CURRENT LEGAL AFFAIRS MARCH 2022

1. A major daughter is not entitled to education expenses from father as she does not want to maintain
relationship with him
A Supreme Court bench led by Justice Sanjay K Kaul, while passing a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable
breakdown of marriage, held that a major daughter is not entitled to education expenses from father as she does not
want to maintain relationship with him.
The apex court in its order observed that, “So far as the daughter’s expenses for education and marriage are
concerned, it appears from her approach that she does not want to maintain any relationship with the appellant and
is about 20 years of age. She is entitled to choose her own path but then cannot demand from the appellant the
amount towards the education. We, thus, hold that the daughter is not entitled to any amount,” a Bench led by Justice
Sanjay K Kaul said in the order.

2. Supreme Court delivers split verdict on POCSO offence

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari delivered a split judgment on the
issue whether a person who publishes the identify of a child victim of sexual abuse can be prosecuted in the absence
of a magistrate's order, against the backdrop that it is a non-cognisable offence.
Justice Banerjee held that, "Disclosure of the identity of a child who is a victim of sexual offences or who is in conflict
with the law is in fundamental breach of the right of the child to dignity, the right not to be embarrassed” and thus,
section 23 of POCSO, incorporated to prevent disclosure of the identity of victim and proceedings emanating from it,
cannot be vitiated on the ground that prior permission of Magistrate should be taken by Police to start investigation.
On the other hand, Justice Maheshwari said the orders taking cognizance and rejecting the application for discharge
are not in accordance with law. "The procedure of Section 155(2) is required to be followed in an offence of POCSO
(Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act under Section 23 which is non-cognizable and the Special Court is
required to look into the procedure followed in the investigation."
This matter will now be place before the Chief Justice of India to assign it to a larger Bench.

3. Supreme Court upholds government's decision on ‘One Rank, One Pension’ for defence forces
The Supreme Court, on a plea by ex-servicemen association, has upheld the government's decision on One Rank,
One Pension (OROP) and said that it does not find any constitutional infirmity on the OROP principle and the
notification dated November 7, 2015. Justice Chandrachud, while delivering the verdict, held that all pensioners who
hold the same rank may not form a homogenous class while taking into account the Assured Career Progression and
Modified Assured Career Progression.
The plea was filed to implement One Rank-One Pension, as recommended by the Bhagat Singh Koshyari Committee
with an automatic annual revision, instead of the current policy of periodic review once in five years.

4. Son cannot claim right on property while parents are alive: Bombay High Court
Rejecting the son’s intervention application, Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar of the Bombay high court
told him he has no legal right to claim his parents’ two flats as his “shared household” as long as they are alive.
The court held, “Your father is alive. Your mother is alive. You have zero interest in your father’s estate. He can sell
it. He does not need your permission. Understood?”
The son filed an intervention application seeking his appointment as the legal guardian of his father in a petition filed
by his mother, along with his two married sisters. His father was in a vegetative states as he had dementia and had
multiple strokes.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 1 of 8
5. 'Patent Illegality': Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Which Favored BCCI in IPL Telecast Rights
Dispute
The Bombay High Court has set aside the tribunal's award in favour of the BCCI on the ground that the Tribunal had
failed to consider material evidence which would have a bearing on the outcome of the dispute. WSC challenged
arbitral award of July 13, 2020 in the High Court. The Arbitral proceeding were initiated by the company for the profit
it would have made if the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) had not cancelled the contract. It had also
claimed damages for “wrongful termination” of the agreement.

6. Wearing Hijab Not An Essential Religious Practice, Says Karnataka High Court
A Karnataka High Court bench comprising of Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi
dismissed a batch of pleas against the ban on wearing the hijab (headscarf) in classrooms. The Bench held the
petitions are ‘devoid of merit’ and so are not maintainable.
Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Awasthi held in the verdict that, “We are of the considered opinion that wearing
of a hijab by Muslim women does not form part of the essential religious practice in the Islamic faith. The answer to
the second question is that we are of the considered opinion that prescription of a school uniform is only a reasonable
restriction, constitutionally permissible, which the students cannot object to. The answer to the third question is that
the government has the power to issue an order and no case is made of its invalidation.”

