Kerala HC Allows Termination Of 26-Week Pregnancy For 13-Year-Old Sexual Assault Survivor
Recently, Kerala High Court Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed a 13-year-old survivor of sexual assault to terminate her 26-week-old pregnancy. The Court allowed the petition moved by the father of the child in a special sitting.
The bench remarked that the pregnancy might remind the minor of the rape and it is not in the interest of society to have her undergo the trauma every day.Investigation revealed that the offence was committed by the 14-year-old sibling of the victim, her very brother. In the case, the contention was that the petitioner’s daughter was a victim of rape by her own brother, the father of the victim approached the High Court, seeking a direction to terminate the pregnancy of his daughter.
Bombay HC Takes Suo Moto Case to Ensure Swift Action against Remdesivir Black marketers
The present case the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justices ZA Haq and Amit Borkarhas taken suomotu cognisance of the black marketing of Remdesivir, an experimental drug used to treat Covid19 patients. The petition based on a news report in the Hitava (CityLine) of April 28, 2021, about the arrest of 32 persons, including a doctor for black marketing the injections.
For the matter at hand the Bench appointed advocate SP Bhandarkar to be the amicus curiae in the case. He is also the amicus in the PIL on covid 19 management being heard bya cordinate bench.
KUWJ seeks SG Tushar Mehta's apology for allegedly misleading the Supreme Court
In recent news, Kerala Union of Working Journalists issued a statement demanding that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta apologise for his "baseless criticisms" of the organisation. During a Supreme Court hearing on transferring jailed journalist Siddique Kappan to a Delhi hospital for better treatment (which was covered in yesterday’s news by us), Mehta had described the union as a "purported association, not even a well-known one.
The union played its trump card and went on and said it would send complaints to the prime minister, the Chief Justice of India, and the attorney general, among others, asking that action be taken against Mehta for his comment.
Supreme Court agrees to examine Constitutional validity of Sedition law
In a recent development, the Supreme Court on Friday decided that it will examine the validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises sedition (KishorechandraWangkhemcha v. Union of India).Justices UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and KM Joseph issued notice to the Central government on a plea by two journalists, KishorechandraWangkhemcha from Manipur and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla from Chhattisgarh challenging the validity of the provision for violation of freedom of speech and expression.
The journalists contended that Section 124-A as a restriction of freedom of expression falls short of the requirements provided under International law in that it is neither “necessary” nor sufficiently “provided by law”. The Section came about in the KedarNath judgment which was rendered by a judge of five judges, any decision pronouncing on the validity of Section 124A can be decided only by a Bench of seven or more judges.
Supreme Court contends that “Don't Clampdown On Citizens' SOS Calls For Medical Help Through Social Media”
Recently, on Friday the Apex Court said that there should not be any coercive action against any citizen for putting out an SOS call on social media seeking medical help for COVID. The Apex Court strictly said that contempt action will be taken against police officers who clampdown on citizens who ventilate their grievances with respect to COVID-19 matters.
"If citizens communicate their grievance on social media and internet, then it cannot be said that it's wrong information," Justice DY Chandrachud said on Friday while hearing the suo moto case pertaining to COVID-19 related issues.The Apex Court went on further to warn that it will initiate contempt proceedings against such officers found to be clamping down any such information.
Consent Of Parties Cannot Obviate Duty Of Court To Indicate Its Reasons For Granting Or Refusing Bail
SC Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that consent of parties cannot obviate the duty of the High Court to indicate its reasons why it has either granted or refuse bail. [Ramesh BhavanRathod vs. VishanbhaiHirabhaiMakwanaMakwana (Koli)]. In this case FIR’s against six persons was registered for offences under Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 341, 384, 120B, 506(2) and 34 of the Ipc, Sections 25(1-b) A, 27 and 29 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
The matter is of a criminal nature so the Bench stated that, “The rights of the victims and their families are at stake as well. These are not matters involving the private rights of two individual parties, as in a civil proceeding.”