2013 Vol. 3 (Part-IV) 28th March, 2013 ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION FOR 2013

Transcription

1 2013 Vol. 3 (Part-IV) 28 March, 2013 Vol. VIII Issue No. 4 October - December 2013 Issuance of summons in cases where accused are outside territorial jurisdiction of e magistrate, discussed. Udai Shankar Awasi v. State of U.P....P-935 'Consultation' in e context of appointment of Uplokayukta under Karnataka Lokayukta Act, explained. Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C. Krishna...P-987 Need to adopt mechanism to avoid inordinate delays in matters pending in courts, emphasized Noor Mohammed v. Jeanand...P-1146 ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION FOR 2013 For 12 Volumes, each Volume consisting of 4 Parts and an Index: Rs. 3900/- Each Additional Volume: Rs. 325/- (Individual Volumes or Parts not available for sale) For subscription, please contact: Assistant Controller of Publications (Periodicals), Department of Publication, Govt. of India, Civil Lines, Delhi Tel: , , 64, 65 Fax: Printed at : AVN Stationer & Printers. Mob.: , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave, Judge, Supreme Court of India Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, Judge, Supreme Court of India Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar, Judge, Supreme Court of India Ravindra Maiani, Secretary General, Supreme Court of India Bibhuti Bhushan Bose, Editor, Supreme Court Reports

2 (As on ) S.No. Name of e Hon'ble Judge Date of Date of Appointment Retirement 01. Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Saasivam, Chief Justice of India (CJI) As CJI: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Nijjar Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana P. Desai Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar Hon'ble Mr. Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Yusuf Eqbal Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan

3 CONTENTS Appointments and Retirements in e Supreme Court of India 2 Appointments in e High Courts 2-3 Transfers between e High Courts 3 Vacancies in e Courts 4-5 Institution, Disposal and Pendency of Cases in e Supreme Court 6 Institution, Disposal and Pendency of Cases in e High Courts and in 7-8 e District and Subordinate Courts Some Supreme Court Judgments of Public Importance 9-16 Some Recent Major Events and e Initiatives Some Important Visits and Conferences This newsletter is intended to provide public access to information on e activities and achievements of e Indian Judiciary in general. While every care has been taken to ensure accuracy and to avoid errors/omissions, information given in e newsletter is merely for reference and must not be taken as having e auority of, or being binding in any way on, e Editorial Board of e newsletter and e officials involved in compilation ereof, who do not owe any responsibility whatsoever for any loss, damage, or distress to any person, wheer or not a user of is publication, on account of any action taken or not taken on e basis of e information given in is newsletter.

4 2 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013 APPOINTMENTS AND RETIREMENTS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM TO ) RETIREMENT S.No. Name of Hon'ble Judge Date of Retirement 1 Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi APPOINTMENTS IN THE HIGH COURTS (FROM TO ) S.No. Name of e High Court Name of e Hon ble Judge Date of Appointment 1 Allahabad Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud (As Chief Justice) A.P. B. Siva Sankara Rao M. Seearama Muri S. Ravi Kumar U. Durga Prasada Rao T. Sunil Chowdary M. Satyanarayana Mury M.S.K. Jaiswal A. Shankar Narayana Anis Bombay V.L. Achliya Calcutta Indrajit Chatterjee Shib Sadhan Sadhu Sudip Ahluwalia Tapash Mookherjee Ranjit Kumar Bag Ishan Chandra Das Samapti Chatterjee Sahidullah Munshi Subrata Talukdar Tapabrata Chakraborty Arindam Sinha Arijit Banerjee Debangsu Basak Above statement is compiled on e basis of information received from e High Courts

5 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER S.No. APPOINTMENTS IN THE HIGH COURTS (FROM TO ) Name of e High Court Name of e Hon ble Judge Date of Appointment 5 Jharkhand R. Banumai (As Chief Justice) Karnataka A.V. Chandrashekara Ranakala R.B. Budihal P.D. Waingankar K.N. Mury Phaneendra Madras Rajesh Kumar Agrawal (As Chief Justice) P.N. Prakash Pushpa Sayanarayana K. Kalyanasundaram S. Vaidyanaan R. Mahadevan V.S. Ravi G. Chockalingam V.M.Velumani Orissa Debabrata Dash Satrughana Pujahari Punjab & Haryana Navita Singh Harinder Singh Sidhu Arun Palli Above statement is compiled on e basis of information received from e High Courts TRANSFERS BETWEEN THE HIGH COURTS (FROM TO ) S. From To Name of e Hon'ble Judge Date of No. Transfer 1 Gauhati Orissa Adarsh Kumar Goel (Chief Justice) Manipur Gauhati Abhay Manohar Sapre (Chief Justice) Allahabad Manipur L.K. Mohapatra Karnataka Gauhati K. Sreedhar Rao Karnataka Andhra Pradesh V. Suri Appa Rao Gauhati Patna I.A. Ansari Himachal Pradesh Madhya Pradesh A.M. Khanwilkar (Chief Justice) Jammu & Kashmir Himachal Pradesh Mansoor Ahmad Mir Above statement is compiled on e basis of information received from e High Courts

