i. Supreme Court awards Rs 50 lakhs compensation to Gujarat Riots rape survivor Bilkis Bano: In a landmark decision awarding the highest compensation till date, the Supreme Court has directed the Gujarat Government to pay a compensation of ₹50 lakhs and a government job to Bilkis Yakub Rasool or Bilkis Bano, who was gang-raped during the Gujarat riots in 2002. She was 19 years old and her 3 years old daughter was also killed during the incident. The government has also been asked to provide her with accommodation of her choice given that she has not has a steady home since 2002. She also sought disciplinary proceedings against the officials convicted in the case. The Court took into account various factors like the nature of the crime, the deliberate failure of the state machinery and her life after the incident. [Bilkis Yakub Rasool v State of Gujarat, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.118 of 2003, date of order: 23.04.2019]

ii. RBI directed to reveal defaulters list under the RBI – In an earlier judgment the RBI had been directed to reveal information as required under the RTI Act. But the new disclosure policy of the RBI directed various departments not to disclose information that was directed to be given by the judgment. The RBI was thus found to be guilty of contempt in a petition filed by RTI Activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal. RBI has though been given one last opportunity to comply with the order, warning the Bank that any future violations would be taken seriously. The petitioner had sought information about some banks which the RBI had denied stating that it was in a fiduciary relationship with the banks. But the Court held that the information was not held by the RBI in trust for the banks and there was no fiduciary relationship and it would be detrimental to the economic health of the country if the information was detained. [Girish Mittal v Parvati V.Sundaram, Contempt Petition (C) No.928 of 2016 in Transfer Case (C) No.95 of 2015), date of judgment: 26.04.2019]

iii. Opposition leaders seek review of VVPAT slips verification order – 21 leaders of the opposition have sought a review of the order of the Supreme Court by which it increased the number of VVPAT slips being matched with the EVMs to 5 from the earlier one. The leaders had earlier sought an increase to 50% of the machines. The review petition argues that the increase from one to five is not reasonable and unsatisfactory. The increase will not change the situation that existed before the order was passed. The plea also opposed the EC argument that the increase close to the elections was not feasible. Thus the number of machines verified should be increased reasonably to meet the purpose of the process of verification. [N. Chandrababu Naidu v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 273 of 2019]

iv. Election Commission’s stay on Modi’s biopic upheld – The Supreme Court upheld the ban by the Election Commission on the movie on the life of PM Narendra Modi. The Commission held that the movie could tilt the balance in elections. It treats PM with a cult status and the opposition parties have been shown in extremely poor light, embroiled in corruption scandals. The court had asked the poll panel to provide its report to the producer of the movie. The producers of the movie had earlier claimed that the decision has been taken by the EC by the just watching the short promo and not the actual movie, which the EC admitted since the complete movie was not available to watch. The bench had then asked the poll panel to watch the full movie and then take an informed decision. The EC after that ordered that the movie be stalled. [Sandeep Vinod Kumar Singh v ECI, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 501 of 2019, date of order: 26.04.2019]

v. Non-disclosure of pre-existing conditions in MediClaim policies would be a ground for repudiation – The Supreme Court held, in an appeal filed by the LIC, that it could repudiate the policy because of non-disclosure of previous history of cardio-vascular disease. In his form, the insured had answered in the negative in questions pertaining to cardio-vascular diseases. LIC later found out because of a doctor’s note about the insured’s condition, and that he had had a Mitral Valve Replacement, and repudiated the policy. The non-disclosure of an event impacting the health of the insured, specifically set out in the insurance proposal would be a valid ground of repudiation of the policy. [Life Insurance Corporation v Manish Gupta, Civil Appeal No. 3944 of 2019, date of judgment: 15.04.2019]

vi. Consensual acts between persons above 16years sought to be excluded from POCSO – The Madras High Court has observed that the definition of child in the POCSO Act should be amended to take into account present day realities, and make the act applicable to a person below 16 yrs of age instead of the present 18. The judgment noted an increase in a number of cases where the relationship between adolescent boys and girls are being subjected to rigours of the POCSO because of the age of the girl. It advocated for liberal provisions to be introduced in the Act which differentiated between cases of sexual assaults and consensual relationships above the age of 16. A buffer of 5 years could be provided for between the ages of the girl and the alleged offender to weed out such cases. [Sabari v Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No.490 of 2018, date of judgment: 26.04.2019]

vii. 107A covers export of patented drugs for submission to foreign regulatory authority –The Delhi High Court has held that “sale, use construction of patented products” within and outside the country is legal as long as the end use is reasonably related to purposes of research. The petition had been filed against Indian generic drug manufacturers that had been exporting drugs to foreign authorities for testing. The petitioner claimed that Section 107A would only apply to developmental purposes being pursued in India and not outside. Section 107A states that submission of drug information for development and research purposes, not in violation of the Indian law, would not amount to patent infringement. The court rejected the petitioner’s argument explaining that once it is held inventions can be sold for the purpose of carrying on research in compliance with the Indian laws, no territorial boundary can be placed on the right. Further, the court noted that some countries require that testing be done in their territory before grant of patent and so the section had to be given a wide meaning. The petition only discussed the interpretation of the section, and the factual issues of violation by the respondents would be decided independently in suits. [Bayer Corporation v Union of India, Letters Patent Appeal No. 359 of 2017, date of judgment: 22.04.2019]

viii. Gujarat farmers sued for growing potatoes used in Lays – PepsiCo has sued farmers in Gujarat for growing the specific variety of potatoes that is used in the manufacturing of Lays. In the suit, the multinational giant claims that it has the right to grow the special breed under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Protection of Farmers Rights Act 2001. The company had discreetly gained samples from the fields of the farmers and they were found to be the same as its own potatoes, bulbs of which according to the plaint, they had obtained from the licensed farmer in Punjab. The Court has restrained the farmers from growing the potatoes and appointed a commissioner to take samples. PepsiCo seeks damages from the farmers for growing the potatoes and has stated that if the farmers take appropriate licenses, the suit will be withdrawn. The counsel for the farmers has sought time to get further instructions from his clients.[PepsiCo India Holdings v Bipin Patel, Commercial Trademark Suit No.23 OF 2019, dated 08.04.2019]

(IPA Service)