i. Supreme Court rejects Government objections in Rafale: The Supreme Court dismissed the objections raised by the government in the review petitions in the Rafale case. The review petitions had relied on materials published in the Hindu and the Caravan Magazine. The Government had question the reliance on the documents – arguing that the documents were protected under Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act and were not allowed in the public domain as they were marked classified under the Official Secrets Act. The petitioners on the other hand had argued that the protection talked of in the two sections would only apply if the documents were not in the public domain. There was precedent for the same in the 2G and the coal block scam cases where documents were accepted without asking for the source of the journalist. The sources of a journalist are also protected as recognised in Section 15 of the Press Council of India Act. The Court noted that there was no provision in the Official Secrets Act which prevents the Executive from bringing a document to the notice of this court, even if they have been marked as secret. The Hindu had published the documents and so was its right under Article 19(1)(a) was recognised by the court. The publication of the documents itself was not contested and would not have been because the papers have the freedom of press. [Yashwant Sinha v CBI, Review Petition (Criminal) No. 46 of 2019 In Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018, date of order: 10.04.2019]

ii. VVPATs to be verified in 5 EVMs instead of 1 – The Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission of India to increase the physical verification of the VVPATs from 1 to 5 EVMs in each constituency. Opposition parties had asked for 50% of the EVMs to be verified – ensuring to the masses that free and fair elections are taking place. The ECI pointed out the manpower it would take to do the counting would be massive and actually increase the risk of errors. The single EVM would have been chosen by lottery. The other point of contention was the involvement of the Indian Statistical Institute in the process to decide the number of constituencies to be verified, but the judgment does not address the issue. [Chandrababu Nadi v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 273 of 2019, date of order: 08.04.2019]

iii. Cases under 498A can also be filed where the wife runs away to take shelter – The Supreme Court has held that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter, including her parental home, after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home because of cruelty and violence will also have the jurisdiction to hear cases under Section 498A. The Court explained that the wife will continue to suffer in her paternal home mentally even if the physical act of cruelty may not take place. 498A covers both mental and physical cruelty. If hateful verbal exchanges continue at the paternal home, the wife would not be living in peace. Section 179 of the CrPC empowers courts where because of the consequences emanating from a criminal act an offence is occasioned in its jurisdiction. The reference had been pending in the court for 7 years. [Rupali Devi v State of State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2012, date of judgment: 09.04.2019]

iv. Same Court to hear all cases in the PNB scam – The Bombay High Court ruled that only one court designated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act will hear all the cases pending in the PNB scam. The case will be assigned to a judge having powers under both the Acts. The Court has recently appointed such a court under Special Judges PK Sharma – earlier two separate courts were hearing matters under the two acts. [Vipul Chunilal Chitralia v State of Maharashtra, CRIMINAL Application No.126 of 2019, date of order: 10.04.2019]

v. Charges framed against Priya Ramani –Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Samar Vishal is hearing the defamation case filed by former Union Minister MJ Akbar against Priya Ramani and framed the charges of criminal defamation against her.The former had made allegations of sexual misconduct against the former. The alleged acts occurred 20 years ago when Akbar was working as a journalist. Ramani plead not guilty of the charges. The Court granted her permanent exemption from attending the hearings as she has a young child. Akbar has repeatedly said that the allegations were false and defamatory.

vi. Property of Hindu widow who dies intestate devolves on son as well as daughter –The father of the parties died leaving behind some property, which was mutated only in the name of the son, the respondent. Since the son was a minor at the time, his mother’s name was entered as name of the guardian. The daughter, the petitioner, could not file a suit to have the property mutated in her name. Hence she filed the present suit to claim her share of the property. The respondent argued that at the time of the mutation (1944), the property would only transfer to the male heir and so the plaintiff could not claim her share. But the lower court as well as the Bombay High Court explained in the light of the changes brought to the law by the Hindu Succession Act, when a widow gets property, she becomes the full owner of it and does not receive a life interest. Since she died intestate, the property would devolve in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act under which both the son and the daughter would get the property.[Shri Jagannath Waman Undre v Smt. Yamunabai Sitaram Kadam, Second Appeal No.126 of 2018 With Civil Application No.1511 of 2017, date of judgment: 01.04.2019]

vii. Centre’s response on challenge against Aadhaar ordinance sought –The Delhi high Court has sought the response of the Central government on the challenge the recent amendment to the Telegraph Act, brought in via an ordinance. The amendment allows new users to submit Aadhaar as a proof voluntarily. This according to the petitioners allows the companies to use Aadhaar through the backdoor. The amendment though clarifies that services like opening a bank account, getting a SIM card cannot be denied for lack of Aadhaar. Companies will also be fined heavily if they keep the Aadhaar biometric data with themselves after verification. [Reepak Kansal v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3766 of 2019, date of order: 12.04.2019] (IPA Service)