6 4 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013 VACANCIES IN THE COURTS A) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (As on ) Sanctioned Streng Working streng Vacancies B) HIGH COURTS (As on ) S.No. Name of e High Court Sanctioned Streng Working Streng Vacancies 1 Allahabad Andhra Pradesh Bombay Calcutta Chhattisgarh Delhi Gujarat Gauhati Tripura Meghalaya Manipur Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Madras Orissa Patna Punjab & Haryana Rajasan Sikkim Uttarakhand TOTAL Above statement is compiled on e basis of information received from e High Courts

7 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER C) DISTRICT & SUBORDINATE COURTS (As on ) S.No. State / Union Territory Sanctioned Streng Working Streng Vacancies 1 Uttar Pradesh Andhra Pradesh (a) Maharashtra (b) Goa (c) Diu and Daman & Silvasa West Bengal and Andaman & Nicobar Chhatisgarh Delhi Gujarat (a) Assam (b) Nagaland (c) Meghalya (d) Manipur (e) Tripura (f) Mizoram (g) Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Jharkhand Karnataka (a) Kerala (b) Lakshadweep Madhya Pradesh (a) Tamil Nadu (b) Puducherry Orissa Bihar (a) Punjab (b) Haryana (c) Chandigarh Rajasan Sikkim Uttarakhand TOTAL Above statement is compiled on e basis of figures received from e High Courts

8 6 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013 i) Table I INSTITUTION, DISPOSAL AND PENDENCY OF CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT [ to ] Institution ( to ) Admission matters Regular matters Total matters Disposal ( to ) Admission matters Regular matters Total matters Pendency (At e end of ) Admission matters Regular matters Total matters 36,508 30,095 66,603 Pendency (At e end of ) Admission matters Regular matters Total matters 15,081 1,955 17,036 15,837 1,453 17,920 35,752 30,597 66,349 Note: 1. Out of e 66,349 pending matters as on , if connected matters are excluded, e pendency is only of 36,834 matters as on Out of e said 66,349 pending matters as on , 20,431 matters are upto one year old and us arrears (i.e. cases pending more an a year) are only of 45,918 matters as on ii) Table II Opening Balance As On Institution From To Disposal From To Pendency at e end of CIVIL CASES 54,497 12,361 12,702 54,156 CRIMINAL CASES 12,106 4,675 4,588 12,193 ALL CASES (TOTAL) 66,603 17,036 17,290 66,349

9 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013 INSTITUTION, DISPOSAL AND PENDENCY OF CASES IN THE HIGH COURTS AND IN THE DISTRICT & SUBORDINATE COURTS A) HIGH COURTS (FROM TO ) S. No. Name of e High Court Cases brought forward from e previous Quarter CIVIL CRL. (CIV. + CRL.) Freshly instituted Cases during is Quarter CIVIL CRL. (CIV. + CRL.) Disposed of Cases during is Quarter Pending cases at e end of is Quarter 1 Allahabad Andhra Pradesh Bombay Calcutta Chhatisgarh Delhi* Gujarat (a) Gauhati (b) Tripura (c) Meghalaya (d) Manipur Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Madras Orissa Patna Punjab & Haryana** Rajasan Sikkim Uttarakhand CIVIL % of Institution of Cases w.r.t Opening Balance as on % of Disposal of Cases w.r.t Opening Balance as on TOTAL CRL. (CIV. + CRL.) CIVIL CRL. (CIV. + CRL.) 7 % Increase or Decrease in Pendency w.r.t Opening Balance as on Above statement is compiled on e basis of figures received from e High Courts * The data has been revised by e High Court concerned. ** On physical verification e number of pending cases revised by e High Court concerned.

