restoring the powers of the State Governments for identification and specifying Socially and Economically Backwards Classes which was lost after the Maratha quota judgment of the Apex Court. The bill was passed with 187 votes in favour of the amendment and support from the opposition. The Bill had proposed for amending the Article 342A of the Indian Constitution and consequential amendments to Articles 338B and 336.

What do you think of the Amendment to the power to specify SEBCs?

Clarificatory Provision Cannot Impose New Retrospective condition in Tax Laws

Assessee had claimed for a deduction under Section 43B which was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The appeals were allowed before the CIT and the ITAT. On appeal to the High Court the retrospective effect was allowed of the explanation. Explanation 3C to Section 43B of the Income Tax Act in the Finance Act, 2006 was introduced for curbing the misuse of the provisions by not actually paying interest but converting it into a fresh loan. The three canons to rescue the assesse in the case i.e. the object of the explanation was to plug the loophole, retrospective effect of tax law cannot be presumed and any ambiguity should be resoled in favour of the assessee.

Do you think retrospective application of the provision would be appropriate?

Supreme Court Asked Centre for Withdrawal of Insurance Exemption for the State Public Transport Corporations

A division bench issued directions to the Central Government on a matter on speedy disbursal of compensation to victims by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal to which the Central government was asked to examine whether exemption from insurance for State Corporations that run public transportation is possible for those who are unable to pay compensation and are running in losses and asked for examining the possibility of a mechanism for ensuring a sufficient fund pool for the corporations to meet the liabilities. An online platform to provide national access to the tribunal, police authorities and insurers for handling accident reports and claims was to be developed in 2 months.

What do you think would be the efficacy of having such an online platform?