i. Centre files affidavit in Rafale review case – The Central Government, in its affidavit filed in the petition seeking the review of the Rafale judgment, has vehemently supported the impugned judgment and inter alia claimed that the PMO monitoring of the investigation could not be construed as interference in the process. With respect to ‘secret’ file notings, the government argued that the file notings may contain state secrets and would contain the views of different government departments and would not represent the final view of the government. Not referring the investigation to CBI, the government has stated that the petitioners are seeking to create a false distinction between the inquiry by court and inquiry by CBI. The government has also defended of choice of Anil Ambani as the Offset Partner and not asking for sovereign guarantees for the delivery of the jets. [Yashwant Sinha v Central Bureau of Investigation, Review Petition (Criminal) No. 46 of 2019 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018]

ii. 7 accused acquitted in the 1984 Delhi Sikh riots case – The Supreme Court acquitted 7 accused, allegedly involved in the Anti-Sikh riots of 1984. The 7 had been convicted by the Delhi High Court last year. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence that had been filed and came to the conclusion, contrary to the Delhi High Court’s decision, that the evidence and testimonies of witnesses did not disclose that the accused were part of the unlawful assembly or they were involved in any such acts. The Court treated them as passive witnesses who had come to the crime scene out of curiosity and could not be bundled with the other accused without proving a common intention for rioting, arson etc. [Ganeshan v State (Delhi Administration), Criminal Appeal No.795 of 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.2180 of 2019), date of judgment: 30.04.2019]

iii. Section 498A need not be filed necessarily by the woman facing cruelty – The Supreme Court held that Section 498A IPC does not state that the complaint under the section has to only be filed by the woman who claims to have faced cruelty at the hands of her husband or family members. The case in the present case had been filed by the father of the woman facing cruelty and not by the woman herself. The complaint that had been filed, however, did not detail any of the allegations against the husband or his family and so the complaint was quadhed but it was clarified that it was not on the grounds that the woman who was facing cruelty was not the original complainant. [Rashmi Chopra v State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.594 of 2019 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8103/2018), date of judgment: 30.04.2019]

iv. ECI restriction on using images of the military during elections upheld – The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the restriction that the ECI has imposed on using images of the defence and military in election advertisements. The PIL questioned the ECI’s locus on imposing such restrictions and further argued that no harm would be brought by parties discussing the acts of the army. The Court held that the restrictions were reasonable in the interest of free and fair elections and the restrictions were included in the ECI’s broad mandate. [Mumtaj Ahmed Khan v Election Commission of India. Writ Petition No. 8359/2019, date of order: 01.05.2019]

v. Vanzara and Amin discharged in Ishrat Jahan encounter case – The Special CBI court hearing the case of the fake encounter of Ishrat Jahan has discharged officers D G Vanzara and N K Amin. The Gujarat Government had not granted sanctions to prosecute the two officers, on account of which the two filed discharge applications. Since the sanction had not been granted, the discharge plea had to be granted in accordance with Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code.

vi. Online Application to change name should include a column for transgenders as well – The Bombay High Court has asked the Maharashtra Government to take steps to amend the online form utilised for changing a person’s name by publishing it in the Official Gazette to specifically include a column for transgenders. The applicant in question had unsuccessfully tried thrice to change her name through the online portal but the form was not optimised for such use. The applicant, though born as a woman, identified as a transgender and so adopted a gender neutral name and wanted to change the name legally. The authorities refused to sanction it claiming that change of gender could not be used as a reason to change names.

vii. Purpose served by sting operations to be kept in mind while deciding defamation cases – The Delhi High Court has observed that the courts should keep in mind the purpose served by sting operations carried out by journalists while deciding the defamation cases that may arise from them. In this case, Star News had conducted a sting operations on certain employees of Indian Potash Limited and according to the video, the employees confessed to selling adulterated milk in Western UP. The Court explained that sting operations were an important part of the society today and the only way to draw out misdeeds committed by persons would be to lay a trap, even if they didn’t help in achieving long term solutions. When the court deals with defamation cases arising out of such sting operations cannot forget the purpose that is served by them. The Court ought not to award compensation to someone whose over has been blown because of a sting operation. Further, defamation law, the court noted, should not be used to silence the media. The plaintiff had also failed to prove any loss that they may have suffered due to the telecast. [Indian Potash Limited v Media Contents and Communication Services (India), Civil Suit (Original Side) No. 1717 of 2007, date of order: 10.04.2019] (IPA Service)