10 8 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013 B) DISTRICT AND SUBORDINATE COURTS (FROM TO ) S. No. Name of e State / UT Cases brought forward from e previous Quarter CIVIL CRL. (CIV. + CRL.) Freshly instituted Cases during is Quarter CIVIL CRL. (CIV. + CRL.) Disposed of Cases during is Quarter CIVIL CRL. (CIV. + CRL.) Pending cases at e end of is Quarter CIVIL CRL. (CIV. + CRL.) % of Institution of Cases w.r.t Opening Balance as on % of Disposal of Cases w.r.t Opening Balance as on Uttar Pradesh Andhra Pradesh (a) Maharashtra (b) Goa (c) Diu and Daman (d) Silvasa (a) West Bengal (b) Andaman & Nicobar Chhatisgarh Delhi Gujarat (a) Assam (b) Nagaland (c) Meghalya (d) Manipur (e) Tripura* (f) Mizoram (g) Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Jharkhand* Karnataka* (a) Kerala (b) Lakshadweep Madhya Pradesh (a) Tamil Nadu (b) Puducherry Orissa* Bihar* (a) Punjab (b) Haryana (c) Chandigarh Rajasan Sikkim Uttarakhand TOTAL % Increase or Decrease in Pendency w.r.t Opening Balance as on Above statement is compiled on e basis of figures received from e High Courts * Figures revised by e High Court concerned.

11 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER SOME SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE ( to ) 1. On 4 October, 2013, in e case of M/s. Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief Gen. Manager W.T. Proj. BSNL and Ors. [Civil Appeal No of 2013], it was held at e power to blacklist a contractor wheer e contract be for supply of material or equipment or for e execution of any oer work whatsoever is inherent in e party allotting e contract. The Court held at ere is no need for any such power being specifically conferred by statute or reserved by contractor. That is because 'blacklisting' simply signifies a business decision by which e party affected by e breach decides not to enter into any contractual relationship wi e party committing e breach. It was furer held at e freedom to contract or not to contract is unqualified in e case of private parties. But any such decision is subject to judicial review when e same is taken by e State or any of its instrumentalities. 2. On 7 October, 2013, in e case of Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. [Civil Appeal No of 2013], question arose for consideration as to wheer a co-operative society registered under e Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 will fall wiin e definition of public auority under Section 2(h) of e Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). It was held at e Cooperative Societies registered under e Kerala Co-operative Societies Act will not fall wiin e definition of public auority as defined under Section 2(h) of e RTI Act. 3. On 7 October, 2013,in e case of Gulam Sarbar v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) [Criminal Appeal No of 2012], it was held at it is quality and not quantity, which determines e adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of e Evidence Act. It was furer held at even in Probate cases, where e law requires e examination of at least one attesting witness, production of more witnesses does not carry any weight and at conviction can even be based on e testimony of a sole eye witness, if e same inspires confidence. 4. On 7 October, 2013, in e case of ONGC Ltd. v. M/s. Modern Construction and Co. [Civil Appeal Nos of 2013], it was held at if e court where e suit is instituted, is of e view at it has no jurisdiction, e plaint is to be returned in view of e provisions of Order VII Rule 10 CPC and e plaintiff can present it before e court having competent jurisdiction. In such a factual matrix, e plaintiff is entitled to exclude e period during which he prosecuted e case before e court having no jurisdiction in view of e provisions of Section 14 of e Limitation Act, and may also seek adjustment of court fee paid in at court. However, after presentation before e court of competent jurisdiction, e plaint is to be considered as a fresh plaint and e trial is to be conducted de novo even if it stood concluded before e court having no competence to try e same. In e case at hand, e respondent instituted e suit in Civil Court at Mehsana which admittedly had no jurisdiction to entertain e suit. In spite of e fact at e civil suit stood decreed, e High Court directed e court at Mehsana to return e plaint in view of e

12 10 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013 provisions of Order VII Rule 10 CPC and us, ereafter respondent presented e plaint before e Civil Court at Surat. In e facts and circumstances of e case, it was held at e wrong doer cannot get benefit of its own wrong i.e. e benefit of interest on e amount from e date of filing e suit in Mehsana Court. It was furer held at once e plaint was presented before e Civil Court at Surat, it was a fresh suit and cannot be considered to be continuation of e suit instituted at Mehsana. The plaintiff/respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own mistake instituting e suit before a wrong court. 5. On 8 October, 2013, a ree Judge Bench in Sushil Sharma v. The State of N.C.T. of Delhi [Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2007] held at ere can be no hard and fast rules which e court can follow while considering wheer an accused should be awarded dea sentence or not. The Court held at e core of a criminal case is its facts and, e facts differ from case to case. Therefore, e various factors like e age of e criminal, his social status, his background, wheer he is a confirmed criminal or not, wheer he had any antecedents, wheer ere is any possibility of his reformation and rehabilitation or wheer it is a case where e reformation is impossible and e accused is likely to revert to such crimes in future and become a reat to e society are factors which e criminal court will have to examine independently in each case. It was furer held at e time taken by e courts till e final verdict is pronounced cannot come to e aid of e accused in canvassing commutation of dea sentence to life imprisonment. 6. On 8 October, 2013, in e case of Union of India and Anr. v. National Federation of e Blind and Ors. [Civil Appeal No of 2013], e issue of reservation for persons wi disabilities was considered. It was held at e computation of reservation for persons wi disabilities has to be computed in case of Group A, B, C and D posts in an identical manner viz., computing 3% reservation on total number of vacancies in e cadre streng which is e intention of e legislature. It was furer held at reservation for persons wi disabilities has noing to do wi e ceiling of 50% and hence, Indra Sawhney case is not applicable wi respect to e disabled persons. The Court issued a number of directions in order to ensure proper implementation of e reservation policy for e disabled and to protect eir rights 7. On 18 October, 2013, in e case of Badshah v. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr.[Criminal Misc. Petition No of 2013 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8596 of 2013], where e marriage between e parties had been proved, however, e petitionerhusband was already married and he had duped e respondent-wife by suppressing e factum of his alleged first marriage, it was held at e petitioner-husband cannot be permitted to deny e benefit of maintenance (under Section 125 CrPC) to e respondent, taking advantage of his own wrong. The Court furer held at ere is a non-rebuttable presumption at e Legislature while making a provision like Section 125 CrPC, to fulfill its Constitutional duty in good fai, had always intended to give relief to e woman becoming wife under such circumstances

