Name and shame the anti-national elements

Yet in another stunt, the anti-India lobby has successfully manouvered a legal path in a bid to brow- beat the BJP leadership and our nation generally in the eyes of the world.

By filling a criminal complaint in the UK against the army chief and also the Union Home Minister through a law firm for the alleged incidents of human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir, the anti-India lobby has drawn a flak. Even a child knows that the UK is not a country to entertain complaints against another sovereign nation. Therefore, this is just a publicly stunt, the childish attempt to malign our country and the government.

It is indeed a disturbing fact that under the mash of freedom granted to every citizen of India by the constitution, divisive anti-national elements are undermining the sovereignty of the country. The so-called Opposition parties overflowing with modern day Jaychands now have opted to approach enemy countries with a begging bowl for their help!

With the overt and covert support of anti-India foreign powers, terrorists, extremists and jihadis are having a full play. The increasing incidents of attacks on Hindus and Hindu temples should be an eye opener both for the government as well as the judiciary. The law-abiding people pin high hopes on the constitutional bodies for the safety and security of their own life and properties.

It is high time that visible and convincing measures are taken against anti-national elements who are hell bent upon creating anarchy and civil war-like situation in the country with a view to overthrow the lawfully elected government. And sooner the better it is done.

SC ON LIMITATION ACT

A division bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela Trivedi. has held that Section 5 pertaining to the condonation of delay, of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of ' suits' in a civil court. The court clarified that the provision is applicable only to the appeals and revision petitions.

The ruling was delivered on January 21 in the appeal against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India.

P&H-HC QUASHES 2nd FIR

Justice Vikas Bahl of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on January 7 in Gurmail Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another passed an order under Section 482 of CrPC and quashed the second First Information Report (FIR) filed against the petitioner/accused on several counts, including extortion and criminal conspiracy.

Describing the second FIR, when the first one was still pending, as the gross abuse of legal process, the court observed that there was no need to wait for the final report as provided under Section 173 of CrPÇ

DV ACT RIDES OVER Sr. CITIZENS ACT

In a Judgment which is likely to ignite a nation-wide debate on the rights of estranged married woman versus the rights of a senior citizen, the Gujarat High Court recently held that the woman's right for the shared residence shall have preference over the residential right of the senior citizen.

Delivering the Judgment on January 18 in Jagdeep Bhai Chandulal Patel. Vs. Reshma Ruchin Patel, the single bench of Justice Ashok Kumar C Joshi observed that the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should override the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

While conceding that normally the provisions of latter enactment should prevail, the court in the instant case felt that by doing so, it would defeat the purpose and objectives of the DV Act and chose to adopt the 'harmonious' approach in the instant case.

Though in doing so, the Gujarat High Court followed the 2020 Judgment of the Apex court in S Vanitha Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bangaluru Urban, the moot question that remains unanswered is: By not following the set legal tradition of preferring the latest statute, has not the avowed objects and beneficial purpose to the senior citizen not affected.

The courts throughout the country are generally flooded by false, revengeful vexatious litigations by the so-called enlightened and liberated women that it is increasingly becoming difficult for judges to arrive at just conclusion about the right and deserving party.

MATCH FIXING, NO OFFENCE U/s.42O IPC

Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar of the Karnataka High Court has held that fixing of a cricket match does not attract the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC.

Dealing with a batch of petitions, including CM Gautam Vs. State of Karnataka, involving charge under Section 420 of IPC, the court observed that there was no inducement to buy a ticket and watch a cricket match. In order to constitute the offence of cheating one of the necessary ingredients was 'inducement' to part property. While money is certainly the property, but people buy the tickets to watch a cricket match voluntarily. Hence, the offence of cheating is not made out, the court held and quashed the charges against all players.