i. Report sought from the Chhattisgarh government on Nandini Sundar’s plea for quashing of FIR – The Chhattisgarh government had registered a case against Professor Nandini Sundar and three others for the murder of a tribal man in the Sukma district of the State. Sundar has now filed a plea in the Supreme Court requesting deletion of her name from the FIR, since the government has not taken any action against her in the matter for the past 2 years. She claimed that she was not even been questioned once. The state’s government claimed that the police has reached the stage of recording of statements under Section 164 CrPC. The state further said that it intends to investigate the case and it will give details of its actions to the Court. The court refused to strike off the name without hearing the other side. [Nandini Sundar v State Of Chhattisgarh, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 250 of 2007, date of order: 27.11.2018]

ii. Fresh challenge to Article 370 rejected – The Supreme Court refused to entertain fresh petitions challenging Article 370 of the Constitution, which grants autonomous status to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The bench said that the petition was already pending before the court, so the Petitioners in this case should file an impleadment in the matter. The Petitioner argued that the article was meant only as a temporary measure. Due to the vote bank politics the government had done nothing to look into the Act. The State could not have framed its different constitution. [Vijay Mishra v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1208 of 2018, date of order: 26.11.2018]

iii. Further arguments held on Alok Verma’s transfer – The arguments in Alok Verma’s case were further held this week, where Fali Nariman appeared and brought to the court’s attention that after the Jain Hawala case, a specific scheme was introduced into the DPSE Act, the parent act of CBI according to which no appointments/dismissals/transfer to/from the post of Director of CBI could be made without the approval of this committee. A transfer cannot be made by going to the legislature by skipping this committee. The AG argued next claiming that the powers under the act could be divided into two – selection and appointment. The selection committee was just required to put forth its recommendation from which the government chooses the successful candidate. Dushyant Dave, arguing for the NGO Common Cause also made arguments seeking the setting aside of the order of the CVC divesting Verma of his powers, as the CVC did not have supervisory powers over CBI. Further Kapil Sibal appearing for Mallikarjun Kharge also reiterated that the CVC could not have made the impugned order and that a reference to the Selection Committee was absolutely necessary. [Alok Kumar Verma v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1309 of 2018, dated of order: 29.11.2018]

iv. Plea by army men challenging FIRs against soldiers in AFSPA areas – The Supreme Court had rejected petition filed by 300 army men challenging FIRs filed against soldiers involved in Manipur and Jammu claiming that these may have a demoralising effect on the armed personnel. The Centre had also supposed the plea. But the requests were set aside and the court asked the State to come up with a mechanism after the issue has been debated and discussed. The responsibility of discussion was not of the Supreme Court but of the government. If a death occurs while soldiers might be doing job, an internal mechanism should be made. [Co. Amit Kumar v Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.201 of 2018, date of order: 30.11.2018]

v. Same person cannot be the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) in NDPS cases – The Delhi High Court reiterated that the proceedings under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act would stand vitiated if the complainant and the Investigation Officer were the same persons. The petition in this case was filed by one Gurtej Bhatt who had been sentenced to 10 years imprisonment under the Act. He argued that the proceedings stood vitiated because the IO was the complainant as well. The lower court had held that the process was not vitiated, as the complaint had been filed by the IO in his official capacity. But the High Court did not agree with this and further held that Section 50, NDPS Act had also been violated since search and recovery did not take place within the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. His conviction was thus set aside. [Gurtej Bahadur v State, Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2015, date of judgment: 27.11.2018]

vi. 3 judges recuse from hearing Satish Uke’s petition – Three judges from the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court—Justice SB Shukre, Justice SM Modak and Justice Swapna Joshi—have recused themselves from hearing Advocate Satish Uke’s petition alleging that Judge BH Loya had been poisoned by radioactive poisoning. The petition had come first to Justices Shukre and Modak, who simply stated that they do not want the hearing to be listed before them. Next it went to justices Joshi and Deshmukh, where the bench passed an order stating that Justice Deshmukh will not hear the case. The justices did not record their reasons in the order but the other two judges were to attend the reception for Justice (then juddge) Joshi’s daughter.

vii. Amended definition of ‘rape’ will apply to acts committed after February 2013 –The Bombay High Court held that the amended definition of rape introduced by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 cannot be made applicable retrospectively and changed the conviction of the accused from attempt to rape to rape. According to the older definition, penile penetration had to be established to constitute the offence of rape. In this case, the medical report only showed attempts at fingering and putting the penis in the mouth of the victim. The trial court judge had applied the new definition, which covers penetration into any orifice of the female body. The conviction for rape was set aside. [Dilip Bharat Gavand v State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 1185 of 2013, date of judgment: 21.11.2018]

viii. Convictions and punishment of 1984 Delhi riots upheld – The Delhi High Court upheld jail terms of more than 80 convicts for their involvement in the 1984 Delhi Anti-Sikh riots. The Court criticised the time it took for the victims to get justice as more than 34 years have passed and even said that the convicts merited even stricter punishment, but did not do so as no prayer to that effect had been filed. The civil servants and police officers also did not perform their responsibilities as were expected of them. The manner in which the prosecution of these cases were done would, according to the judgment, go down in history as how the criminal process should never function. [Shambir v State, Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1996, date of judgment: 28.11.2018]
(IPA Service)