13 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER On 18 October, 2013, in e case of State of U.P. & Ors. v. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. [Civil Appeal No.3026 of 2004], one of e issues which arose for consideration was, wheer grant of rebate of tax by e State Government of Uttar Pradesh to cement manufacturing units, by issuing notification under Section 5 of Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, was hit by e constitutional limitation on e State legislature under Article 304(a) read wi Article 301 of e Constitution of India, as it discriminated between e goods imported from oer States and e goods manufactured and produced wiin e State of Uttar Pradesh. It was held at e 'rebate of tax' granted by e State Government of Uttar Pradesh to cement manufacturing units established in e districts of e State of Uttar Pradesh alone was violative of e provisions contained in Articles 301 and 304(a) of e Constitution of India. nd 9. On 22 October, 2013, in e case of Mary v. State of Kerala and Ors. [Civil Appeal No of 2003], it was held at where e function is quasi-judicial, e doctrine of fairness is evolved to ensure fair action but it cannot be invoked to amend, alter, or vary an express term of e contract between e parties. This is so even if e contract is governed by a statutory provision i.e. where it is a statutory contract. In such a contract, e licensee takes a calculated risk. The Court furer held at in a contract under e Abkari Act and e Rules made ereunder, e licensee undertakes to abide by e terms and conditions of e Act and e Rules made ereunder which are statutory and in such a situation, e licensee cannot invoke e doctrine of fairness or reasonableness. nd 10. On 22 October, 2013, in e case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Ors. [Writ Petition (C) No. 681 of 2004], it was held at any food article which is hazardous or injurious to public heal is a potential danger to e fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of e Constitution of India. A paramount duty is cast on e States and its auorities to achieve an appropriate level of protection to human life and heal which is a fundamental right guaranteed to e citizens under Article 21 read wi Article 47 of e Constitution of India. It was held at e provisions of e Food Supply and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) and Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act) and e rules and regulations framed ereunder have to be interpreted and applied in e light of e Constitutional Principles, and endeavour has to be made to achieve an appropriate level of protection of human life and heal. The Court directed e Food and Safety Standards Auority of India, to gear up eir resources wi eir counterparts in all e States and Union Territories and conduct periodical inspections and monitoring of major fruits and vegetable markets, so as to ascertain wheer ey conform to such standards set by e Act and e Rules. Directions were given to strictly follow e provisions of e FSS Act as well as e Rules and Regulations framed ereunder. 11. On 24 October, 2013, in e case of Dr. Balram Prasad v. Dr. Kunal Saha and Ors. [Civil Appeal No of 2012], e Court observed at e doctors, Hospitals, e Nursing Homes and oer connected establishments are to be dealt wi strictly if ey are found to be negligent wi e patients who come to em pawning all eir money wi e hope to

