i. Supreme Court heard arguments on the validity of amendments brought by the Finance Act 2017-A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court began the hearings on the challenge to the amendments made by the Finance Act 2017, wherein the petition argued that the bill could not have been qualified as a Money Bill by the speaker, in turn, circumventing the Rajya Sabha. The amendments change the mode of selection, appointment, removal, and the qualifications and terms of service of the Presiding Officers and Members of 19 tribunals of the country, and vest huge powers in the Central Government for the same. The Government argued that the certification of a Bill as Money Bill by the speaker is not subject to judicial review under Article 110. But Justice Chandrachud noted during the proceedings that the same only applied inter se houses and did not take away from the jurisdiction of the court. [Madras Bar Association v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 267 of 2012, date of order: 27.03.2019]

ii. Criminal antecedents of candidate cannot be said to be clear if the acquittal was on the basis of benefit of doubt – The Supreme Court observed that if acquittal in a criminal case was granted on the basis of benefit of doubt or any other technical reason, the employee or the candidate cannot be treated as a clear acquittal. In the case, the respondent was acquitted in a case of impersonation of another officer and the Madhya Pradesh government refused to appoint him to the post of a constable on the ground that the acquital was for lack of sufficient evidence against him. Thoughthe High Court asked the Government to employ him, the Supreme Court said that the employer can take into account all the facts at hand including the fact that the acquittal was not because the case was found to be false, but because of a technicality and deny him employment. [State of Madhya Pradesh v Bunty, Civil Appeal No(s). 3046/2019 (Arising From Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4964/2019), date of judgment: 14.03.2019]

iii. Developer asked to refund money due to inordinate delay in possession –The issue arose before the Supreme Court was whether refund of money could be claimed when compensation was also claimed by the complainant. The Supreme Court categorically noted that the buyer could not be made to wait indefinitely for the completion of the home. 7 years was way more than the reasonable time for which a buyer could be asked to wait. Hence the buyer could still claim the return of money even with compensation. [Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. v Devasis Rudra, Civil Appeal No. 3182 of 2019, date of judgment: 25.03.2019]

iv. Dinakaran’s claim for the ‘pressure cooker’ symbol denied – The Supreme Court denied the claim of the Dinakaran led Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam's (AMMK) pressure cooker as a symbol for the upcoming elections in Tamil Nadu and the Lok Sabha elections. The party had not registered with the Election Commission of India in time for the elections as a party. The party has already been denied the two leaves symbol, which has been allotted to the EPS-OPS faction. The faction admitted its fault in not registering in time but pleaded the court to award all candidates a common symbol else it would lead to chaos in the electorate. The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, ordered that the candidates be given a common symbol but that would not tantamount to recognition as a party and the candidates would be seen as independent for all practical purposes. [T.T.V. Dinakaran v Election Commission of India, Civil Appeal No. 3205 of 2019 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6621 of 2019), date of order: 26.03.2019]

v. ECI ordered to consider changes to the Voluntary Code of Ethics presented by the Internet & Mobile Association of India – The Internet & Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) presented a voluntary code of ethics, which would govern its members during the elections in 2019. The ECI submitted to the Bombay High Court, where a petition has been filed seeking directions to regulate political ads during elections, especially 48 hours before the elections, that it has accepted those guidelines as an interim measure to be followed. The respondents – major social network companies like Facebook, Twitter accepted that they would help the ECI in conducting free and fair elections. The Code creates a mechanism by which with the help of internet companies such as those mentioned earlier, the ECI will check for content which is problematic and take it down. [Sagar Rajabhau Saryawanshi v Election Commission of India, Public Interest Litigation No. 3 Of 2019 with Civil Application No. 27 of 2019, date of order: 29.03.2019]

vi. Naming castes in FIRs and other documents banned in Punjab and Haryana – The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued directions to the Secretaries (Home) to the Governments of Punjab, Haryana, and Union Territory, Chandigarh to end the colonial practice of writing the caste of the accused, victim, witnesses etc in the FIRs, recovery memos, seizure memos, inquest papers and other forms prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Punjab Police Rules. The Court invoked the Constitution observing that the caste system is against the Constitution and has no scientific basis as such. Writing the caste of an individual would be in violation of their dignity. [Rakesh Kumar and others v State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal -Division No. 610-DB of 2017 (O&M), date of order: 25.03.2019]

vii. Resolution of JNU Executive Committee barring elected students from attending meetings stayed – The Delhi High Court has stayed the resolution of the JNU Executive Committee barring elected students from attending meetings of various bodies of their independent schools. The resolution claimed that the Student Union had failed to provide election expenditure accounts within 2 weeks of the date of election. The students on the other hand claimed that they had submitted the accounts in the format that they have been for the past many years and the introduction of the new requirement of GST bills for the expenditure was a deviation from the existing practice. The University on the other hand argued that the students failed to comply with the demand even after repeated demands and did not report the matter to the Grievance Cell. The Court noted that the University did diverge from its past practice but if it was going to do so, it ought to have put students to notice in advance rather than abruptly raising the demand that too after the declaration of results. The Court referred the matter to the GRC to decide the issue as it is the appropriate forum. [N. Sai Balaji v Jawaharlal Nehru University, Writ Petition (Civil) 2370 of 2019 & Civil MiscellaneousApplication No.11060 of 2019, date of order: 20.03.2019]

viii. Road and Rail blockades criminalised in Gawahati – The Guwahati High Court observed that blockades on roads and railway lines were also forms of bandh which paralysed the economy and caused hardship to the general public. The phenomenon, according to the court, was an ‘endemic problem’ for the state causing loss to life and property. Referring to judgments by the Supreme Court and different High Courts, the Guwahati Court held that bandhs were illegal and no organisation had the authority to call them. If a person suffers loss because of such bandhs, the organisers should be held responsible. The organisers of such bandhs should be arrested, the court noted, since such blockades are also a form of bandhs. The court has also issued guidelines to tackle such bandhs as and when they are called, mapping out the plan of action for the police. [Lower Assam Inter District Stage Carriage Bus Owner's Association Goalpara, Assam v State of Assam, Case No. Writ Petition (Civil) 7570 of 2013, date of order: 19.03.2019] (IPA Service)