Legal Circles dt. 17-12-2023

* PARLIAMENT IS NOT A DHARNA CHOWK !

The residents of Hyderabad know that there is a place called , Dharna Chowk which is facing the Indira park. In the capital city of New Delhi the demonstrations such as Dharna, hunger strike etc., are allowed to be held at Jantar Mantar. Similarly, almost in every major city, a place has been earmarked for the peaceful demonstrations by political parties and others for espousing the public causes.

But certainly the temples of democracy like parliament and assemblies can not be used for staging Dharna and giving voice to the public grievances by all and sundry. In fact, these are the exclusive places available only to the elected representatives. Thus, though the function of a Dharna Chowk and the parliament and assemblies are atleast partly, similar, the availability of the latter is restricted only to the elected representatives of people.

To understand this simple truth no five year LL.B degree is necessary. Therefore, to say that the intruders in the December 13 episode were having no sinister motive but to give vent to the problems of unemployment and high cost of living is nothing but to over-simplify the grave offence of undermining the majesty of the parliament and the deliberate act of waging war on the country.

The date of the event, December 13 which coincides with the date in the year 2001 when a terrorist called, Afzal Guru had led a similar attack on the parliament, is not a chance incidence, but a well thought out design. Luckily unlike 2001 attack in which several lives were lost, this time no casualty has taken place.

But the very fact that the intruders were able to manage entry along with smoke canaster is nothing but gross negligence of duty by the concerned security staff. The government must own up the responsibility for the security lapse without making it a prestige issue.

A thorough Enquiry into the whole episode should be conducted as expeditiously as possible and the guilty should be punished in an exemplary manner.

Further, that now the parliament has been seized with the overhauling of the criminal laws, it would be proper to make a provision on par with the Military Court Marshall to deal with anti national, Jehadi and extremist elements in a time - bound manner. A more stringent provision like the Shoot -at- Sight should be incorporated in the proposed new penal Code to deal with such elements effectively. Though such a suggestion may not be palatable to the advocates of the strict rule of law theory, it deserves an impassonate consideration in the interest of our great country and the great Constitution.

*SC SERVES A TIGHT SLAP ON DIVISIVE FORCES !

After more than five years from the day of abrogation of Articles 370 and 35 A of the Constitution of India on August 5, 2018 as a result of which the then state of Jammu and Kashmir was stripped off its enviable special status, the Supreme Court finally put the last nail recently and put its seal of approval on the historic decision of the parliament.

A five - Judge Constitution bench after a prolonged hearing dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the scrapping of the Constitutional provisions which were purely temporary in nature but due to the lack of political will were allowed to exist for over 75 years!

As a result of the apex court verdict the divisive forces have been crest - fallen. In sequence, their foreign allies too, have eaten the dust!

* SC DEFERS A.P GOVT. SLP TO JAN.19

The Supreme Court on December 8 adjourned the Special Leave Petition filed by the Andhra Pradesh government against the High Court's order granting regular bail to the former Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu in 341 Cr., Skill Development scam to January 19 next year.

A bench of Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma aceded the request of the petitioner's Counsel Harish Salve who said that he will file a Counter in the matter.

* WOMAN CAN BE THE KARTA OF HUF: DELHI -HC

In a remarkable judgement, a division bench of the Delhi High Court has ruled that according to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act women are treated on par with men. Therefore, a woman can also be the Karta (Family Head). The Court observed that after the 2005 amendment to say that a woman can be a coparcener but cannot be a Karta, would be giving an interpretation which would not only be anomalous but also against the stated object of introduction of amendment.

Quoting Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, the bench underlined that "real change happens one step at a time."

* PENDING CRIMINAL CASE, NO BAR FOR PASSPORT: TS-HC

A single bench of Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court has ruled that pending of a criminal case against a person cannot be a ground for rejection of application to renew a passport.

The court directed the passport authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of his passport within a week.

Rejecting the argument of the passport authorities that a cheating case was pending against the petitioner, the Court observed that it is only when a person is convicted and a jail sentence is awarded, the authorities will acquire some discretion. In the instant case even the trial has not commenced, the Court added.

The petitioner, Ravikanti Venkatesham of Mancherial had sought the directions to the passport authorities.

* P&H-HC ON FREE AND FAIR TRIAL

A single bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the right of an accused for free and fair trial over takes the police power of secrecy in public interest.

Allowing an appeal of one, Paramjit Kaur, the wife of an accused for supplying the recording of conversation between the police authorities under Section 91 of Cr.PC , the court cited a supreme court 's judgement in Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India (2015) and directed the police authorities to provide the requested information to the petitioner.

* CONSUMER COMMN. AWARDS COMPENSATION, COSTS FOR DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam awarded the compensation of Rs.30,000 and litigation cost of Rs.10,000 to a consumer who complained against a caterer stating that after eating food he suffered diahorrea and vomiting.

The respondent caterer did not file his version and also did not appear before the Commission. Therefore, the court concluded that the caterer was admitting his guilt and ordered him to pay to the complainant as above. The complainant had claimed Rs. 50,000 towards medical expenses and physical and mental agony as a result of the food poisoning. E O M