14 12 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013 live a better life wi dignity. The patients irrespective of eir social, cultural and economic background are entitled to be treated wi dignity which not only forms eir fundamental right but also eir human right. The Court furer observed at e Central and e State governments may consider enacting laws wherever ere is absence of one for effective functioning of e private Hospitals and Nursing Homes. st 12. On 1 November, 2013, in e case of Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo & Ors. [Civil Appeal No of 2013], it was held at e jurisdiction of e High Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto is a limited one and can only be issued when e person holding e public office lacks e eligibility criteria or when e appointment is contrary to e statutory rules. It was furer held at e basic purpose of a writ of quo warranto is to confer jurisdiction on e constitutional courts to see at a public office is not held by usurper wiout any legal auority. While dealing wi e writ of quo warranto anoer aspect has to be kept in view. Sometimes a contention is raised pertaining to doctrine of delay and laches in filing a writ of quo warranto. There is a difference pertaining to personal interest or individual interest on one hand and an interest by a citizen as a relator to e court on e oer. The principle of doctrine of delay and laches should not be allowed any play because e person holds e public office as a usurper and such continuance is to be prevented by e court. The Court is required to see at e larger public interest and e basic concept pertaining to good governance are not rown to e winds. 13. On 12 November, 2013, in e case of Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Criminal Appeal No.1023 of 2008], it was observed at incompetent prosecuting agencies or prosecuting agencies which are driven by extraneous considerations should not be allowed to take e court for a ride. Particularly in offences relating to women and children, which are on rise, e courts will have to adopt a pragmatic approach. No scope must be given to absurd and fanciful submissions. It is true at ere can be no compromise on basic legal principles, but, unnecessary weightage should not be given to minor errors or lapses. If courts get carried away by every mistake or lapse of e investigating agency, e guilty will have a field day. 14. On 12 November, 2013, a Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. Of U.P. and Ors. [W.P.(Crl.) No. 68 of 2008], examined e question wheer a police officer is bound to register a FIR upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 CrPC or e police officer has e power to conduct a preliminary inquiry in order to test e veracity of such information before registering e same. The Court held at (i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC, if e information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. (ii) If e information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates e necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain wheer cognizable offence is disclosed or not. (iii) If e inquiry discloses e commission of a cognizable offence, e FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing e complaint, a copy of e entry of such

15 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER closure must be supplied to e first informant forwi and not later an one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing e complaint and not proceeding furer. (iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register e FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. (v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify e veracity or oerwise of e information received but only to ascertain wheer e information reveals any cognizable offence. (vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on e facts and circumstances of each case. (vii) While ensuring and protecting e rights of e accused and e complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and e causes of it must be reflected in e General Diary entry. (viii) Since e General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is e record of all information received in a police station, all information relating to cognizable offences, wheer resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in e said Diary and e decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected. st 15. On 21 November, 2013, in e case of E.S.I.C. Medical Officer's Association v. E.S.I.C. & Anr. [Special Leave Petition (C) No of 2013], e question wheer medical doctors discharging functions of medical officers i.e. treating patients in Employees' State Insurance Corporation's dispensaries/hospitals are workmen wiin e meaning of expression contained in Section 2(s) of e Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (e ID Act )was examined. It was held at a medical professional treating patients and diagnosing diseases cannot be held to be a workmen wiin e meaning of Section 2(s) of e ID Act. Doctors' profession is a noble profession and is mainly dedicated to serve e society, which demands professionalism and accountability. Distinction between occupation and profession is of paramount importance. An occupation is a principal activity related to job, work or calling at earns regular wages for a person and a profession, on e oer hand, requires extensive training, study and mastery of e subject, wheer it is teaching students, providing legal advice or treating patients or diagnosing diseases. Persons performing such functions cannot be seen as a workman wiin e meaning of Section 2(s) of e ID Act. nd 16. On 22 November, 2013, in e case of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India and Ors. [Criminal Appeal No of 2013], it was held at in order to initiate prosecution for perjury, e court must prima facie reach a conclusion after holding preliminary inquiry at ere has been a deliberate and conscious effort to misguide e court and interfere in e administration of justice. More so, it has to be seen wheer such a prosecution is necessary in e interest of justice. nd 17. On 22 November, 2013, in e case of CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.1837 of 2013], it was held at e revisional powers under Section 397 read wi Section 401 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by e court suo motu, particularly to examine e correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order and as to e

