Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Bombay HC questions: How A Politician Procured 10,000 Vials Of Remdesivir From Delhi When Capital Is In Crisis?

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday questioned the Centre about private individuals procuring anti-viral drug, Remdesivir, directly from the manufacturer and distributing it, when companies are expected to provide stocks directly to the Centre.

Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni was referring to the petition filed by four agriculturists before the Aurangabad Bench seeking an FIR against Dr. Sujay Vikhe Patil, BJP Member of Parliament from the Ahmednagar Constituency for the alleged unauthorized procurement and distribution. In response to this the Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh tried to say that it was merely a news report, the bench remarked that it was not just media reports, the politician himself had posted about the procurement on social media.

Allahabad High Court Issues Show Cause Notice To State Election Commission Over Death Of 135 Panchayat Election Duty Staff Due To Covid19

Recently, Allahabad High Court has taken judicial notice of the death of 135 persons, who were on election duty during Panchayat elections in the State, due to Covid-19. "It appears that neither the police nor, Election Commission did anything to save the people on election duty from getting infected by this deadly virus,” Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar sternly observed.

The Allahabad HC has now issued to notice to the UP State Election Commission, Lucknow to explain as to why it failed in checking non-compliance of Covid guidelines during various phases of the panchayat elections. The Allahabad Court has asked the Commission to show cause why action may not be taken against it and its officials for such violations.

"Testimony of disabled prosecutrix cannot be considered inferior:" Supreme Court

Recently, on Tuesday, a judgment (Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh) of significant importance, the Supreme Court ruled that testimony of a prosecutrix with disability or of a disabled witness cannot be considered weak or inferior only because such an individual interacts with the world in a different manner, vis-a-vis their able-bodied counterparts.

As long as the testimony of such a witness otherwise holds and meets the criteria for inspiring judicial confidence, it is entitled to full legal weight, the Court held. After this judgment, Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah also issued a slew of guidelines to effectively address the discrimination against disabled persons and to make the judicial system more disabled-friendly.

Supreme Court rules on scope of Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act; intersectional gender violence

This week, on Tuesday, the Supreme Court held that conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as it stood before the 2015 amendment, can be sustained as long as caste identity is one of the grounds for the occurrence of the offence (Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh).

The Court was hearing an appeal of a person convicted for rape of a blind Scheduled Caste woman and Section 3(2)(v) states that if a person who is not a member of the SC/ST community commits an offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. The SC interpretation of the provision is to mean that the offence should have been committed “only” on the ground that the victim belonged to SC/ST community would dilute the provision.

"We Are Not Overtaking the Powers of High Courts or the Executive but Can’t Be Silent Spectator during a National Crisis": Supreme Court

The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice D Y Chandrachud, on Tuesday termed the massive resurgence of COVID-19 cases a “national crisis”, and said that it cannot remain a mute spectator during such times while clarifying that its suo motu proceeding on devising national policy for COVID-19 management is not meant to supplant high court cases. The Bench said that the High Courts are in a better position to monitor the pandemic situation within their territorial boundaries.

While taking note of the issue last Thrsday, the Bench also comprising of Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat said the SC is playing a complementary role, if High Courts have any difficulty in dealing with issues due to territorial limitations, the Supreme Court will help.

"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  300  Report

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query