i. Judgment reserved in the Rafale review petition: The Supreme Court reserved its decision in the review petition filed in the decision of the Supreme Court dated 14.04.2019 finding that corruption was not involved in the purchase of the Rafale aircrafts. A perjury petition against government officials who allegedly suppressed information from the court, was considered with it. In the review petition, the petitioners argue that eight last minute changes were brought to the deal leading to few standard clauses being dropped out of the deal contract, especially an anti-corruption clause. The government did not provide complete information regarding the decision process, argues the petition. It highlights that the final price was 55.6% above the benchmark price. Further, the government informed the court much later that the PMO was involved in the negotiation process as well. Though the government claimed that it was simply monitoring of the process, it was in fact a parallel negotiation, reducing India’s bargaining power. Further, around the same time, Mr. Ambani had conducted different transactions with the French Government. The perjury application thus became important as any and all errors in the judgment were in effect connected to the incomplete disclosures by the government. The Attorney General argued that the petitioners were repeating their arguments and cautioned the court against reviewing a deal that pertained to defence. [Yashwant Sinha v Central Bureau of Investigation, Review Petition (Criminal) No. 46 of 2019 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018, date of order: 10.05.2019]

ii. Review petition in VVPAT verification denied – The Supreme court refused to review its order dated 08.04.2019 in the petition seeking increasing VVPAT verification from the then 1 machine to 50% of the machines in a constituency. The Court in its order had increased the number of machines from 1 to 5. The review petition filed by the original petitioners stated that they would settle for 33% verification as well. But the bench was unwilling to modify the order. [N. Chandrababu Naidu v Union of India, Review Petition No. 1084 of 2019, date of order: 07.05.2019]

iii. Time in Ayodhya-babri Masjid dispute extended till 15 June – The Supreme Court allowed the request of the court-appointed mediation committee to continue mediation till 15 August. While the Sunni Waqf Board supported the petition, the lawyers for Ram Lalla sought to restrict the time only till the end of June. The Supreme Court overruled the objection and said that if the Committee has asked for time until 15 August, they were not inclined to short-circuit the process by giving lesser time. [M. Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Das, Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010, date of order: 10.05.2019]

iv. Review of ECI clean chit to Modi, Shah refused – On a petition filed by Silchar Congress MP Sushmita Dev, the Supreme Court had directed the Election Cmmission of India to take decisions on various complaints pending against PM Modi and Amit Shah concerning violation of the Model Code of Conduct for elections by 6th May. The ECI gave a clean chit to the duo. The petitioner then claimed that the ECI had not applied its mind to the representations and asked the Court to review the ECI’s decision. The Court though refused to look into the review holding that the petition in itself had become infructuous as the ECI had given its decision on the complaints against the PM and Shah. To challenge the merits, a separate petition would have to be filed. [Sushmita Dev v Election Commission of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 579 of 2019, date of order: 08.05.2019]

v. Quantity of narcotics will determine the sentencing under NDPS – The Supreme Court held that the factors enumerated in Section 32B, NDPS Act are not the only factors that are to be kept in mind when the Court is looking at imposition of a sentence more than the minimum prescribed under the Act. The quantum of substances found with the accused will also have to be looked at. The trial court in this case had not looked at the factors given in the section like use of force, use of minors in the commission of the offence etc, but only looked at the quantity and awarded 16 yrs of imprisonment, 6 more than the minimum. The convict challenged his sentence on the ground of non-consideration of Section 32B factors. The Supreme Court said that the section is so phrased that the Court can choose to look at other factors and award punishment. It is upto the higher court, when the punishment is challenged to check whether irrelevant factors have been taken into account or that factors in Section 32B should have been taken into account bit weren’t. [Rafiq Qureshi v Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit, Criminal Appeal No. 567 of 2019, date of judgment: 07.05.2019]

vi. Marriage with a minor girl would be valid if the minor wishes to cohabit after attaining majority – The Bombay high Court has held that if the minor girl willingly continues to cohabit with her husband after attaining majority, then the marriage would be treated as valid. The petitioner married the complainant, aged 14 years 7 months, at the time of marriage. She filed an FIR which led to the arrest of the petitioner and her grandparents but the family managed to amicably resolve the dispute. An application under Section 482 CrPC was then filed to quash the FIR, which was allowed by the High Court in the light of the fact that the girl wanted to live with her husband.Machhindra Appaji Patil v State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No.4289 of 2018, date of judgment: 02.05.2019

vii. Himachal Government ordered to decide on licencing for industrial production of cannabis – Himachal Pradesh State Government has been asked by the High Court to take a decision on the licencing of cultivation of medicinal and industrial cannabis. The petitioners in the case brought the court’s attention to the therapeutic uses of hemp. The same has not been able to take off in India, according to the petitioners because of lack of proper procedures for production, procurement and use. Apart from its medicinal uses, hemp fibres can be used in textiles and the government should stress upon its development as a natural fibre, the petition demanded. The petition also asked for protection of cultural rights of villagers who have used hemp for healing since time immemorial. [Deshinder Khanna v State of Himachal Pradesh, Civil Writ Petition No. 83 of 2018, date of order: 29.04.2019]

viii. Stem cell derived treatment allowed for man suffering from rare disease – The Delhi High Court has allowed a man suffering from a rare life-threatening neuro-muscular disease to continue with a stem cell derived treatment even though stem cells and treatments derived from stem cells have been included as a new drug in the New Drug and Clinical Trial Rules 2019. The rules mandate that licence be taken for a new drug before clinical trials are carried out. But if no communication is received from the controlling authority within 30 days, the permission will be deemed to be given. The petitioner in the case pointed out to the court that no interim measures have been set, however, the continuation of his trial was essential as he was losing muscle strength without it. The Court decided in the favour of the petitioner observing that the treatment should not be impeded until licence is applied for. [Virender Singh Malik v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4717 of 2019, date of order: 07.05.2019]

ix. Section 31D defence not available to online broadcasting services – Tips Music Ltd. filed a copyright infringement suit against Wynk Music, a mobile music streaming app. Times alleged that Wynk had been using their music even though the licences agreement had expired. Wynk argued, inter alia, that it could be protected under Section 31D of the Copyright Act which allows for statutory licencing as per which any broadcasting organisation desirous of communicating to the public any sound recording, may obtain a statutory license to do so, provided that they pay the requisite royalty as determined by the intellectual property board. But the Bombay High Court held that Section 31D does not cover internet broadcasting. The judgment explains that the legislature specifically excluded internet broadcasting and only wanted broadcast to mean radio and TV broadcast. This is clear from the fact that when the amendment introducing Section 31D was introduced online streaming was in the public domain. Further for the application of Section 31D, the prior determination of royalty was necessary. [Tips Industries v Wynk Music Ltd., Notice Of Motion (L) No. 197 Of 2018 In Commercial Suit IP (L) No. 114 Of 2018, date of judgment: 23.04.2019]
(IPA Service)