16 14 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013 regularity of any proceeding of e inferior court. It was furer held at ese two Sections in Cr.P.C. do not create any right in e favour of e litigant but only empower/enable e High Court to see at justice is done in accordance wi recognised principles of criminal jurisprudence. The grounds of interference may be, where e facts admitted or approved, do not disclose any offence or e court may interfere where e facts do not disclose any offence or where e material effects of e party are not considered or where judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. nd 18. On 22 November, 2013, in e case of Paan Mohammed Suleman Rehmatkhan v. State of Gujarat [Special Leave Petition (C) No of 2013], it was held at at if every decision taken by e State is tested by a microscopic and a suspicious eye, e administration will come to stand still and e decisions-makers will lose all eir initiative and enusiasm. It was furer held at at hindsight, it is easy to comment upon or criticize e action of e decision maker. Sometimes, decisions taken by e State or its administrative auorities may go wrong and sometimes it may achieve e desired results. Criticisms are always welcome in a Parliamentary democracy, but a decision taken in good fai, wi good intentions, wiout any extraneous considerations, cannot be belittled, even if at decision was ultimately proved to be wrong. 19. On 26 November, 2013, a Constitution Bench in Mrs. Sarah Maew v. The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by Its Director Dr. K.M. Cherian and Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 829 of 2005] held at for e purpose of computing e period of limitation under Section 468 of e Cr.P.C. e relevant date is e date of filing of e complaint or e date of institution of prosecution and not e date on which e Magistrate takes cognizance. 20. On 26 November, 2013,in e case of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma [Criminal Appeal No.2009 of 2013], question arose for consideration as to wheer e non maintenance of e appellant in a broken live-in-relationship, which is stated to be a relationship not in e nature of a marriage, will amount to domestic violence wiin e definition of Section 3 of e Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (e DV Act), enabling e appellant to seek one or more reliefs provided under Section 12 of e DV Act. The Court held at e appellant had entered into is relationship knowing well at e respondent was a married person and encouraged bigamous relationship. It was held at e appellant, having been fully aware of e fact at e respondent was a married person, could not have entered into a live-in relationship in e nature of marriage. All livein-relationships are not relationships in e nature of marriage. Appellant's and e respondent's relationship is, erefore, not a relationship in e nature of marriage because it has no inherent or essential characteristic of a marriage, but a relationship oer an in e nature of marriage and e appellant's status is lower an e status of a wife and at relationship would not fall wiin e definition of domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of e DV Act. The Court observed at if e relationship between e appellant and e respondent is held to be a relationship in e nature of a marriage, injustice will be done to e legally wedded wife and children of e respondent who opposed at relationship and consequently, any act, omission or commission or conduct of e respondent in

17 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER connection wi at type of relationship, would not amount to domestic violence under Section 3 of e DV Act. It was held at if any direction is given to e respondent to pay maintenance or monetary consideration to e appellant, at would be at e cost of e legally wedded wife and children of e respondent, especially when ey had opposed at relationship and have a cause of action against e appellant for alienating e companionship and affection of e husband/parent which is an intentional tort. nd 21. On 2 December, 2013, in e case of KN Aswanarayana Setty (D) Tr.Lrs. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [Special Leave Petition (C) No of 2012], it was held at a person who purchases land subsequent to e issuance of a Section 4 notification (under e Land Acquisition Act, 1894) wi respect to it, is not competent to challenge e validity of e acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever, for e reason at e sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him, any title and at e most he can claim compensation on e basis of his vendor's title. 22. On 6 December, 2013, a ree Judge Bench in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Telecom Regulatory Auority of India and Ors. [Civil Appeal No.5253 of 2010], held at in exercise of e power vested in it under Section 14(b) of e Telecom Regulatory Auority of India Act, 1997, e Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) does not have e jurisdiction to entertain e challenge to e regulations framed by e Telecom Regulatory Auority of India under Section 36 of e Act. 23. On 9 December, 2013, in e case of Rajeshwar Singh v. Subrata Roy Sahara & Ors. [Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 224 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No of 2010], notice was issued to e respondents to show cause why proceedings be not initiated against em for interfering wi e court monitored criminal investigation. It was held at any interference, by anybody, to scuttle a court monitored investigation would amount to interfering wi e administration of justice. Courts, if ey are to serve e cause of justice, must have e power to secure obedience to its orders to prevent interference wi e proceedings and to protect e reputation of e legal system, its components and its personnel, who on its behest carry on a court monitored investigation. The court is duty bound to protect e dignity and auority of is Court, at any cost, or else, e entire administration of justice will crumble and law and order would be a casualty. 24. On 9 December, 2013, in e case of Glaxosmikline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Union of India and Oers [Civil Appeal No.1939 of 2004], e effect of price fixation /revision under e Drugs (Prices Control) Order ('DPCO') in respect of drugs / formulations was considered. Interpreting paragraph 14 of e DPCO, 1995, e Court held at e true import of paragraph 14(1) is at once e price notification is gazetted, it takes effect immediately ough its enforcement is postponed by fifteen days to enable e manufacturers and oers to make suitable arrangements wi regard to unsold stocks. It was furer held at e period of 15 days is simply a grace period or cooling period allowed to manufacturers to adjust eir business in a manner where appropriate arrangements are made wi regard to e unsold stocks in e distribution chain. 25. On 11 December, 2013, in e case of Suresh Kumar Koushal and Anr. v. NAZ Foundation

