Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages
Category

News

Home / News
News, Top Stories

On September 26 the AILET 2020 shall be held through Computer Based Test [READ NOTIFICATION]

The National University, Delhi (NLUD-D) has announced that the All India Law Entrance Test 2020 (AILET 2020) shall be held on September 26, 2020.

By Nishantika Sood

On the said date, the examination will be conducted from 11 A.M. till 12:30 P.M. via Computer Based Test (CBT) methodology at various Centers throughout the country.

Earlier, the exam was scheduled to be held on August 18 via Remote Proctored Test but the same was postponed in view of the ongoing pandemic.

The provision of all technical support and infrastructure for the candidates by the National Testing Agency has also been intimated. It will also ensure all public health and safety measures. Detailed guidelines for the same will be issued separately.

News, Top Stories

The Supreme Court has held that the Police Officers cannot register FIR, arrest, prosecute or investigate regarding cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 [READ JUDGMENT]

The Supreme Court, in its recent ruling, has held that the Police Officers cannot register FIR, arrest, prosecute or investigate regarding cognizable offence under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

By Nishantika Sood

The Court while upholding an Allahabad High Court judgment that had quashed an FIR registered by the Police concerning an offence registered under Drugs and Cosmetics Act dismissed the Appeal. The bench, comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph, thereby held that an arrest can be made by the Drugs Inspector in regard to cognizable offences falling under Chapter IV of the Act without any warrant and otherwise treating it as a cognizable offence. It made the following conclusions:

1.   In regard to cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Act, only the persons mentioned in Section 32 are entitled to prosecute offenders and not the police officers

2.  There is no bar to the Police Officer, however, to investigate and prosecute the person where he has committed an offence, as stated under Section 32(3) of the Act, i.e., if he has committed any cognizable offence under any other law.

3.   Having regard to the scheme of the CrPC and also the mandate of Section 32 of the Act and on a conspectus of powers which are available with the Drugs Inspector under the Act and also his duties, a Police Officer cannot register an FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC, in regard to cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Act and he cannot investigate such offences under the provisions of the CrPC.

4.   Having regard to the provisions of Section 22(1)(d) of the Act, held that an arrest can be made by the Drugs Inspector in regard to cognizable offences falling under Chapter IV of the Act without any warrant and otherwise treating it as a cognizable offence. He is, however, bound by the law as laid down in D.K. Basu (supra) and to follow the provisions of CrPC.

5.   It would appear that on the understanding that the Police Officer can register an FIR, there are many cases where FIRs have been registered in regard to cognizable offences falling under Chapter IV of the Act. We find substance in the stand taken by learned Amicus Curiae and direct that they should be made over to the Drugs Inspectors, if not already made over, and it is for the Drugs Inspector to take action on the same in accordance with the law. Resorted to their power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in this regard.

6.   Observed that in a number of cases on the understanding of the law relating to the power of arrest as, in fact, evidenced by the facts of the present case, police officers would have made arrests in regard to offences under Chapter IV of the Act. Therefore, in regard to the power of arrest Police Officers do not have the power to arrest in respect of cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Act, will operate with effect from the date of this Judgment.

7.  Further directed that the Drugs Inspectors, who carry out the arrest, must not only report the arrests, as provided in Section 58 of the CrPC but also immediately report the arrests to their superior Officers.

The Court also clarified that the existence of the power to arrest with the Drugs Inspector is not to be understood as opening the doors to making an illegal, unauthorized or unnecessary arrest.

News, Top Stories

The practice of filing the delayed SLPs only to obtain a certificate of dismissal has been strongly deprecated by the Supreme Court. [READ ORDER]

The Apex Court has reiterated that the practice of filing Special Leave Petitions with huge delays only for Obtaining a certificate of dismissal is a strong deprecation in the eyes of the Court. 

By Nishantika Sood

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ajay Rastogi, and Aniruddha Bose noted “State of Andhra Pradesh does it again!”, thereby observing, “The incorrigible inefficiency in filing appeal is apparent from page where the present special leave petition has been filed after a delay of 455 days. In view of Post Master General &Ors.v. Living Media India Ltd. &Anr. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 there are no more acceptable excuses. These are matters brought before the Court only to obtain a certificate of dismissal to put a quietus to the matter. We strongly deprecate the same.”

Recently,

the State government of West Bengal has approached the Court after an inordinate delay of 1697 days stating the ground that there is a public interest involved

and certain other matters are pending. The Court while dismissing the SLP observed that the Government has no right to walk into this Court as and when they want. 

All we can say that if there is public interest involved then the Government has been grossly negligent to look after public interest.”, the bench noted.

Earlier this year, the court had, while dismissing an SLP filed by Tamil Nadu Government, said that 

filing of ‘Certificate Cases’ must be discouraged.

