i. Stay on trial of civil/criminal cases only limited to 6 months– The Supreme Court in a landmark judgment held that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the stay will end after six months, unless such stay is extended by a speaking order. In future cases where stay is granted, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The Court further clarified that the stay will be extended only in exceptional cases, where it had to be shown that continuing the stay was more important than having the final trial. [Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal Nos.1375-1376/2013, date of judgment: 28.03.2018]

ii. Right to choose life partner recognised as a fundamental right: In a much needed decision,the Supreme Court has come down heavily on the ghastly practice of ‘honour killing’ and laid down strict preventive and remedial measures to eradicate the same. The Court emphatically held that when two adults consensuallychoose each other as life partners, it is a manifestation oftheir choice, which is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 ofthe Constitution. Such a constitutional right cannot be held hostage to the class honour or group think, and has to be protected. It further held that the consent of the family or community is not necessary, once two adults decide to marry. [Shakti Vahiniv Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 231/2010, date of order: 27.03.2018]

iii. PIL seeking re-examination of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination dismissed: The Supreme Court finally dismissed a petition seeking re-examination into Mahatma Gandhi’s death probe. The Petitioner had sought fresh investigation into the assassination case, 70 years later, owing to the emergece of a ‘new fact’ that ‘a second person had fired a fourth bullet’. The Court criticised the delay in filing this petition and stated that criminal cases cannot be reopened on the basis of hearsay. The Amicus appointed in this case also found no evidence in the submissions made in the petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the same. [Dr. Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis vs. Union Ministry of Law and Justice, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15103 of 2017, date of order: 30.03.2018]

iv. Validity of Section 70, Information Technology Act, 2000 upheld: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 70, IT Act, which empowers the government to declare any computer resource as a ‘protected system’, whereby only the persons authorised by the government would be able to access the resource, and any unauthorised access is made a punishable offence under the law. This was challenged on the ground that delegated excessive and unfettered powers to the executive to arbitrarily declare any software as ‘protected system’. Rejecting the contentions, the Supreme Court said that Section 70, IT Act is controlled by the rigours of the provisions pertaining to ‘government work’ in the Copyright Act, and thus not arbitrary.[B.N. Firos vs. State of Kerala, Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2008, date of order: 27.03.2018]

v. Whether sanction is required to start investigation against a public servant referred to a larger bench: In an important development, the Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the issue of whether prior sanction for prosecution of allegations of corruption in respect of a public servant is required before setting in motion even the investigative process under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The Court recognised that judicial opinions on this question were divided, wherein few judgments held that prior sanction was required before the Magistrate could proceed with a complaint against a public servant, while older judgments limited the need to take sanction, only once the cognisance was taken.[Manju Surana vs. Sunil Arora & Ors.,Criminal Appeal No. 457/2018, date of decision: 27.03.2018]

vi. Guidelines passed on the grant of bail– The Delhi High Court passed a series of guidelines on the issue of grant of bail for undertrials, especially those who are unable to pay their bail bonds or arrange local sureties. The Court held that the responsibility and duty of every court passing an order of bail is to ensure that the same is complied with has to be kept on the highest pedestal and undertaken in right earnestness. Some of the guidelines include duty of trial court to review reasons, if a prisoner is unable to secure release, despite bail order, and the responsibility of prison authorities to promptly bring any instance of a prisoner being unable to secure release from prison despite a bail order to the notice of the trial courts as well as the concerned District Legal Services Authority. [Ajay Verma vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10689/2017, date of order: 08.03.2018]

vii. Law on dying declaration clarified–The Bombay High Court in a full bench decision clarified the law on dying declaration, on a reference by a division bench. The High Court held that “a dying declaration cannot be rejected merely because the same is not read over to the declarant and the declarant admitting the same to have been correctly recorded.” The Court further clarified that it can be one of the factors, if it assumes significance in the facts and circumstances of any case, but not the only factor.[Ganpat Bakaramji Lad vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 186/2013, date of judgment: 09.03.2018]

viii. Freedom of Religion cannot be subject to unnecessary restraints- The Kerala High Court declared that no person requires a certificate of conversion from any designated institution, in order to effect changes in the government records. It held that “the Government cannot compel a person to affirm his change of religion, only through a particular mode via-a-via the certificate issued by the authorized organization. Freedom of practice of religion, as guaranteed under the Constitution is unrestricted by any qualification.” Accordingly, it held that the government orders that mandate such certification were only directory, and not mandatory.[Aysha vs. The Director, Office of the Directorate of Printing Department, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 16515 of 2009, date of order: 15.01.2018]

Other legal developments –

i. Deadline to link Aadhaar with Welfare Benefits extended to 30th June, 2018- The Central Government has extended the deadline to mandatorily link Aadhaar with entitlement to ‘subsidies, benefits and services’ under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 to 30th June, 2018, from the earlier deadline of 31st March, 2018. Similarly, the Government also extended the deadline to link Aadhaar with PAN to 30th June, 2018. This was done, close on the heels of the Supreme Court extending the deadline to Aadhaar with mobile number and bank accounts, till the final disposal of the case. (IPA Service)