18 16 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013 and Ors. [Civil Appeal No of 2013], it was held at Section 377 IPC does not suffer from e vice of unconstitutionality. The Court, however, made it clear at it had merely pronounced on e correctness of e view taken by e Delhi High Court on e constitutionality of Section 377 IPC and at notwistanding is verdict, e competent legislature shall be free to consider e desirability and propriety of deleting Section 377 IPC from e statute book or amend e same as per e suggestion made by e Attorney General. 26. On 12 December, 2013, in e case of Deaf Employees Welfare Association and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.[Writ Petition (C) No. 107 of 20112], it was held at e deaf and dumb persons have an inherent dignity and e right to have eir dignity respected and protected is e obligation on e State. Human dignity of a deaf and dumb person is harmed when he is being marginalized, ignored or devalued on e ground at e disability at he suffers is less an a visually impaired person which clearly violates Article 21 of e Constitution of India. It was furer held at comparison of disabilities among persons of disabilities, wiout any rational basis, is clearly violative of Articles 14 of e Constitution of India. Direction was also given to e respondents to grant transport allowance to deaf and dumb persons also on par wi blinds and oropaedically handicapped employees of Central and e State Governments and oer establishments wherever such benefits have been extended to e blinds and oropaedically handicapped employees. 27. On 17 December, 2013, in e case of Manohar Lal Sharma v. The Principal Secretary and Ors. [Writ Petition (Crl.)No. 120 of 2012], it was held at e approval of e Central Government is not necessary under Section 6A of e Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 in a matter where e inquiry/investigation into e crime under e Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is being monitored by e Constitutional Court. 28. On 17 December, 2013, in e case of Bhusawal Municipal Council v. Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak and Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos of 2013], it was held at if e land is to be acquired, law requires prompt payment of compensation. In case e party by whom or for whom e land is acquired is not in a position to make e payment of compensation, e person-aggrieved becomes entitled to get e land restored. Payment of compensation as per award under Section 11 of e Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be sufficient security to serve e interest of e person-interested pending adjudication of appeal against e reference court's award.

19 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER SOME RECENT MAJOR EVENTS AND THE INITIATIVES ( to ) I. FOREIGN DELEGATION TO SUPREME COURT: On , Mr. Kang, II-Won, Justice of Constitutional Court of e Republic of Korea had a meeting wi Hon'ble e Chief Justice of India in e chamber of His Lordship. II. MAJOR ACTIVITIES OF NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY (NALSA): a) TRAINING PROGRAMME OF THE MEMBER SECRETARIES OF THE STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES AND SECRETARY, SUPREME COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE IN THE AREAS OF AUDIT AND ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE AT NIFM, FARIDABAD, HARYANA: NALSA conducted five days' training programme of e Member-Secretaries of e State Legal Services Auorities and Secretary, Supreme Court st Legal Services Committee in e areas of audit and accounting procedure from 1 October, 2013 to 5 October, 2013 at National Institute of Financial Management (NIFM), Faridabad to enable em to develop eir skills and knowledge in financial matters while dealing wi funds provided by NALSA and State Governments. b) NATIONAL LEVEL MEET OF PARA LEGAL VOLUNTEERS AT VIGYAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI: NALSA has framed a Scheme of Para Legal Volunteers which is a flagship programme of NALSA. The Para Legal Volunteers act as a bridge between e community and e legal services institutions. To commend e work of e best para legal volunteer and best district legal services auority, e aforesaid National Meet was organized on at New Delhi. c) NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES DAY 2013: On 9 November, 1995 e Legal Services Auorities Act, 1987 was brought into force. Every year 9 November is observed as National Legal Services Day roughout e country. At e national level a function was organized in association wi Delhi State Legal Services Auority on 9 November, 2013 at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi. Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Saasivam, Chief Justice of India & Patron-in-Chief, NALSA delivered commemorative address, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi, Judge, Supreme Court of India & Executive Chairman, NALSA delivered e presidential address. The programme was attended by Hon'ble judges of Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court, Members NALSA, Members, DSLSA, Members of High Court Legal Services Committee and Judicial Officers, Lawyers and law students. d) NATIONAL LOK ADALAT: A National Lok Adalat for settlement of cases in all e courts from e Supreme Court of India to e Taluk Courts was held on roughout e country. The National Lok Adalat was organised by Supreme Court/High Court Legal Services Committees, State/District Legal Services Auorities and Taluk Legal Services