7. Rape is rape, be it by man or husband: Karnataka High Court on marital rape

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court rejected a petition filed by a husband
to drop charges of rape against him by his wife under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
The husband argued that the charge of rape cannot be framed against him because of the exception to marital rape
under Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. To which the Court observed that, "The exemption of the
husband on committal of such assault/rape, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, cannot be absolute,
as no exemption in law can be so absolute that it becomes a license for commission of crime against society."
It was further noted that, "If a man, a husband, a man he is, can be exempted of allegation of commission of
ingredients of Section 375 of the IPC, inequality percolates into such provision of law. Therefore, it would run counter
to what is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution."
Disregarding the petitioner’s counsel’s arguments the bench held, "A man is a man; an act is an act; rape is a rape,
be it performed by a man the "husband" on the woman "wife".

8. Landlord not Liable under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act if premises is used as a Brothel Without
Knowledge
The Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a landlord
under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act of 1956 on the ground that he was not aware that a brothel was run in the
premises which he rented out.
The High court held that under section 3(2)(b) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act of 1956, a landlord/lessor would
only be punishable under the act if had knowledge regarding what is taking place at his premises. However, in this
case the petitioner was unaware of this face and thus, the court held that the criminal proceedings cannot be allowed
to continue in the matter as the petitioner had no knowledge about the brothel and the police have confirmed the
same.

9. Supreme Court Explains Scope Of Appeal Under Section 15Z SEBI Act
The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against an order passed by Securities Appellate Tribunal, explained
the scope and ambit of statutory appeal under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.
In this case, the Securities Appellate Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of
India restricting the respondent-company from accessing the capital market for one year and further restraining the
promoter directors from buying, selling or otherwise dealing with securities for India. SEBI had held that the Company
violated the provisions of the SEBI Act and the PFUTP Regulations.

10. Sanction Not Required If A Part Of Offence Is Committed In India: Supreme Court
While dismissing the appeal of the accused, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S.
Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha noted that Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code will not be
attracted if a part of the offence was committed in India. The bench observed that, “The Section gets attracted when
the entirety of the offence is committed outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be
enquired into or tried in India......As the facts and circumstances of the case indicate, a part of the offence was
definitely committed on the soil of this country and as such going by the normal principles the offence could be looked
into and tried by Indian courts. Since the offence was not committed in its entirety, outside India, the matter would not
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 2 of 8
 come within the scope of Section 188 of the Code and there was no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the
proviso to Section 188.”

11. Rejection of a plaint by reading few lines and passages of the plaint impressible in nature
While dealing with a petition challenging judgment and order passed by the High Court of Calcutta, the Supreme
Court of India held that, “the High Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application under Order VII Rule
11 CPC and rejecting the plaint. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in rejecting the plaint while exercising
the powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts”.
The High Court had set aside the order passed by the trial court refusing to reject the plaint in exercise of powers
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and as result rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the
suit is barred by limitation and that a suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property
Act would not be maintainable as against the actual owner, the original plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.

12. Appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal
While dealing with a petition filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand dismissing
the First Appeal preferred by the appellant, the Supreme Court of India held that, “except sale deed 29.12.1987, which
as such was rejected, there was no other material available on record to arrive at a fair market value of the acquired
land. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have allowed the application for
additional evidence. However, at the same time, even after permitting to adduce the additional evidence, the applicant
has to prove the existence, authenticity and genuineness of the documents including contents thereof, in accordance
with law and for the aforesaid purpose, the matter is to be remanded to the Reference Court. In view of the above
discussion and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal is partly allowed.”

13. SC reiterates power u/S 319 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the
circumstances of the case so warrant
While dealing with a petition filed against the order passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Supreme Court of India
held that “The learned Single Judge of the High Court has even failed to consider the basic principles laid down by
this Court while invoking Section 319 of the Code, which has been considered by the learned trial Judge under its
order dated 30th January, 2018. Consequently, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to succeed and the same is
accordingly allowed. The order passed by the High Court dated 28th July, 2021 is hereby quashed and set aside.”
The Court also noted in the matter that the power under Section 319 of the Code is a discretionary and extraordinary
power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant
and the crucial test as noticed above has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at
the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead
to conviction.
In the petition, the righteousness of the order of the High Court in setting aside an order by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Muzaffarnagar was challenged. In the order, the trial Court had rejected the application filed by the
complainant under Section 319 of the CrPC for summoning the appellant as accused and to face trial in Case Crime
under Section 302 IPC.

