i. Process of filing objections to NRC re-opened by the Supreme Court – The Supreme Court declared the process of filing claims against exclusions from the National Register of Citizens open for a second time in light of the gravity of the issue. A list of 10 documents which can be relied on for the challenge have also been listed out by the court. The list includes documents like land record documents, Permanent Residential Certificate issued by the State, Passport, LIC policy, Bank Account documents, Educational certificates etc, all issued until 24thh September 1971. The process will begin from 25th September 2018 and remain open for 60 days. The description of the process which will be followed to deal with these claims was shared with the Court in a sealed document by the State Co-ordinator Prateek Haleja. The document, though, will remain in the custody of the court and even the request for a copy made by the AG was denied, given the sensitive nature of the matter. The Attorney General’s request will be considered on the next date of the hearing. [Assam Public Works v Union of India, Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 274 of 2009, dated 19.09.2018]

ii. Back wages not automatically granted in reinstatements by court – In the case at hand, the Supreme Court dealt with a challenge to a Labour Court order which had awarded back wages for 13 years to employee apart from ordering his reinstatement. The employee, a driver, though had to forfeit his annual increment as a punishment instead of being removed from service. The High Court dismissed the appeal against this order. But the Supreme Court after surveying similar cases explained that an employee does not have the right to demand back wages from the employer when he or she is reinstated to the job. Rather, the employee had to prove through evidence that during the period that he/she was unemployed, he/she did not earn any wages or in other words was not gainfully employed. The employer, on the other hand also has the right to provide evidence to argue that the employee was in fact gainfully employed and could not claim back wages. In the present case, the Court held that there was no evidence to show that back wages should be awarded, yet using their extraordinary powers, they granted 50% back wages. [Rajasthan State Transport v Phool Chand, Civil Appeal No.1756 of 2010, dated 20.09.2018]

iii. Concern areas highlighted for the CBI in Bihar shelter case – The Supreme Court has laid down certain areas where it expects the CBI to undertake a detailed inquiry into. The order was passed when the CBI presented its status report. SC has asked the CBI to look into person-in-charge of NGO Sewa Sankalp Evam Vikas Samiti (the organisation running the shelter), Mr. Brajesh Thakur, since the neighbourhood had heard screams of the girls emanating from the house but no one ever complained. The IT Dept. has also been asked to look into the NGO since its assets do not present a clear picture. CBI has also been asked to understand the role of the Social Welfare Department since two girls were mysteriously transferred out of the shelter two days before the report by TISS was made public. The Supreme Court also lifted the gag order imposed by the Patna High Court stating that there is no need for a blanket ban but requested the media to not sensationalise the issue. [Nivedita Jha v State of Bihar, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 24978 of 2018, dated 20.09.2018]

iv. Nariman, J. notes that CoC’s decision to disqualify a resolution applicant can only be prima facie – ArcelorMittal put forth their arguments in the battle between it and Numetal for the ownership of Essar Steel. The bench asked Arcelor to provide the escrow agreement, which it had entered into in pursuance of the NCLAT order, for ₹7,000 Cr to clear the bad loans incurred by Uttam Galva and KSS Petron. Arcelor asked the bench to clarify on what date the eligibility of a resolution applicant is to be judged. Arcelor argued that it should be on the date of submission of the resolution plan. Further, Arcelor argued that it was no disqualified under the provisions of IBC. Numetal claimed that the allegation that controlling shares in it are held by a Russian Bank makes its plan suspicious – could not stand as persons acting in concert as defined by the Takeover Code, the guiding legislation for substantial acquisitions and takeovers of companies, shareholders and a company cannot be treated as acting in concerned. [Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited v Satish Kumar Gupta, Civil Appeal No. 9402-9405 of 2018, dated 19.09.2018]

v. Bombay Lawyers Association files petition challenging Amit Shah’s discharge in Sohrabbudin case – The Bombay Lawyers Association has filed a PIL in the Bombay High Court praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the CBI to challenge Amit Shah’s discharge in the Sohrabbudin case. While the petition was being heard, a heated discussion took place between the learned Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh (appearing for CBI) and the BLA President Ahmad Abdi. The ASG pointed out that many petitions with similar prayers had already been filed and dismissed by both the Bombay High Court and even the Supreme Court and called this petition a publicity stunt. Sohrabuddin’s brother, the ASG said, had also filed a revision petition but withdrew it later. Abdi retorted that the ASG could not curtail the petitioner’s right to litigate irrespective of the number of petitions that may have been filed on the issue. [Bombay Lawyers’ Association v Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Public Interest Litigation (Stamp) No. 6 of 2018, dated 18.09.2018]

vi. Court delivers split verdict in power of a Registrar to cancel the registration of a society – The Calcutta High Court delivered a split verdict on the powers of a Registrar to cancel the registration of a society under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. The society in the case had obtained registration under the act by suppressing certain facts. The Act provides a prolonged process in Sections 25 and 26 for cancellation of registration under Act. Section 25 mandates that the Registrar may approach the Court directly for dissolution for certain causes mentioned in the section. Section 26 states that in case the Registrar wants to dissolve the society for reasons other than those mentioned in the preceding section, the same can only be done after a notice has been issued to the society for cause and then the Registrar is again required to approach the Court for final dissolution. The issue arose as to whether the Registrar can immediately cancel the registration in case the society had committed fraud while registration, which as a ground is not mentioned in Section 25. One of the judges on the bench, Justice Mukherji held that the Registrar had such powers as it would cause great hardship to public if such organisations were allowed to continue unchecked. He also noted that there was no express bar in the Act against such an action by the Registrar. While the other judge on the bench, Justice Amrita Sinha explained that the fact that there are express provisions given for how a society is to be dissolved, namely Sections 25 and 26, it could not be said that the Registrar had such powers. [Liang Mao Sheng v State of West Bengal, Writ Petition No. 518 of 2016, dated 19.09.2018

Other developments –

i. Triple Talaq Ordinance passed – The Union Cabinet passed the ordinance criminalising the Islamic practice of Triple Talaq. The Bill had gotten stuck in Rajya Sabha last year, while the Lok Sabha had passed it. The Ordinance stipulates that the offence will be registered only if the complaint it made by the wife or her close relatives. While the offence will remain bailable, bail would only be granted after hearing the wife. The offence could also be compounded at the instance of the wife. The Ordinance also provides that the custody of the child would be granted to the mother and she can seek suitable maintenance. This comes after Triple Talaq had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2017.
(IPA Service)