i. Rajeev Kumar denied protection from arrest – The Supreme Court has denied extending the protection granted to ex-Kolkata Police Commissioner, Rajeev Kumar. The petition filed by the cop stated that since lawyers in Kolkata were on strike, it was difficult for him to get any legal remedy in his state. The Supreme Court not only refused to extend the protection but reminded him that the Calcutta High Court or the district courts were not on vacation and could as easily be approached for anticipatory bail. The Apex Court had lifted the protection earlier but had given him seven days to seek proper legal remedies.[Rajeev Kumar v CBI, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 154/2019, date of order: 24.05.2019]

ii. Accused cannot be indefinitely kept in jail because cannot produce surety – The Supreme Court held that in a criminal trial, if the accused cannot produce a registered surety because of reasons beyond his or her control then the accused cannot be kept in jail indefinitely. In the same order, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta has been directed to modify his orders to the effect that a registered surety be not insisted upon from the accused. The accused in the case was originally from Nagpur and could not produce a surety in Calcutta. Further, his mother was critically ill for which he needed to go to Nagpur. The Court then reasoned that if the person, because of reasons beyond his control, cannot produce a registered surety, he cannot be kept in jail indefinitely. [Wasim Ahmed v State of West Bengal, Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No(s). 4899/2019, date of judgment: 20.05.2019]

iii. Decision of Foreigners’ Tribunal will act as res judicata– The Supreme Court has held that one can appeal to the Foreigners’ Tribunal against the non-inclusion of their name in the National Register of Citizens only if the Tribunal has not already decided whether the person is a foreigner or not. The opinion of the tribunal would operate as res judicata i.e. bar to subsequent proceedings on the same issue of nationality. The person concerned should not be allowed to plead the same case twice before the same tribunal, especially if the tribunal has already expressed an opinion on the issue. The option available to the person is to file a writ against the order of the Tribunal by which the High Court can exercise its powers of judicial review to re-examine the evidence and rectify any errors. [Abdul Kuddus v Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 5012 of 2019, date of order: 17.05.2019]

iv. Delhi High Court dismissed Subramanium Swamy’s plea:The Delhi High Court dismissed petition filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy seeking seeking to bring the Delhi Police Vigilance Report on the alleged evidence tampering in the Sunanda Pushkar case on record. The judgment states that he had no locus standi to file the petition. The Court also refused to give any directions for further investigation in the matter. The petition had asked the Court to ensure that the vigilance enquiry report be produced by the prosecution and that the court be satisfied that “shortcomings pointed out in the said report have been considered, investigated prior to the preparation and filing of charge sheet.[State v Shashi Tharoor, Session Case No. 5 of 2019, date of order: 24.05.2019]

v. Black Money Act order stayed – The Delhi High Court has stayed the interim order disallowing the retrospective applicability of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act from July 1, 2015. Vide the judgment, the stay on the investigation against Gautum Khaitan in the AgustaWestland scandal. The High Court had stayed the operation of the Act, as it held that the Act was supposed to come into force from 1st April 2016 but instead the Government applied the law retrospectively from 1st July 2015 which could not have been done. [Union of India vGautam Khaitan, Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 4911/2019, date of order: 21.05.2019]

vi. ECI directed to respond on petition seeking ban on parties with communal/casteist names – The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Election Commission of India in a petition seeking a ban on political parties whose named have religious, ethnic, linguistic or casteist connotations. The petition seeks names examples like Hindu Sena, All India Majilis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, Indian Union Muslim League etc. The petitioner has invoke Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People's Act, 1951 which prohibits making appeals to votes on the basis of religion, race, caste, community or language, national symbols, such as national flag or national emblem etc, is a corrupt practice.[Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 5378/2019, dated 24.05.2019]

vii. ‘Hindu Rashtra’ judgment set aside by division bench – A division bench of the Meghalaya High Court has set aside the judgment by Justice S R Sen, who while sitting in a single bench observed that India should have become a Hindu nation at the time of partition. The case simply dealt with the refusal of domicile certificate of an army man. The judgment, however, observed that anybody opposing the Indian laws and Constitution cannot be considered as a citizen of this country and that at the time of partition while Pakistan was declared an Islamic state on the basis of religion, India should also have been declared as a Hindu nation, but it was decided that the country will be secular. Justice Sen, now retired, later claimed that his judgment had been misinterpreted. The division bench held that not only was the judgment against the principles of the Constitution but had also had gone beyond the pleadings in the case. [State of Meghalaya v Amon Rana, Writ Application No. 3 of 2019, date of judgment: 24.05.2019]

viii. Terrorist should not be identified by their religion – The Madras High Court observed that a criminal should not be identified by their religion, race, place of birth, residence and language. Kamal Hassan in a speech had claimed that the first extremist was a Hindu, Nathuram Godse. The Court specifically observed that a criminal should not be recognised by their religion, race, and place of birth, residence and language. A criminal is defined by their behaviour. The judgment also criticised the attention that the media has been giving to hate speech.[Kamal Hassan v State, Criminal OP(Madurai) No.7257 of 2019, date of order: 22.05.2019]

ix. Sexual harassment case against Jeetendra set aside – The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the FIR lodged by a cousin of the actor Jeetendra accusing him of sexually harassing her in 1971. Jeetendra had claimed that the FIR had been lodged only to harass him. The facts of the FIR had been disclosed in an e-mail sent from the US. The Court found the contents of the FIR to be vague, absurd and incoherent. The Court could not find a just cause to proceed against the accused on the case. Further, the court observed that the limitation for the purpose of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be seen as from the said date vis-à-vis the alleged date of commission of the offence. The section provides a statutory limitation of 3 years on the prosecution of an offence if the imprisonment period is between 1 to 3 years. The complaint in this case had been filed more than 40 years after the alleged incident and so could not be sustained. [Ravi Kapoor v State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr. MMO No. 87 of 2018, date of order: 20.05.2019]
(IPA Service)