14. SC: Jurisdiction to interfere in the second appeal is only where there is an error in law or procedure and not
merely an error on a question of fact
Supreme Court of India, allowing a petition seeking declaration of title and prohibitor injunction, after hearing both the
sides and relying upon the case of Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others observed that, as
far as Punjab and Haryana High Court is concerned, in a second appeal, the law which would be applicable would-
be Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, 1918. SC took the view that it is Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, which
would continue to govern the fate of a second appeal in the Punjab High Court. Thus, on the one hand, as far as in
Punjab and Haryana is concerned, in a second appeal, the Court need not frame substantial questions of law in a
second appeal, that is different from saying that it can exercise its jurisdiction de hors the boundaries of its powers
located in Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. SC stated that the High Court dealt with this matter without even
carefully appraising the evidence which is available on record.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 3 of 8
15. HC Explains: Rights of Women Employee to demand 'Work from Home' under Maternity Benefit Act
The single-judge Bench of Justice R Devdas of the Karnataka High Court, while refusing benefit to a Senior Executive
Engineer at STARC, held that 'Work from Home' can be sought under Section- 5 (5) of Maternity Benefit Act
depending on the nature of work.
The Bench also observed that her work is of sensitive and complicated nature and thus couldn't be carried from home.
"Though reference is made to Section 5(5) of the Act, 1961, it is evident from the said provision that maternity benefits
such as work from home after availing the maternity benefit could be given only in case where the nature of work
assigned to the women is such that it is possible for her to work from home. In this regard, a specific decision is taken
by the fourth respondent-Organisation in its meeting held along with its employees on 31.03.2018, at Annexure ‘R9’,
paragraph-26 that the premises of the fourth respondent-Organisation is sensitive and involved with risk due to usage
of chemicals and toxic gases. The employees working with the fourth respondent-Organsiation are involved in
research work which is both sensitive as well as complicated. Sensitive, in the nature of the work done, in the sense
that the research is for the benefit of the Government of India which uses the facility in the defence fields and the
research work will not be divulged to the public. This istelf would prove that the nature of work assigned to the
petitioner cannot be carried on from home."

16. SC sets 60 and 90 Days Limitation for COVID Death Compensation Claims
The bench comprising of Justice MR ShahJustice B.V. Nagarathna has set an outer limit of 60 days to file claims for
ex-gratia compensation of COVID-19 deaths occurred prior to 20.03.2022.
The Bench has also stated that for future deaths, a period of 90 days has been determined to be proper to file a claim
for compensation.
The Order states as follows: "...we deem it appropriate to fix the outer limit of sixty days from today to file the claims
for compensation in case the death occurred due to COVID-19 prior to 20.03.2022. For future deaths, ninety days'
time is provided from the date of death due to COVID-19 to file the claim for compensation. The earlier order to
process the claims and to make the actual payment of compensation within a period of thirty days from the date of
receipt of claim is ordered to be continued."
"However it is clarified that in case of extreme hardship any claimant could not make an application within the time
prescribed, it will be open for the claimant to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee and make the claim
through Grievance Redressal Committee which shall be considered by the Grievance Redressal Committee on case
to case basis and if it is found by the Grievance Redressal Committee that a particular claimant could not make the
claim within the stipulated time which was beyond their control his/her case may be considered on merits."

17. Lok Sabha passes Demand for Grant under control of Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways
Union Minister of Port, Shipping and Waterways Shri Sarbananda Sonowal said in Lok Sabha that the immense
potential of waterways in India has only been truly realised in the last seven years under the leadership of Prime
Minister Shri Narendra Modi. Shri Sonowal was replying to the discussion on Demand for Grant under control of
Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, which was passed by the Lok Sabha later.
The Minister stated that the infrastructure created due to Maritime India Vision 2030 and Sagarmala under the
guidance of Prime Minister has led to huge gains in the EXIM and domestic trade of India, 95% of which is done via
the maritime sector. He said India has a long 7,517 km coastline with 11 Major Ports and 200 Non Major Ports which
are being developed by state governments. He said Port led industrialization, connectivity, infrastructure, fishing
harbour, tourism, coastal community development all states will benefit hugely from the works being undertaken.
Shri Sonowal shed light on growing inland waterways sector and stated that, “For the first time, cargo vessel from
Patna reached Pandu traversing 2350 km via Bangladesh. This is a realisation of the full potential of North East by
Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, with the development of connectivity and communication. Due to this farmers,
entrepreneurs of the North East can find their place in India and world markets. I thank the Prime Minister for this.”
The Minister stated how changes in legislation are helping develop quality and facilities at ports. “All ports are
performing now. Most ports are profitable now. You look at Cochin Shipyard Limited which is doing such great work,
they have made India's first indigenously developed Aircraft Carrier, a true example of Aatmanirbhar Bharat. It is now
building for the first time 12,000 cubic meter Suction Dredger, which were brought from outside before. This is good
governance, powerful government.”

