Legal Updates

A three judge bench headed by the CJI, Justice Gogoi, rejected an interim application that sought stay on the deportation of 7 Rohingya refugees. Prashant Bhushan, representing the refugees, argued that the Rohingyas had fled Myanmar due to the massacre and discrimination suffered, and thus Myanmar was not a safe place for the refugees in question. He further argued that the right to life provided under Article 21 was at stake in this case, and it was the Court’s responsibility to protect lives. Mr. Bhushan was countered by Tushar Mehta, who submitted that the individuals in question were illegal immigrants and that the Myanmar government has agreed to issue them a certificate of identity. The bench relied on Mr. Mehta’s submission and dismissed the petition, reasoning that no case was made since they are illegal immigrants who are ready to be accepted by the country of origin as citizens.

Further Reading:

Recently, the Supreme Court issued guidelines to deter violence by outfits during public protests, in response to a Public Interest Litigation filed by Kodungallur Film Society in the backdrop of the violence which ensued before the release of Padmavat. It directed district wise appointment of Nodal Officers, who must coordinate the local emergency services during the mob violence and issue messages to stop rumours and restore peace. Further, the officers would be held accountable for any unexplained delay in filing FIRs or investigation. It also directed all states to set up Rapid Response Teams, specially trained to deal with such situations. Additionally, it ruled that if anyone is found in possession of prohibited weaponry during protests, licensed or otherwise, it would be presumed that there was an intention to commit violence. In cases where a call for violence causes damage to property, action would be taken in accordance with the IPC. Furthermore, those persons would be liable to compensate the victims for any loss of life or damage caused to private or public property.

The Supreme Court has stayed an order of the Uttarakhand High Court which had mandated a blanket ban on ‘fatwas’ being issued by religious bodies. The divisional bench of Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta was hearing an appeal filed by JamaitUlama-I-Hind against the Uttarakhand High Court’s verdict banning fatwas and barring religious outfits and statutory/ local panchayats from issuing such diktats. The pleas stated that Uttarakhand’s High Court order was “illegal and unsustainable” and the legality of ‘fatwa’ had already been adjudicated upon by the apex court in VishwaLochan Madan v. Union of India &Ors.

• Preferential treatment cannot be given to city residents at GTB Hospital: Delhi HC

Further Reading:

1. Staff Reporter, No preferential treatment at GTB Hospital: Delhi HC , The Hindu, (October 13, 2018).
2. Press Trust of India, Delhi govt to challenge HC order on GTB Hospital pilot project: Jain, Business Standard (October 12, 2018).
3. Abhishek Angad, GTB hospital: HC quashes govt order on quota to city residents, The Indian Express (October 13, 2018).

• Victims can appeal against acquittal without seeking leave to appeal: SC

Further Reading:

1. Ashok Kini, Acquittal Without Seeking Leave to Appeal: SC, Justice Gupta Dissents,Live Law (October 12, 2018).
2. Apoorva Mandhani, Rights Of Accused Far Outweigh That Of Victims, Needs Some Balancing So That Criminal Proceedings Are Fair To Both: SC, October 13, 2018).
3. Ashish Tripathi, SC recognizes victims right to appeal in criminal cases, Deccan Herald (October, 12, 2018).