“We are of the view that a clear signal has to send to the Government Authorities that they cannot approach the Court as and when they please, on account of gross incompetence of their officers and that too without taking any action against the concerned officers,” Justice Kaul had observed 2019 while dismissing an SLP filed by Bihar Government by imposing cost of Rs. 20,000 on the Government for its extraordinary delay in filing SLP.


News, Top Stories

Allahabad HC Refuses To Permit Muharram Processions: ‘Complete Prohibition Of Essential Religious Practices Is In Proportion To The Unprecedented Pandemic’ [READ ORDER]

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions seeking permission to take out Tazia procession during Muharram, today.

By: Anjali Singhvi

Justices SK Gupta and Shamim Ahmed observed,

It is with a heavy heart that we hold that in these testing times, it is not possible to lift the prohibition by providing any guidelines for regulating the mourning rituals/practice connected with the 10th day of Moharram.

The Court also said that complete prohibition of practices which are essential to our religions is very much in proportion to the unprecedented situation we are faced with. 

The Petitioners had assailed the UP Government order dated August 10, announcing a total prohibition on Tazia Procession in Muharram in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Highlighting that it may not be possible to observe social distancing norms during the procession the bench explained thus:

“There is no doubt that the burial of the Taziyas at the burial ground is a solemn and important part of custom of Muharram. However, it is necessary to note that every locality/colony has Taziyas, besides various individual families, all of whom have to get to the burial ground, since the burial of Taziyas cannot be deputed but has to be done personally. There is no mechanism fathomable, by the means of which it can be ensured that all such persons be permitted to take the Taziyas to the burial ground in a single day, while avoiding the risk of transmission of the contagion or following basic rules of social distancing, which are an absolute necessity in these unprecedented times.”

The Petitioners had sought parity with the Guidelines issued by the Election Commissioner of India, permitting five persons to do door to door campaign during COVID 19 Pandemic.

Before parting the bench remarked,

“We must hope and trust that God would perceive our restraint in our customary practices, not as a slight, but as an act of compassion for our brothers and sisters and give us the opportunity to celebrate all festivals with greater faith and fervour in future. It is only together with cooperation, understanding and support, we as ‘One Nation’, can emerge stronger from these treacherous times and overcome this season of darknes”

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. – 840 of 2020

CASE NAME: Roshan Khan And  Others v. State Of U.P. And  Others

Order dated: 29th August 2020

News, Top Stories

The Supreme Court has sought an explanation from the registry on account of not listing the bail plea despite the 4 – weeks limit set in Sep 2019. [READ ORDER]

The Supreme Court has recently ordered the Registry seeking an explanation for not listing a bail plea within the four-week limit set by the Court in September 2019, after a petition seeking anticipatory bail became infructuous on account of the arrest of the applicant during its pendency.

By Nishantika Sood

The bench comprising of Justice S K Kaul, Justice Ajay Rastogi, and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed that notice returnable within four weeks was ordered in the petition on September 19, 2019. After that, the matter saw the “light of the day” as on August 28.

The petition in the Apex Court got infructuous when in the meantime the petitioner got arrested and was subsequently granted regular bail. As a result, thereto, the Supreme Court had to dispose of the plea.

However, the bench said that it was “troubled” by the delay in listing of the case by stating “We are however troubled by the fact that while issuing notice on 19th September 2019, we had made the order returnable in four weeks. The matter was of anticipatory bail. This is the first time the matter has seen the light of the day after almost an year.”

“The Registry to furnish an explanation on the administrative side as to why the matter was not listed as directed after four weeks, more so, in the nature of matter being of anticipatory bail.

The explanation be furnished within two weeks”,

 ordered the bench headed by Justice S K Kaul.

In June, the SC had sought an explanation from the Registry over the three-year delay in listing the review petition filed by fugitive-liquor baron Vijay Mallaya against a verdict holding him guilty of contempt of court in 2017.

1 2 80 81 82 83 84 104 105
About Exponent

Exponent is a modern business theme, that lets you build stunning high performance websites using a fully visual interface. Start with any of the demos below or build one on your own.

Get Started
Instagram

[instagram-feed]

Privacy Settings
We use cookies to enhance your experience while using our website. If you are using our Services via a browser you can restrict, block or remove cookies through your web browser settings. We also use content and scripts from third parties that may use tracking technologies. You can selectively provide your consent below to allow such third party embeds. For complete information about the cookies we use, data we collect and how we process them, please check our Privacy Policy
Youtube
Consent to display content from Youtube
Vimeo
Consent to display content from Vimeo
Google Maps
Consent to display content from Google
Spotify
Consent to display content from Spotify
Sound Cloud
Consent to display content from Sound
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages