Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Kerala HC: Women Can't Be Denied Employment Saying Work Involves Night Hours

This week, Kerala High Court observed that a woman who is fully qualified cannot be denied of her right to be considered for employment on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours. Justice Anu Sivaraman contended that, protective provisions cannot stand in the way of a woman being considered for employment for which she is otherwise eligible.

The job notification issued by Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited which allowed only male candidates to apply for the post, the Court held that such an embargo is violates the provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court further took note that the submissions based on stereotypes premised on assumptions about socially ascribed roles result in gender discrimination against women and violate their fundamental rights.

Supreme Court: Private Vehicle Is Not a "Public Place" under Section 43 NDPS Act

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court observed that a private vehicle would not come within the expression "public place" as explained in Section 43 of the Narcotic Drugs. Justices UU Lalit and KM Joseph observed in this case where recovery was effected from the accused while they were sitting on road in a jeep at a public place. The Court observed that the case of accused would be covered by Section 43 of NDPS Act and not by Section 42 which deals with Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest in public place.

The Court held that since Section 42 having not been complied with at all, they were entitled to acquittal and the contended that the evidence in the present case clearly shows that the vehicle was not a public conveyance but was a vehicle belonging to accused Gurdeep Singh.

‘Amend Section 138 NI Act to Allow One Trial for Multiple Cases from Single Transaction’: Supreme Court

This week, on Friday, the Supreme Court issued a set of directions to expedite the trial of cheque dishonor cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The SC gave 7 set of directions in its order. This order was passed by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and S Ravindra Bhat in the the suo moto case In re Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 NI Act.

Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra, R Basant and Advocate K Parameshwar are appointed as amici curiae in this particular case. Furthermore the Court held, prima facie that the Central Government has the obligation to create additional courts to ease the burden created on the judicial system by the Negotiable Instruments Act, as per the mandate of Article 247 of the Constitution.

Manipur HC held that the Election of Congress Leader as Member of State Assembly Null And Void for Non-Disclosure of Information in Election Affidavit 

Recently, on Thursday, Manipur High Court declared as null and void the election of Congress leader Okram Henry Singh as a member of State Assembly (Wangkhei Assembly Constituency) in 11th Manipur Legislative Assembly after observing that failure to disclose name of the spouse and his dependents, details of pending criminal cases and educational qualification would constitute a corrupt practice falling within the meaning of 'undue influence' under sec. 123(2) of Representative of People, 1957.

Justice MV Muralidaran was dealing with an election petition filed by Yumkham Erabot Singh under sec. 100(1)(d) and (iv) of the Act seeking declaration of Henry Singh's election as null and void and to declare himself as the returned candidate for the said election. The petitioner further mentioned that he sought initiation of criminal proceedings against the leader under sec. 125A and 127 of the Act on the claim that the leader deliberately misrepresented his educational qualifications thereby creating a confusion in the mind of innocent voters.

Sr. Adv Ashwani Kumar Urges SC To Issue Suo Motu Directions To Centre, States For Banning Political Rallies And Other Events

Recently, Senior Advocate Dr. Ashwini Kumar has urged the Supreme Court to discharge its constitutional responsibility and issue directions to the Central and State Governments for banning "super-spreading events"

In his letter to the CJI and the other judges of the apex court, the former law minister states that, “there is absolutely no justification for permitting or condoning super spreading events that pose an unacceptable threat to human life in a negation of Article 21” In addition to the banning of super- spreading events, he has requested the absolute ban on export of vaccines as there is a need for easy access to vaccines for all citizens of all ages as a protection against the deadly virus which is self-evident. Dr. Kumar has made it a point to stress on the fact that the Nation expects the highest Court of the country, as the designated protector of fundamental rights, to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in these troubled times and vindicate its role as custodian of the constitutional conscience.
 

"Loved reading this piece by Brazillia Vaz?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  281  Report



Comments
img
Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query