i. Guidelines relating to filing of sexual assault cases laid down –The Supreme Court set out the guidelines to protect the privacy of victims of sexual assault in a PIL filed by Nipun Saxena, dealing with the broader issue of rehabilitation of rape, sexual assault and acid attack victims. It imposed a complete ban on the disclosure of identities of rape victims, even if they are deceased or of unsound mind, even with the consent of the parents. The Court also prohibited the uploading of FIR in rape cases and in cases under POCSO, even if the names were blurred. If the complainant wants to file an appeal in the case, she will not be required to disclose her identity. The documents pertaining to the cases will be kept in sealed cover in safe custody. Any authority to which the name is disclosed for investigative purposes has to keep the name a secret. The overall idea was that the identity of the victim should not be discernible from any material, given the social stigma attached with such cases. The victims, the court observed, will be blamed for the events and the court has to ensure that they are respected in the court proceedings. [Nipun Saxena v Union of India, Writ Petition No. 565 of 2013, date of order: 11.12.2018]

ii. Death row prisoners to be allowed access to mental health professionals – The Supreme Court, in a petition highlighting inhuman conditions in 1382 prisons, has held that death row prisoners, i.e. convicts who have been given death sentences, should be allowed to meet their lawyers, family members and mental health professionals. The Court expounded on the meaning of a death row convict – explaining that a person whose death sentence has become final and indefeasible can only be treated as one. The petition had also asked for solitary confinement to be struck down as unconstitutional and the court stated that death row convicts should be allowed to move freely within the confines of the prisons. Such convicts should be allowed access to their lawyers to ensure effective access to justice and so that their rights are protected. Not allowing them to talk to family members etc would not stand the test of Articles 14 and 21, the court said. [Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, Interim Application No. 26542 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2013, date of order:13.12.2018]

iii. Directions issued for proper enforcement of rights of the elderly – The Supreme Court reprimanded the government for not enforcing the rights of the elderly under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. It gave a slew of directions to the Central government, asking it to collect information regarding the enforcement of the Act. The Centre is also required to collect the medical facilities available to senior citizens. The government has to come up with a plan to publicise the provisions of the Act and ensure that the senior citizens are aware of their rights. The Central Government has also been directed to issue directions to the State Governments under the Act to ensure effective implementation. New schemes should also be launched. The Court observed that the government could not hide behind the excuse of lack of funds as when the legislation was enacted the government would have taken into account the funds available and required for the enforcement of its provisions. [Dr. Ashwani Kumar v Union of India, Writ Petition No. 193 of 2016, date of order: 13.12.2018]

iv. Tamil Nadu Government order shutting down Sterlite plant set aside – The National Green Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Tamil Nadu government ordering the closure of the Vedanta-Sterlite in Tuticorin. Rather, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Board has been asked to give permission to the plant to handle hazardous circumstances, subject to appropriate conditions for environment protection, in three weeks. The judgment lays down certain conditions that the plant has to fulfil like setting up of a website where those affected by the operations of the plant can lodge complaints and get resolution in a time bound manner. The plant would have to regulate the ground water quality and upload the results of the tests on the website. The management will also have to pay ₹2.5 crores in light of their past behaviour and ensure safe handling of dangerous chemicals in the future. Directions were also passed detailing the future handling of the chemical waste generated by the plant. These directions came, in the light of a report by the NGT according to which the grounds mentioned by the Tamil Nadu government were not severe enough to warrant closure of the plant. [Vendanta v State of Tamil Nadu, Appeal No. 1741 of 2018, date of order: 10.12.2018]

v. Ban on manufacture and sale of Oxytocin by private companies quashed – The Delhi High Court quashed a notification issued by the Central Government which had prohibited the manufacture and sale of Oxytocin by private companies. The petition had been filed by All India Drug Action Network, which claimed that the drug was required for young mothers and pregnant women. But the government had claimed that oxytocin had been misused in the past, and indiscriminately used in the animals. The government, the court said, completely ignored the health benefits to humans in the light of the impact it causes on animals. The government needed to take into account that the drug could be life saving for women. The scarcity of the drug could cause an increase in maternal fatality. In the light of these facts the notification was struck down. [BGP Products Operations GMBH v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6084 of 2018, date of order: 14.12.2018]

vi. Stay on CIC’s order to RBI to disclose the list of defaulters:The Bombay High Court passed an interim order staying the order of the Central Information Commissioner directing the Reserve Bank of India to submit a list of wilful defaulters with a bad loan of over Rs. 1,000 crore. A notice was also issued to the RBI Governer on this issue by CIC. Arguing that the CIC order was arbitrary, the RBI contended that such information provided by the Union Home Ministry is passed to the banks and no database of such information is maintained [Reserve Bank of India vs. Central Information Commission, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3969 of 2018, date of order: 14.12.2018, Bombay High Court].

vii. Vodafone’s plea for expedious processing tax refund claims rejected: the Delhi High Court rejected the plea of Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd seeking direction to the IT department to expeditiously process its refund claim and issue refund of Rs 4,759.74 crore in respect of its income tax returns for assessment years 2014-15 to 2017-18 along with interest. In the instant case, Vodafone had moved court on account of inaction on the part of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in not processing income tax returns for four Assessment Years—2014-15 to 2017-18. Rejecting these claims, the Court said that as per the new amendments in the Finance Act, if a scrutiny notice is issued, processing of return shall not be necessary before the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which return is submitted” [Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. V. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax, Writ Petition (C) No. 2730/2018, date of judgment: 14.12.2018]
(IPA Service)