TOP 10 LEGAL HEADLINES OF THE WEEK
1. Contempt Case: SC Sentences Prashant Bhushan to a Fine of Rupee One
The SC sentenced Advocate Prashant Bhushan to a fine of Rupee One while pronouncing the sentence for the contempt case against him for his tweets against the judiciary. The penalty was ordered to be deposited with the Supreme Court Registry within September 15. In case of default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 months and will be debarred from practice in the Supreme Court for three years.
2. Truth as Valid Defence in Contempt Proceedings Only if it is Bonafide and in Public Interest
The Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari in the contempt case against Prashant Bhushan, observed that the sine qua non for considering the truth as a valid defence are that the Court should be satisfied that defence is in the public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bonafide.
3. SC Strongly Deprecates Delayed Filing of Special Leave Petitions for Obtaining Certificate of Dismissal.
The Apex Court while dismissing an SLP filed by Andhra Pradesh Government in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. M Srinivasa Rao, strongly criticized the practice of filing Special Leave Petitions with substantial delays solely for obtaining a certificate of dismissal. The Bench of the Court comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ajay Rastogi and Aniruddha Bose stated that the present matter was brought before the Court only to obtain a certificate of dismissal to put a quietus to the matter and that they strongly deprecate the same.
4. Accused Under NDPS Act Not Entitled to Acquittal Merely Because Complainant is the Investigating Officer: SC
A Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and S Ravindra Bhat stated that “Merely because the informant and the investigating officer is the same, it cannot be said that the investigation is biased and the trial is vitiated. Additionally, the Bench also overruled the decision in the 2018 case of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab.
5. Medical Council of India Has No Power to Make Any Reservation for In-Service Candidates: SC
The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose held that the Medical Council of India has no power to make any reservation for in-service candidates in Post Graduate Medical Course in any particular state. The Bench also noted that the power of Medical Council of India Act is referable to Entry 66, List 1, which is a limited source of power to lay down standards, and that States can make regulations in relation to the same. The said judgement was made in the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
6. Appeal Against NCDRC Order Passed in Execution Proceedings Not Maintainable U/S. 23 of the Consumer Protection Act: States SC.
A Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and KM Joseph noted that an appeal before the Court against an order passed by the National Consumer Redressal Commission in the course of execution proceedings is not maintainable. The said order was passed in the case of M/s Ambience Infrastructure Private Limited v. Ambience Island Apartment Owners.
7. Centre Blocks 118 Apps Including PUBG Citing Threat to State Security.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, under its power under Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, blocked 118 mobile applications citing threat to State security.
8. SC Refuses to Grant Bail to Teenager Accused of Killing 7-year Old in Gurugram School in 2017.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, refused to grant bail to a teenager who has been accused of killing a minor boy at a school in Gurugram. The HC of Punjab and Haryana had previously refused to grant bail to the accused, and an appeal was brought before the SC.
9. No Violation of Labelling Regulations if Relevant Information is Traceable from Barcode: SC
The Apex Court quashed a prosecution for allegations of violation of Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 while noting that the relevant information concerning the batch of the product was available in the barcode on the product. The said statement was made by a bench comprising of Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee in the case of Raghav Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi).
10. Private Complaints Alleging Offences u/s 191 and 192 of IPC Not Maintainable When Committed in Relation to Court Proceedings: States SC
The Apex Court held that a private complaint under section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code could not be filed alleging offences under section 191 and 192 of IPC, even if false evidence is created outside the Court premises. The Court held so in the case titled as M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd & Anr. v. Prasad Vassudev Keni.