i. Petition seeking ban on Malayalam novel ‘Meesha’ dismissed – The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition seeking a ban on the Malayalam novel ‘Meesha’, which was being published in a magazine Mathrubhumi in a serialised fashion and was discontinued after the petition. The main challenge was regarding a passage in the novel which allegedly was offensive to Hindu women and priests. Earlier the Court had observed banning books would hamper free flow of information, unless it violates Section 292 of IPC. The government had also opposed the petition. The Court had asked Mathrubhumi to provide a translated copy of the allegedly offending chapter. The petitioners had threatened that if no action was taken, the Court might have a Charlie Hebdo like situations at their hand. The Court then criticised the petitioners for bringing the action in the present day and age. [N. Radhakrishnan v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 904 of 2018, date of judgment: 05.09.2018]

ii. States asked to file compliance reports with respect to mob lynchings within a week – The Supreme Court has specifically asked States and Union Territories, apart from the 11 States that have already filed their responses, to file on record reports indicating the steps they have taken to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court given earlier this year, listing steps to prevent cow vigilantism and related mob lynching [Tehseen Poonawalla v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 754 of 2016, dated 17.07.2018]. The Alwar lynching was brought to the court’s notice that the police officers who had prioritised taking the cows to the nearest cow shed over taking the victim to the hospital, losing precious time. It was then informed to the court by the ASG that the three of the four accused had been caught, and two constables had been transferred while the SHO in charge is facing disciplinary action. Charge sheets against the accused would have been filed by Friday. In case the State and UTs default in filing the reports, the Court would require the presence of the Home Secretaries of the respective States. [Tehseen Poonawalla v Rajiv Gauba, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1497 of 2018, date of order: 07.09.2018]

iii. Pune Police admonished for casting aspersions on the Supreme Court – In the Bhima Koregaon case, the Supreme Court castigated the Pune police for making statements in a press conference stating that the Apex Court should not have intervened at the present stage. Justice DY Chandrachud said that the Police could not tell what the Court could or should do. The ASG Tushar Mehta apologised to the Court for the same. The Court has injuncted them from going to the media regarding the matter. The State questioned the locus of the petitioners in this case arguing that private persons could not question the arrests of others. The petition, according to the State, has been filed on the basis of the eminence of the arrested persons, without any actual knowledge of the facts. The Court directed that the activists would be kept under house arrest till further proceedings on12.09.2018 [Romila Thapar v Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal)... Diary No. 32319/2018, date of order: 06.09.2018]

iv. Date for inclusion of names in NRC extended – The Supreme Court has extended the date to receive claims of those individuals who were not included in the draft of the National Register of Citizens. The State coordinator of NRC, Pratik Hajela, suggested that a list of 10 documents would be accepted as valid documents to prove legacy. The Court has accepted the recommendation and extended the deadline to include documents. The Court has also sought responses of the stakeholders within 2 weeks. The Centre also sought a copy of the report prepared by the Co-ordinator detailing the modalities of how the claims would be heard. [Assam Public Works v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 274 of 2009, date of order: 05.09.2018]

v. Col. Purohit’s petition seeking SIT probe into custodial torture dismissed – The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by Lt. Col. Shrikant Purohit, an accused in the Malegaon blasts, to order an SIT probe into his illegal detention and custodial torture. He stated that the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad had tortured him to force him to confess to a crime he never committed. The bench believed that entertaining such a petition at this stage in the trial would affect the outcome. In his petition he had also claimed that a conspiracy had been hatched to frame him in the 2008 blasts case. [Lt. Col. Shrikant Purohit v Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 197 of 2018, date of order: 04.09.2018]

vi. Defamation proceedings against publishers of book on Baba Ramdev stayed – The Patna High Court has stayed the defamation proceedings against the publishers of ‘Godman to Tycoon: The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev’, Juggernaut Books. The proceedings were started with the competent Additional Chief Magistrate. Juggernaut Books had argued that the petition had been filed by the petitioner in his personal capacity even though defamation of another person had been alleged, in this case Baba Ramdev. In the light of these arguments, the Patna High Court stayed the petition. [Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. v State of Bihar, Criminal Miscellaneous No.10548 of 2018, dated 18.08.2018]

vii. Shivinder Singh files case against brother – The co-founder of Fortis Healthcare, Shivinder Singh has filed a case before the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) against his brother Mavinder Singh alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement in RHC Holding, the holding company of Fortis Healthcare, which had caused financial loss to the company. He has further claimed that his acts have led to loss of reputation for him and the company. He had blamed him for the Ranbaxy-Daiichi Sankyo issue. He has asked for reconstitution of the Board with the exclusion of Malvinder and his representatives and direct them to restore the loss of wealth caused by their acts. The Tribunal had ordered the brothers to maintain status quo and has given Malvinder the permission to examine records of the Company, either himself or through a CA or CS. [Shivi Holding v RHC Holding, 350/241-242/PB/2018, date of order: 06.09.2018]

viii. Trademark infringements can be invoked under CPC or the Trademarks Act – In a \case concerning the US Based food giant Burger King, the Delhi High Court has reiterated the principle that a trademark infringement suit can be brought in court with jurisdiction, under both the CPC and the Trade Marks Act. Section 134 of the Trademarks Act gives jurisdiction to the place where the plaintiff resides/carries on business or, where the defendant resides/carries on business or, where the cause of action arises while Section 20 CPC gives the jurisdiction to the place where the defendant resides. The Court noted that the two sections are in conjunction with each other and not in contradiction to each other. [Burger King Corporation v Techchand Shewakramani, Civil Suit (Commercial) No. 919 of 2016, date of order: 27.08.2018]. (IPA Service)