The Bench and the Bar

_Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC) _sent out a strong advisory on 10 December 2015 against all entertainment channels telecasting shows where characters are shown to be superstitious, practitioners of black magic, practice occult, witchcraft and exorcism after receiving complaints from viewers regarding superstitious content in the shows.

The BCCC, headed by Justice (retired) Mukul Mudgal who commented that such programmes are getting frequent reported The Hindu. The content of Zee, Colors, Sun TV and Maa TV were examined by BCCC and the channels were advised to exercise caution while telecasting such shows.

To protect the creative liberties of the makers of the programmes, such shows are not banned altogether but the makers are advised to exercise restraint and put a scroll disapproving the practice during the show if such depiction is absolutely necessary. The channels were told not to telecast the shows at prime time and use discretion while showing such content.

The Supreme Court today sought a response from Nestle and the Maharashtra government on an FSSAI plea seeking a stay of the Bombay high court order prohibiting food testing by government labs not accredited under new food safety law.

An apex court bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C Pant also issued notice on a FSSAI plea for putting the sale of Maggi on hold as it was a proprietary product and it’s sale was contrary to the Section 22 of the FSSAI Act.

However, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the court that FSSAI for now was not pressing for this prayer.

The court directed the hearing of the matter on 16 January as Nestle, represented by the senior counsel Harish Salve, said that it would file its response by 5 January.

The Delhi high court today issued notice to the central government on BJP leader Subramanian Swamy’s plea against the release of the juvenile convict in the 16 December, 2012 gang-rape and sought an IB report about him having been radicalised.

A division bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice RS Endlaw asked the government to give the IB report in a sealed cover and posted the matter for hearing on Monday.

The juvenile, who was under 18 when arrested for brutal rape and murder of a para-medical student on 16 December, 2012, was tried under the Juvenile Justice Act. He was ordered to be kept in a remand home for three years.

The juvenile is set to be released on 15 December. The (Intelligence Bureau) IB had raised suspicion of the juvenile being radicalised after being shifted with a juvenile apprehended for the Delhi high court blasts.

“Alongside the justices, you will draft decisions that change lives. Your input will constantly be sought, and your ideas will certainly be implemented. In many instances, the justices will rely entirely on your analysis. They'll base their opinions on your research. That means you affect what they see and what they know. There are nine justices on this Court. But your influence, the power that you hold, makes you the tenth justice.”

Toilet election law not arbitrary, holds SCIn a judgment that is sure to surprise many, Justice J Chelameswar of the Supreme Court has held that arbitrariness cannot be a ground to strike down a law.

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) held the debate for the candidates for the post of President and the Hony. Secretary between 4.30 and 6.30 p.m. today at the Supreme Court Lawns.

The Bombay high court today said Bollywood megastar Salman Khan “cannot be convicted” on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution in a hit-and-run case, acquitting him.

It's been less than a week that Justice TS Thakur took oath as the Chief Justice of India and it doesn't seem as though he’ll have a straight road ahead of him: he’s taking up the chief’s mantle in the midst of a polarised intolerance debate, a tussle between parliamentary and judicial supremacy tussle and almost stagnant judicial appointments. 

The Supreme Court will examine the validity, with the help of central and state governments, of a decision of the Bombay high court that the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be used by a mother in law to initiate action against her daughter in law, reported The Hindustan Times.

The Bombay high court had in September 2015 held that the daughter in law can be prosecuted under the act after which she petitioned in the Supreme Court before the bench led by Justice Ranjan Gogoi which took cognizance of the matter and asked the Central as well as the Maharashtra governments to respond about their stand on the issue.

The petitioner has claimed in the case that as per the act a mother, sister or mother in law can only prosecute men and not women.

The next date of hearing of the matter in the Supreme Court is 17 February 2016 when the Attorney General’s office will also assist the court.