18. HC denies the application of bar provided by Sec.33(5) POCSO Act even if Victim becomes Major
Setting aside the impugned order of the Trial court, the single-judge bench of Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira of the
Madras High Court has held that the bar under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act against recalling a minor victim shall
not be applicable when the victim attains majority and thus allowed the accused's plea in POCSO case to cross-
examine the victim who is now aged about 21 years and she will not fall within the definition of "child" so as to Section
33(5) of the POCSO Act, 2012.who had now turned 21 years of age.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 4 of 8
 The Court observed that under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, a heavy burden is caused on the petitioner to rebut the
presumption which operates against him and if the witnesses are not cross-examined, the evidence stands unrebutted
and it would amount to a case of no defense resulting in grave prejudice to the petitioner.

19. SC : Concealment of Criminal Case by a Candidate not always fatal

The Division Bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice AS Oka of the Supreme Court has held that concealment of
Criminal Case by a Candidate can be disregarded in certain situations after evaluating certain other factors. The
Bench also stated that competent authority exercising powers with due diligence has to consider nature of post, nature
of duties, impact of suppression on suitability before framing consequences for the Candidate. The Bench in its ruling
placed reliance on Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2017.
It was also observed by the bench that, "The yardstick which has to be applied always depends upon the nature of
post, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by the competent authority considering
post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due diligence of various aspects at the given time
and no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard."

20. HC: Appeal u/S 260A of the Income Tax Act is to be entertained only when it directly and substantially affects
the rights of the parties or is not free from difficulty
A bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain of the Delhi High Court, while dealing with
a petition in which the order passed by Delhi Bench 'A' of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year
2014-15 was challenged, observed that the Court agrees with the findings that were recorded by the Tribunal. The
findings were that since the total receipts of fees had been disclosed in the income and expenditure account, the
same cannot be considered as unaccounted income in the hands of the assessee.
The Court stated that the Tribunal has correctly held that the Assessing Officer did not make any addition against the
assessee on account of interest as well as cost of acquisition because the same were considered and added in the
original assessment. It was further stated by the court that it is a settled law that an appeal under Section 260A of the
Act is to be entertained only when it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties or is not free from difficulty
or call for discussion of alternative views or the factual finding is perverse. It is further settled law that any interference
with the finding of the fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence.

21. HC: An unconditional bank guarantee cannot be interdicted except on the grounds of egregious fraud and
special equities
Hon'ble Justice Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court, while dealing with a petition filed under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, stated that insofar as the relief regarding interdicting a bank guarantee is
concerned, the law relating to the same is well settled. An unconditional bank guarantee cannot be interdicted except
on the grounds of egregious fraud and special equities.
The Court further observed that it was clear that there are disputes between the parties in regard to the performance
of the contract in question. Both the parties are claiming that certain amounts are due and payable by the other.

22. Can Disciplinary Action be taken against a Judge for passing wrong Order? SC answers
The Supreme Court Division Bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Vineet Saran observed that
disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer is not warranted merely because of a wrong order or different from
expected.
The Court found the charges filed against the appellant to be vague in nature and that absolutely no details have
been provided regarding the said allegation of passing the bail order for extraneous considerations/ ulterior motive. It
was also observed that, “Mere suspicion cannot constitute "misconduct”.

23. HC: Sec.125 CrPC draws Strength from Art.15 of Constitution

The single-judge Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav while dismissing a Criminal Revision Petition filed by
husband challenging the order passed by Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing him to pay ₹3,000/- to his
wife and ₹2000/- to her son as maintenance from the date of filing of the application seeking maintenance, observed
that, "It should be kept in mind that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is enacted for social justice and specially to protect woman
and children and also old and infirm parents and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 14(3), reinforced by
Article 39 of the Constitution of India. The provision gives effect to the natural and fundamental duty of a man to
maintain his wife, children and parents so long as they are unable to maintain themselves." The Court opined that
that Section-125 of CrPC is in consonance with Article-15 of Constitution and the provision gives effect to natural and
fundamental duty of husband to maintain his wife.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 5 of 8
24. SC: Power of Court to Punish for Contempt not affected by inter se Rights of Parties
The Supreme Court Division-Bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna has held that,
“Questions as to executability of such order is a question which concerns the parties inter-se. The power of the Court
to invoke contempt jurisdiction, is not, in any way, altered by the rights of the parties inter-se."
The bench also observed that merely because an order or decree is executable, it cannot cease Courts to exercise
powers under Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

