DAILY LAW NEWS UPDATE-29TH MAY, 2020

0

This article has been written by Janhvi Shirsat, a student of NLU, Nagpur.

1.Relaxation to dress code for Judicial Officers also: Gujarat High Court Chief Justice

After legal declaration by SC for lawyers to ease the uniform, An Association of Judicial Officers in Gujarat wrote a letter to Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court requesting to apply those rules to them also as a safety measure amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Relaxation of Wearing black gowns and coats to lawyers is practiced after the circular passed for time being but as a precautionary measure to this pandemic, the rule goes equal to all and Coronavirus can infect both concerned lawyers and judicial officers”, said The Association.

2.“The wards for Corporation election are required to be arranged in descending order for the purpose of rotating SC/ST reservation”, said Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday had dismissed a batch of Writ Petitions challenging the State Election Commission’s notification of ward formation in Aurangabad of the ensuing election of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation May 2020.

On the formation of State Elected Commission (SEC) court said that the special reservation to women and SC/ST is not expected to follow the principles governing the rules and regulations and its own orders and circulars in its substance by the SEC as on maintainability of Article 329 (a), 243, 226 of the Constitution.

3. Karnataka High Court commented for Hate Speech on Tablighi Jamaat Incident

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a plea calling for action against media houses and political leaders for promoting enmity through hate speech.

While doing so, the Court held that in the absence of any specific legislation, it would be improper to make a substantive analysis or give a concrete definition of “hate speech”. The Division Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and MG Uma held that violence under Articles 19(2), 226, and 19(1) (a) are committed by political leaders and media houses.

Adding Court also conveyed that such deliberate reports and statements made by the media insult the religious beliefs of a certain minority community and further violates Section 295-A and Section 298 of the IPC as well as of the provisions of the Cable TV Regulation Act read with the Cable TV Regulation Rules.

4.Order of Acquittal before the court must cover under Section 378 (5) of Cr.PC: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has ruled that a challenge to an acquittal order passed by a Magistrate Court in a private criminal complaint must be moved before the High Court under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The bench of Justices MM Sundresh, V Bharathidasan, and Anand Venkatesh passed the ruling by explaining the legal path when it comes to challenging acquittal orders by the trial court for a private complainant different from that of a victim in a police report.

Unlike a complainant, a victim can file an appeal against an order of acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. When it comes to private complaints, however, the Court has now clarified.

                                                                  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply