i. Babri Masjid hearing adjourned– The Supreme Court has given parties 6 weeks to look at translations of almost 38000 documents prepared by the UP Government. Advocates for Ram Lalla had accepted the translated documents but the Sunni Waqf Board raised objections. The Board said that they had not gotten the opportunity to examine the documents. In view of the disagreement, the Court has ordered the parties to take 6 weeks and examine the translations. The Court in this hearing also asked parties to consider the option of a mediated settlement. The Waqf Board was amenable to the same if the Court directed so, but the Hindu parties refused the route. The Court will pass its orders on the issue of mediation next week. [M. Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Das, Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010, date of order: 26.02.2019]

ii. Supreme Court stayed the order displacing forest dwellers – The Supreme Court has stayed its earlier order displacing more than 10 Lakh forest dwellers whose rights had been rejected under the Forest Rights Act. In its order the Court has asked states to explain the modalities of the process used by to adjudicate these claims, whether due process was followed or not and sufficient information was provided to the evictees at all stages or not. The Court observed that those masquerading as tribals cannot be allowed to encroach on forest land. But at the same time the rights of actual forest dwellers cannot be violated. Further the Act, as the court noted, does not provide for eviction after rejection of claims, but only is a mechanism for verification of claims. The Court has given four months for the states to respond. [Wildlife First v Ministry of Forest and Environment, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 109 of 2008, date of order: 28.02.2019]

iii. No further directions required on attacks against Kashmiri Muslims – The Supreme Court has said that no further directions were required to be issued for the protection of Kashmiri Muslims or other minorities who were being targeted after the attacks in Pulwama. The Attorney General also claimed that the no attacks have been reported after the matter was taken upon by the Supreme Court. The Court had earlier directed States to take steps to prevent these attacks and now has asked a report from the states on the steps taken. [Tariq Adeeb v Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 60 of 2019, date of order: 27.02.2019]

iv. Jairam Ramesh’s petition challenging amendments to PMLA rejected – The Delhi High Court has rejected the petition moved by Congress MP Jairam Ramesh challenging the amendments to the PMLA Act. Amendments had been made to sections 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 232 and 208 of the Finance Act, 2015 in turn amending the PMLA in the years 2015, 2016 and 2018. The challenge was based on the government’s use of a Money Bill to amend another Act. A Money Bill can be used for very specific matters and cannot include the PMLA in its ambit. Ramesh also claimed that he did not know that the Bills were classified as Money Bills until after their passing. The Court though rejected his arguments holding that he had come too late and that he wouldn’t be affected by the Act and so had no locus. The Curt refused to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. [Jairam Ramesh v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2042 of 2019, date of judgment: 28.02.2019]

v. Court can grant anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act if no offence is made out – The Calcutta High Court has held that Section 18A, recently added to the SC/ST Act is a clarificatory amendment and cannot take away from the power of the court to check whether the facts registered in the FIR at least disclose the ingredients of a case or not. In the case, the FIR was registered against a Bengali journalist who had written an article highlighting the problems of the Sabar community due to lack of attention from the government. The Court noted that the facts did not disclose how the said article was insulting or aimed at inciting hatred against the said community. [Pradipta Biswas v State of West Bengal, C.R.M. 10431 of 2018, date of judgment: 26.02.2019]

vi. Leniency denied to man convicted of committing sexual assault on mentally retarded victim – The Bombay High Court refused to show any leniency in sentencing a man accused of committing sexual assault on another man, aged 32, who suffered from mental retardation. The accused was charged under Section 377 of the IPC. The Court noted that those suffering from any mental diseases needed more protection and so the accused would be charged with the maximum prescribed punishment. The accused knew of the condition of the victim and after committing forceful intercourse with him, he was even going to take him to his brother so that he could commit similar acts on the victim. Professionals from the JJ Hospital testified that the victim had an IQ of 55 and the mental age of an 8 year old. Ramchandra Ramavadh Yadav v The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Revision Application No. 488 of 2016, date of judgment: 28.02.2019]

Others –
i. Cabinet approves promulgation of Aadhaar (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019 – The Union Cabinet approved the promulgation of the Aadhaar (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019 which will make amendments to the Aadhaar Act 2016, Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2005 & Indian Telegraph Act 1885. The amendment has been brought about in line with the judgment on the constitutional validity of Aadhaar. The amendment allows children who have Aadhaar cards to cancel their Aadhaar cards once they achieve they attain the age of 18. Third parties can make authentication using Aadhaar only if it is permitted under law and if they meet certain standards of privacy and security. It makes the use of Aadhaar as voluntary for authentication. It will also prevent the denial of services in case of refusal of authentication. If any provisions of the Aadhaar Act are violated, the Act introduces penalties which will be applicable.
(IPA Service)