25. SC: Breach of Sec.50 NDPS Act sufficient to record Judgment of Acquittal
The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha agreed
with the Trial court’s decision and upheld the acquittal of an accused on the ground that non-complaince of Section
50 of the NDPS Act makes sufficient case for acquittal in drug and narcotics cases.
The order of acquittal of the accused was reversed by the High Court and thus, it was challenged in the Supreme
Court in the present appeal. The Bench also observed that the High Court failed to consider the above perspectives
while delivering the impugned judgement, Rather, it proceeded to consider the evidence on record straightaway
without considering the reasons behind the Trial Court’s order which were based on the decision in Ramesh Babulal
Doshi Vs. The State of Gujarat, 1996.

26. Sec.319 CrPC cannot be invoked just because Prima Facie case is made out
A Supreme Court division-bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S.Oka reiterated that to invoke
Section- 391 CrPC, the case should be more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge.
The court observed that power under Section 319 of the Code is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should
be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test
as noticed above has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of
charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. The court
opined that, "The learned Single Judge of the High Court has even failed to consider the basic principles laid down
by this Court while invoking Section 319 of the Code."

27. Rs.25 Crore Fine imposed by NGT on Coca-Cola and Pepsi for illegal extraction of Ground Water
The National Green Tribunal’s Bench comprising of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel (Chairperson), Sudhir Agarwal and
Brijesh Sethi (judicial members), and Prof A. Senthil Vel and Dr. Afroz Ahmad (expert members) imposed a hefty fine
of ₹25 crore as environmental compensation on Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, known as Moon Beverages and Varun
Beverages for exploiting groundwater for bottling plants in Uttar Pradesh.
The Bench also ruled stated the bottling plants were functioning without the required NOC (No Objection Certificate)
to extract the groundwater in violation of the environment law of CGWA (Central Ground Water Authority).

28. SC on Death Penalty: We will make it mandatory for Trial Courts to order Psychological Evaluation of convicts
before giving Death Penalty
A Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice UU Lalit and comprising of Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS
Narsimha, while hearing of an appeal in a death sentence case from Madhya Pradesh, noted that, “Unfortunately, no
other court is carrying out this exercise. At the fag end of the life cycle of a case, we are doing what should have been
done by Trial Courts or High Courts if the appeals are pending there. We will incorporate this in our order in some
manner that this practice of psychological evaluation and seeking other reports should be followed at the level of the
trial court”.

29. SC: No straight jacket formula for amount of compensation to be awarded for pain, suffering , loss of
amenities and happiness
The Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna stated that
there is no straight jacket formula for amount of compensation to be awarded under the heads of pain, suffering, loss
of amenities and happiness. The Bench in its also observed that, “Considering the prolonged hospitalization and
medical treatment and that the claimant underwent multiple surgeries, we are of the opinion that the High Court has
erred in awarding Rs.2,00,000/­ only under the head pain and suffering… we are of the opinion that Rs.10,00,000/­
(Rupees Ten Lakhs) can be said to be a reasonable amount under the head pain, shock and suffering… Similarly,
the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the High Court under the head loss of amenities and happiness can also be
said to be on lower side… we are of the opinion that Rs.10,00,000/­ (Rupees Ten Lakhs) from that of Rs.1,00,000/-
can be said to be a reasonable amount under the head loss of amenities and happiness.”

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 6 of 8
30. SC: No writ maintainable for specific performance of the contract if the suit for specific performance is barred
by limitation
The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, while
dismissing a petition, opined that no writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be maintainable and/or
entertainable for specific performance of the contract if the suit for specific performance is barred by limitation.
The Bench also stated that, "As observed by this Court in catena of decisions, mere representation does not extend
the period of limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within reasonable time.
If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and
ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the
authority to decide the representation, once it is found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches".