20 18 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013 Committees under e aegis of NALSA and was inaugurated by e Hon'ble Chief Justice of India at e Supreme Court of India. The Lok Adalat benches from e Supreme Court to e Taluk Courts have had successful sittings and lacs cases have been disposed of. Out of ese lacs cases, 9.75 lacs cases were criminal compoundable offence cases, 1.88 lacs cases were pertaining to Negotiable Instruments Act cases, 47,855 cases were Motor Accident Claims cases, 27,670 cases were matrimonial/family/maintenance cases, 8,000 were labour cases, 5,000 were land acquisition matters, 2.66 lacs cases were civil matters, 9.91 lacs cases were revenue matters, about 5,000 execution applications, 775 service matters, 3,484 cases were industrial disputes, 9,051 cases were Forest Act cases, lacs cases were MGNREGA cases, 9,030 cases were miscellaneous appeals, 2.96 lacs cases were pertaining to municipal department, 7,653 were cases regarding consumer disputes, 2.80 lacs cases were petty criminal cases. 51 cases were also disposed of at e Supreme Court ree Lok Adalat Benches and 5,513 at e High Courts. III. MAJOR ACTIVITIES OF NATIONAL JUDICIAL ACADEMY (NJA): a) National Conference of Judges of e District Judiciary on Enhancing Judicial Qualities, Attitude and Skills: October 04 06, 2013: The objective of e National Conference of Judges of e District Judiciary on Enhancing Judicial Qualities, Attitudes and Skills was to identify a framework of core qualities, attitudes and skills at are essential for effective judging. The programme provided an opportunity to discuss ese qualities and skills, e means and ways by which e same can be enhanced and applied by judges effectively. The programme stressed on e relevance of judicial eics and accountability, and sought to identify and analyze e existing as well as potential reats to judicial independence. b) National Conference of State Judicial Academies on Key Issues and Challenges in Judicial Education: October 05-06, 2013: This conference took stock of e progress made by e SJAs in implementing e new curriculum and in adopting new approaches to judicial education. The first meeting of e SJAs in is academic year undertook a critical analysis of e activities conducted at SJAs in e previous calendar year. It also looked for ways and means at need to be adopted in e direction of furer strengening judicial education in e country. c) Regional Judicial Conference on Role of Courts in upholding Rule of Law (Nor Zone: (Delhi, Punjab & Haryana, Allahabad, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir) : October 18 20, 2013: The ird programme in e series of Regional Conferences was held in collaboration wi e Jammu & Kashmir High Court and e J&K State Judicial Academy. The participants benefitted from e guidance and interaction wi various resource persons including Justice T.S. Thakur, Judge, Supreme Court of India. The Public Law Lecture was delivered by Justice (Dr.) BS Chauhan.

21 COURT NEWS, OCTOBER - DECEMBER d) National Conference of High Court Judges on International Law: October 26-27, 2013: This conference identified and worked to understand e International legal norms and eir application in domestic jurisprudence. The participating High Court Judges were offered an opportunity to interact wi sitting and retired Supreme Court judges and experts in e field of international law. e) National Conference of Judges of e District Judiciary on IPR and Cyber Laws: October 26-27, 2013: Technology is being used very often in commissioning of crimes and many a times a computer is used as a means to commit a crime. Therefore to adjudicate cases involving digital evidence, e need for skilled adjudicators has arisen. Rapid grow is expected in disputes related to intellectual property rights and a large portion of future litigation is expected to be related to intellectual property. Keeping ese aspects in mind NJA organised e said conference. f) National Conference of e Judicial Members of e State Consumer Forums : November 09-10, 2013: This conference provided e 17 members of e State Consumer Forums from across e country a common platform to share and discuss e major issues faced by em. It also gave em an opportunity to confer about e new legal developments in is area. g) National Conference of Judges of e District Judiciary on Cases relating to Sessions Trial: November 08-10, 2013: The basic objective of e programme was to help enhance e application of constitutional values in adjudication of criminal cases. The programme involved discussions on e role of courts in ensuring e adherence of laws and procedures in e light of e Constitution at each stage of Sessions trial i.e remand and bail, investigation, appreciation of evidence, decision making and sentencing. The programme focused on e timely disposal of e Sessions cases and how coordination of oer stakeholders can be ensured in is regard. The issue of access to justice and compensation to victims of crime also formed part of e programme. h) National Conference of Registrar Generals of High Courts on Court Administration and Management November 09, 2013: The position of e Registrar General is of vital importance in e judicial system as ey are e administrative heads. The Conference brought togeer 19 Registrar Generals wherein ey were offered an opportunity to share eir experiences, discuss and deliberate on various issues and challenges faced by em while dealing wi e administration, management and control of e affairs of e High Courts. i) National Conference of High Court Judges on e Role of Courts in e Protection of Social & Economic Rights: November 16-17, 2013: The objective of is conference was to provide a platform to e judges from constitutional courts to delve deep into e above mentioned issues relating to social and economic rights and judicial enforcement of such rights.