Our Editor for This Month: Sonali 

​

3rd January 2020, Friday

Allahabad HC registered Suo Motu PIL over suspension of internet in UP, (Allahabad High Court, UP)

Allahabad High Court| PIL| Suo Moto| internet suspension

The Allahabad High Court has taken up the issue of recent incidents of suspension of internet services in Uttar Pradesh in a Suo Motu PIL. An order to this effect was passed last month, after concerns over the same were raised before the court by various lawyers. While ordering that the PIL b registered under title, “reference to discontinuation of internet services by the State Authorities,” the High court also highlighted that continuous internet service now forms a part of the right to life under Article 21.

 

4th January 2020, Saturday

Justice V. Ramasubramanian on Right to Privacy: New age challenges,

(Supreme Court, New Delhi)

SC| Article 21| Right to Privacy

The Supreme Court affirmed in this case that the right to privacy is a part of the right to “life” and “personal liberty” enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution and that the said right cannot be curtailed “except according to the procedure established through law”.

 

5th January 2020, Sunday

Karnataka HC strikes down parliamentary allowances and miscellaneous provision being ultra vires the constitution of India

(Karnataka High Court, Karnataka)

Karnataka High Court| Ultra Virus| Article 164 (1-A)| Appointment of MLAs or MLCs

It is unconditional, the Karnataka High Court has struck down the Karnataka Parliamentary Secretaries Salaries, allowance and miscellaneous provision Act 1963, which was amended in 1999. This means that the chief minister cannot appoint any MLAs or MLC to the post of parliamentary secretaries, and in the process, given them the same salary and allowance as a minister. Currently, the number of ministers that a CM can appoint is regulated by Article 164(1-A) of the constitution.

 

6th January 2020, Monday

Nine Judge Constitution Bench for Sabarimala Case,

(Supreme Court, New Delhi)

Supreme Court| Nine Judge| Religious Freedom| Sabarimala Court

A nine judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Sabarimala case questions on the ambit and scope of religious freedom practiced by multiple faiths across the county. The bench also framed seven question of law which the nine judge bench these are: -

• What is the scope and ambit of religious freedom under article 25 of the constitution?

• What is the interplay between religious freedom and rights of religious denominations under article 26 of the constitution?

• Whether religious denominations are subject of fundamental rights?

• What is the definition of morality used in article 25 and 26?

• What is the ambit and scope of judicial review of article 25?

• What is the meaning of the phrase sections of Hindus under article 25 (2) (b)?

• Whether a person not belonging to a religious group can question the practices, beliefs of the group in a PIL petition?

 

7th January 2020, Tuesday   

Nirbhaya case: Trail court issues death warrant for hanging of four convicts on January 22,

 (Supreme Court New Delhi)

Supreme Court| Nirbhaya Case| Gang Rape| Hanged

The case involved Delhi gang rape and murder held at 16th December 2012. All the accused were arrested and charged with sexual assault and murder. One of the accuse died in police custody from possible suicide on 11th March 2013. The rest of the accused went on trial in a fast track court; the prosecution finished presenting their evidence on 8th July 2013. The juvenile was convicted of rape and murder was given the maximum sentence of three years imprisonment. On 10th September 2013, the four remaining adult defendants were found guilty of rape and murder and in three days later were sentenced to death by hanging. On 18th December 2019, the Supreme Court of India rejected the final appeals of the condemned perpetrators of the attack. The four adult convicts were hanged on 20th March 2020.

​

10th January 2020, Friday

Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019

Parliament of India

Parliament of India| CAA| Illegal Migrants

The CAA was passed on 11th December 2019 by the parliament of India. It amended the Citizenship Act, 1955 by providing a path to Indian Citizenship for illegal migrants of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian religious minorities, who had filed persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 2014. Muslim from those countries were not given such eligibility. The Act was the First time religion had been overtly used as a criterion for citizen under Indian Law.

 

16th January 2020, Thursday

What is Curative Petition?

Supreme Court, New Delhi

Supreme Court| Curative Petition| Miscarriage of Justice

The concept of curative petition was evolved by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of RUPA ASHOK HURRA V. ASHOK HURRA AND ANR. 2002 where the question was whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against the final judgement/ order of the Supreme Court, after dismissal of a review petition. The Supreme Court in the said case held that in order to prevent abuse of its process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice, it may reconsider its judgements in exercise of its inherent power.

​

22nd January 2020, Wednesday

SC hearing pleas on abrogation and J&K reorganization: - Article 370

Supreme Court, New Delhi

Supreme Court| Five Judge| Article 370| Special Status Granted J&K

A five judge constitution bench headed by Justice N V Ramana heard multiple pleas challenging the Presidential orders of August 5 and 6 issues under Article 370 of the constitution which removed the special status granted to Jammu & Kashmir. The Justice also heard pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the J&K reorganization act which bifurcated the state into union territories of J&K and Ladakh. The center on Tuesday had opposed the plea for referring to a large bench a batch petitions challenging the same.

 

29th January 2020, Wednesday

Right cherished by citizens are Fundamental, not Restrictions

Supreme Court, New Delhi

Supreme Court| Section 438| Anticipatory Bail

The right which are cherished deeply by the citizen are fundamental not the Restrictions, the Supreme Court observed Wednesday while laying down criteria for granting anticipatory bail to persons apprehending threat of arrest. The verdict held that “the protection granted to a person under Section 438 CRPC should not invariably be limited to a fixed period and it should inure in favor of the accused without any restriction on time”.

​