The Delhi high court has held a cyber-squatter guilty of misusing the name of Tata group chief Cyrus Pallonji Mistry by holding on to websites www.cyrusmistry.co.uk and www.cyrusmistry.co and has directed him to transfer both the websites to Mistry reported The Hindustan Times.

Justice Manmohan Singh observed in his judgment that the defendant, Aniket Singh has blatantly and illegally tried to capitalize on the goodwill of Mistry as he is a well known personality. Singh was also directed to deposit Rs 5 Lakh as punitive costs to the Delhi High Court library fund.

Apart from the obvious use of Mistry’s name, the conduct of the defendant in registering the domain name a month after he was announced to be the next CEO of Tata group and using “threatening tone” with the plaintiffs which made the intention of extortion clear, led the court to impose costs to Singh.

The Bombay high court today said it was difficult to believe the testimony of late Ravindra Patil, the police bodyguard assigned to Bollywood actor Salman Khan who was in the vehicle during the 28 September, 2002, hit-and-run accident case involving the Bollywood star.

Terming him as “an unreliable witness” Justice AR Joshi said it was difficult to accept Patil’s answer that the car tyre burst due to the impact” (of the crash).

The court also observed that in his police statement recorded hours after the accident that day, Patil made no mention about Salman being drunk, but said this only on 1 October (that year) after the blood sample tests reports were received.

Since Monday, the judge has been in the process of dictating in an open court his verdict on the appeal filed by the actor challenging the Sessions Court order of May 2015. Yesterday, he cast doubt on the accuracy of the blood samples provided by Khan.

By that order the Sessions Court sentenced Salman Khan to five years’ jail on, among other things, charges of “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”.

Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India TS Thakur declined to entertain a public interest litigation demanding bringing of a uniform civil code in the country on Monday telling the petitioner that the power to do so remains with parliament and not the judiciary, reported The Times of India.

The petitioner Ashwini Upadhayay was represented by four senior advocates including Gopal Subramanium and Mohan Parasaran who relied on Directive Principles in the Constitution as well as case laws where the Supreme Court has insisted on introduction of the Uniform Civil Code.

The bench of TS Thakur and Justices AK Sikri and R Banumathi were unmoved by petitioner and said that heavy costs would be imposed on him if he continued with the petition. The bench said: “Sarla Mudgal case is the best that you can refer to in support of the PIL Article 44 is a constitutional goal. Are courts equipped and empowered to enforce constitutional goals? It reflects the hopes of Constitution makers. But hopes will remain in the realm of hope unless Parliament decides to convert them into enforceable rights.”

“The Supreme Court has consistently declined to go into it. The moot question is can Supreme Court convert a Directive Principle into fundamental right? It is for Parliament to take a call on it. What cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly through the courts.”

The bench however provided hope to Muslim women and observed that if and when a Muslim woman comes to the court and challenges triple talaq, it would be examined by the court and also said that no woman from a Muslim community has questioned the practice of triple talaq till now.

The petition was withdrawn by the petitioner’s advocate.

The Supreme Court refused a district-level judge relief in his petition demanding reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in the higher judiciary on Monday, reported The Hindustan Times.

The petitioner judge, Kanta Prasad was seeking promotion to the Uttarakhand high court on the basis of his caste. Prasad works as a registrar with the HC’s vigilance department and had claimed in his petition that the collegium should have considered him since there is no representation from his community in the higher judiciary.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) TS Thakur rejected his plea and asked “Where is the rule, which says there has to be a quota for SC/ST in the HC? You cannot claim it as a right.” The bench also clarified that elevation to the HC is on the basis of seniority. “Only because you belong to a particular caste doesn’t mean you should become an HC judge. Has anyone junior to you from the services got promoted? If not, there is no reason for your grievance,” the bench reportedly said.

The bench also suggested Prasad’s lawyer to send his representation to the Supreme Court bench that recently held a detailed hearing on how to improve the appointment system in order to make it more transparent.