i. CVC ordered to furnish copy of report to Alok Verma – The Supreme Court has ordered the The reports, as the court noted, appeared to be mixed. In the hearing, counsel representing NGO Common Cause, which had filed for a probe into the circumstances leading to the removal of Mr. Verma, claimed that the interim director, i.e. Nageshwar Rao had been taking major policy decisions, even though the same was prohibited by an earlier order of the court. [Alok Kumar Verma v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1309/2018, date of order: 16.11.2018]

ii. Sonia and Rahul Gandhi’s petitions against the Delhi High Court order allowing re-assessment of their income accepted – The Supreme Court has agreed to hear petitions filed by Sonia and Rahul Gandhi against the September 8 order of the Delhi High Court, which allowed the reassessment of their income for the year 2011-12. In the case, Young India, acquired the shareholding of another company Associated Journals Limited (the company running National Herald) and in the process it acquired AJL’s 90 Cr. debt. Both the Gandhis bought shares in Young India and according to the Income Tax department, this would increase their income substantially, so where Rahul Gandhi was assessed for ₹68 Lakh, he should have been actually assessed for ₹154 Cr. [Sonia Gandhi v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28627/2018, date of order: 13.11.2018]

iii. Petition seeking recusal of judges by Manipur Police personnel dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking the recusal of Justices Madan Lokur and U.U. Lalit from the case concerning the Manipur fake encounters. The petition had been filed by some Manipur Police personnel, as in an earlier order constituting an SIT into the Manipur encounters, the Court had termed the officers involved as ‘murderers’. According to the government, such remarks of the court had shaken the morale of the Army, paramilitary forces and definitely the police. The Court summarly rejected these claims stating that the forces were made of sterner stuff as against what was being portrayed by the petitioners and that the SIT was an independent body and would not be affected by the remarks made by the Court. [Lourembam Deben Singh v Union of India, Criminal Miscellaeous Petition No. 125554 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 206 OF 2018, date of order: 12.11.2018]

iv. Notice issued on wanton killing of more than 350 stray dogs in Karnataka – The Supreme Court has issued notice to the municipal body in Karnataka and the contractor employed by it to catch and kill stray dogs, in violation of the order passed by in 2015 wherein it was clearly stated that stray dogs will not be harmed or relocated unnecessarily. They could be picked up only for the purpose of sterilisation. The contractor caught the dogs and buried them in the Sakleshpur Cemetery. On the basis of this information, the petitioner went to the burial site and filed a complaint on the basis of that. [Neveena Kamath v Wilson V T, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 001070/ 2018, date of order: 16.11.2018]

v. Directions issued to prevent child sexual abuse in schools – The Calcutta High Court has issued guidelines on the basis of an amicus curiae report to prevent instances of child sexual abuse in schools. The case originally concerned a young girl who was abused by the physical education teachers. Instead of confining the issue to the single case, the single bench asked the amicus, Advocate Phiroze Edulji, to co-ordinate with schools and come up with a report. The report suggested the formation of a nodal agency under the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, which would work towards raising awareness on the matter and help sensitise parents, teachers and other staff members of schools. The report also recommended a strict background check before anyone is appointed to a position in a school and most importantly, it asked for appointment of councillors in each school to help children. The Centre was agreeable to the recommendations but asked that the appointment of councillors be allowed to happen in a phased manner. [Bikash Roy v State of West Bengal, Writ Petition No. 31138 (W) of 2017, date of judgment: 16.11.2018]

vi. Notice issued to centre in a petition against expired drugs – The Delhi high Court issued a notice to the Central Government on a petition highlighting the issue of resale of expired drugs. Last year, the West Bengal Police had caught a drug racket where the accused were found buying expired medicines from chemists and pharmacies under the grab of disposing them in scrap. Instead, they would then change the expiry date on them and resell them in the market. The petitioner in the case had written to the government highlighting the issue earlier in the year, but no action was taken. But now the petitioner seeks a change in the manner the expiry dates are written on the medicines so as to make it difficult to change the dates. [Amit Sahni v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12254 of 2018, date of order: ]


vii. Statutes that are enacted on the basis of an international treaty have to be implemented in the light of the treaty – The Madras High Court,while interpreting the meaning of ‘New Shipper Review’ under the Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) Rules, held that a statute that has been formed on the basis of an international treaty has to be interpreted in the light of the same. The Centre had issued a notification on December 11, 2014 fixing the Anti Dumping Duty at $123.6 per tonne for import of Float Glass from Pakistan. Tariq Glass Industries Limited, Lahore, Pakistan filed an application to review the duty fixed for export of its Float Glass under Rule 22 of the ADD Rules. In response, a new shipper investigation was started into Tariq Glass in 2016 but it did not get over in the time prescribed. Saint Gobain also made representations against the issuance of the notification in favour of Tariq, but the representations were rejected. It then appealed against the notification to a single bench and then a division bench, which has held that the single judge erred in textually interpreting the provision and rather should have looked at the spirit - in view the spirit of GATT and the stand which India has taken in answering various questions, if the time taken in review under rule 22 is longer than the original investigation, then this would allow the foreign exporter to dump its goods into India, fabricate documents etc beating the purpose of the rule itself. [Saint Gobain v Union of India, Writ Appeal Nos.412 to 414 of 2018, date of judgment: 14.11.2018]
(IPA Service)