i. High Courts asked to report on status of cheque bouncing cases – The Supreme Court has asked the Registrar General of all the High Courts to report the steps that the Courts have undertaken for speedy disposal of cheque bouncing cases and whether any steps have been taken for disposal of such cases online. This was pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in October, 2017, for the speedy disposal of cases pertaining to bounced cheques under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The directions stated that it would be desirable if the accused gave his/her bank account number and their email id. If the ID is available with the bank of the accused then it should provide the same. The Court could also ask the accused to deposit the amount, it assesses be paid, by a particular date and he/she may be exempted from attendance. The current bench has sought information on compliance on the these directions. [Gulshan Dhall v Atbit Singh, Special Leave to Appeal(Criminal)No(s)7855-7867/2017, date of order: 17.05.2018]

ii. Centre submits draft Cauvery scheme – The Central Government has, after multiple reminders, submitted the draft scheme under Section 6A of Inter-State River Disputes Act, 1956 for distribution of water of the river Cauvery. The interested States were given a couple of days to respond to the scheme. The Attorney General though mentioned that the scheme was yet to be approved by the Cabinet, which prompted the Chief Justice to remind the AG that a scheme under the Section was mandatory. The Court also refused to comment on the correctness of the scheme and left it to the States to mention any issues with it. On 16th May, the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, and the Union Territory of Puducherry submitted their responses to the Central Government’s scheme, while Karnataka sought more time, owing to flux in government formation. While rejecting Karnataka’s plea for more time, the Supreme Court stated that they had rejected all suggestions from the States, except that the decision of the Central Government would not be final, in case of disputes in implementing the scheme. [State of Tamil Nadu v P.K. Sinha, Contempt Petition No. 898 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007, dates of order: 14.05.2018/16.05.2018]

iii. Petitioner challenging Article 35A to be heard in August – The Supreme Court decided to hear the slew of petitions challenging Article 35A of the Constitution of India in August, 2018, which protects the J&K rule of conferring special privileges on a specific class of persons called ‘permanent residents’ or ‘state subjects’, including in employment, buying immoveable property, scholarships, and aid, from being challenged in violation of the fundamental rights. The Counsels for one of the petitioners also submitted that the matter be heard by a five judge bench given the sensitivity of the issue. The Union of India sought at least three weeks time indicating that a solution may be in the works. [We the Citizens v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 722/2014, date of order: 14.05.2018]

iv. Issue of time limit on anticipatory bail referred to Constitution bench – The Supreme Court referred two questions related to duration of anticipatory bail, i.e. bail granted before arrest, have been referred to a Constitution Bench, which are: a) Whether the protection granted to a person under Section 438, CrPC should be limited to a fixed period so as to enable the person surrender before the trial court, and seek regular bail? b) Whether the life of an anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the Court? While referring the issues, the Court noted the diverging view points on the issue by benches of equal strength and that there was no clear law by a constitutiol bench. [Sushila Aggarwal v State (NCT) of Delhi, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7281-7282 of 2017, date of judgment: 15.05.2018]

v. Resumption of Ayodhya hearings on essential religious practices– The hearings in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi case resumed last week, and arguments continued whether the matter should be heard by a larger bench. Senior Advocate K. Parasaran pointed out that offering the namaz in a mosque was not an essential practice in Islam. In fact, he argued that “under the Muslim Law, a mosque is a place where prayers are offered publicly as a matter of right. It neither requires any structure nor any particular mode of the structure is provided. Even on open place prayers may be offered and it would be a mosque”, which was thoroughly rejected by Rajeev Dhawan. To further his submission, Mr. Parasan relied on earlier Supreme Court judgments which considered the essentiality of a practice to a religion. The judgment, the Counsel said, would bind the Allahabad High Court and resuscitating the issue before the Supreme Court was pointless. On the other hand, Mr. Dhawan highlighted that in determining whether the particular matters of religion or practices or belief are an integral part of the religion, It must be examined if the practices or matters are considered integral by the community itself, and such a determination has to be kept in mind by the Court while deciding the question. [M. Siddique v Mahant Suresh Das, Civil Appeal No. 10866-10867 of 2017, date of order: 17.05.2018]

vi. Notice issued on plea by law student against malpractices by hospital pharmacies – The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea filed by a law student and his father to the Union Health Ministry and the States and Union Territories to ban practice of selling drugs at an inflated price by the in house hospital pharmacies when the patient is undergoing treatment. The duo contended that the hospitals force the patients to buy the medicines and follow an organised set up to fleece the patients. The writ petition prays for directions from the court to prohibit hospitals from forcing patients to buy medicines from in house pharmacy and mandate hospitals to display that they have the choice to get medicines from outside the hospital. [Siddharth Dalmia v Union of India, Writ Petition(Civil) No. 337/2018, date of order:14.05.2018]

vii. Right to privacy extends not only against the State but also private entities – The Kerala High Court held that the right of privacy is not only available against the State but also against private citizens, like press or media and a person can have a reasonable expectation to protect their reputation. The High Court ordered the expunging of findings pertaining to the allegations of sexual harassment against the former Chief Minister of Kerala, Shri Oommen Chandy, in the Solar Commission report, on the basis that this was outside the terms of reference, and the former CM was not put to notice of these allegations, for him to defend himself, before the Commission made the findings. [Oommen Chandy v State of Kerala, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 40775 of 2012, date of judgment:15.05.2018]

viii. Uttarakhand Government asked to frame rules for witness protection – While hearing appeals against conviction of three young men who were accused of killing another where two witnesses had turned hostile and a key witness was examined after a long delay, the Uttarakhand High Court took note of the plight of the witnesses. The bench issued directions and thus asked the government to frame rules under Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007 and make amendments to the IPC for punishing a person for giving false evidence. Witnesses should be paid reasonable travel allowance and protection until the conclusion of the trial. The Court stressed on protection of the life and dignity of the witnesses. It also asked for making provisions for witness rehabilitation in sensitive cases. [Pramod Sharma v State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2016, date of judgment: 14.05.2018]

ix. NHRC orders fact finding inquiry in 17 cases of extra-judicial killing – The National Human Rights Commission has ordered a fact finding inquiry into 17 different cases of extra judicial killing in Uttar Pradesh and has further asked for the reports to be placed before it in four weeks. The cases were brought before it by Advocate Prashant Bhushan. The fact finding committees would consist of 5 police officials including the SSP and the DSP of the area where the alleged encounters took place. The Commission took note of the fact that if the allegations were true, the police would get away with not following procedure and the families of the victims would be rendered remediless. The Commission also asked the DGP of UP to give further directions to the officers forming the committee as he may deep fit. The order has specifically asked the FIR registered in the cases, chargesheets, daily register of the relevant police station, call data records etc to be included in the report. (IPA Service)