31. HC: Juvenile has a Right to Parity when Adult given Bail in same case, Read Order
The single-judge bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed of the Supreme Court while allowing a Criminal Revision Petition,
contradicted with the view of Special Judge, POCSO Act whereby it affirmed the Juvenile Justice board’s decision to
not grant the accused Juvenile bail and observed that if an adult co-accused has been granted bail, there would be
no justification to additionally test the case of the Juvenile with reference to the requirements of the proviso to sub
Section (1) of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Referring to the case of Dharmendra Kirthal Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2013, Supreme Court observed that,
"Once the aforesaid co-accused has been admitted to bail, who is adult, there seems no justification to additionally
test the case of the revisionist with reference to the requirements of the proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 12 of
the Act. In this connection, I had occasion to consider the question about the right of a juvenile to be released on bail
where a similarly circumstanced adult offender had been extended that liberty."

32. SC: Defamation Complaint can be validly filed by Members of an Organization

The Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose of the Supreme Court, while upholding
the Kerala High Court's order wherein it was observed that complaint filed by the State Secretary of the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) against an article published in a newspaper is maintainable stated that Members of an
organization can validly file complaint under Section 499 IPC for Defamation.

33. The government has initiated the process of amending Criminal laws
The Ministry of Home Affairs has asked suggestions from the Chief Ministers, Governors, Union Territory
Administrators, Lieutenant Governors, Chief Justices of the various High Courts, Chief Justice of India, Bar Council
of the various States, Bar Council of India, law institutes, various universities, and all MPs regarding the
comprehensive amendments that are to be made in criminal laws. A committee has also been formulated under the
chairpersonship of Ranbir Singh, the Vice-chancellor of National Law University, Delhi to suggest criminal law reforms.
In its 146th report, the department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs recommended a
comprehensive review of the country’s criminal justice system.
The main reason for the amendments is to make a comprehensive change in India’s criminal laws so that the people
of the country has access to speedy and affordable justice.

34. The Assembly of Haryana has passed the “Haryana Prevention of Unlawful Conversion of Religious Bill,
2022.”
Haryana Prevention of Unlawful Conversion of Religious Bill, 2022, passed by the Assembly of state Haryana, seeks
to prevent the conversion of a person’s religion through force, fraudulent methods, allurement or under the guise of
marriage. States of Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh have already passed similar bills. The state government
stated that this new bill will seek not to penalize a person converting religion on their free will but to protect a person
from forceful and fraudulent conversions.
Under this Bill, if the conversion is done by force, allurement, or fraudulent methods then the person responsible for
such acts can be imprisoned for one to five years and a minimum fine of Rs 1 lakh will be made applicable. The Bill
also makes provision against attempt of conversion and states that whoever attempts to convert a woman, a minor,
or a person from the Scheduled Tribes or Scheduled Castes, will be handed out a punishment that includes
imprisonment for a term period of a minimum of four years and that can extend to 10 years. The person will also be
liable to pay a fine of minimum Rs 3 lakh.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 7 of 8
35. The Centre decided to table the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha
during the Second part of the Budget Session of Parliament.
Union Tribal Affairs Minister Arjun Munda will move the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Bill
during the Second part of the Budget Session of Parliament. The purpose of the bill is to include certain communities
in the list of Scheduled Tribes (STs) of Tripura by amending the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The
second part of the budget session of the Parliament resumed from March 14th and will go on till April 8th.

36. The Union government amended Census Rules, 1990.

The Union Government, in a gazette notification issued on 11th March, has amended clause C of Rule-2 of Census
Rules, 1990, that deals with definitions. The terms “electronic form” and “self-enumeration” have been included in the
schedule of questions to be asked during the census. Through this amendment, the Census rules allow online self-
enumeration in the upcoming Census and National Population Register (NPR).
There are some other changes also made in the census rules such as, under Rule 5, the word “media” has been
replaced with “electronic or any other media”. Under Rule 8, which mentions various modes wide publicity for the
census exercise can be ensured, “print media, electronic media, and social media”are also added to the list.

37. Passport Officer is the competent authority to impound the passport , neither the Court nor the Police have
power to impound the passport- Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Single Judge Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice D. Ramesh in the case of Ravi
Ramesh Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, while allowing the petition held that impounding of a passport cannot
be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C.
The Court stated in this case that “neither the Police nor the Courts have power to seize the passport or to direct the
accused to deposit or surrender the passport even when a criminal case is pending in the court of law and only the
Passport Officer is the competent authority to impound the passport.”

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 8 of 8