i. Wills cannot be nullified merely because it is executed in favour of neighbour: Upholding the order of the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court has held that the genuineness of a will cannot be doubted merely because the testator executed the will in favour of the neighbour. The Court however directed that the appellant, who was the widow of the testator, would be paid maintenance of Rs 7,500/- per month from the property of the deceased testator. [Shevantibai v. Arun, Civil Appeal No. 412 of 2016, date of order: 28.05.2019]

ii. Kolkata Ex-Commissioner Rajeev Kumar granted one month protection by Calcutta High Court: The Calcutta High Court finally granted the Ex-Commissioner of Police of Kolkata, Rajeev Kumar, one month protection from arrest in connection with the CBI investigation into the Saradha scam. While granting the protection, the High Court raised an important question of law, i.e., “whether without registering any FIR against the petitioner under Sections 201/202 as the Supreme Court itself had recorded, the CBI could ask for custodial interrogation of a 'witness' who was not even an accused in the main case or any other case, nor cited as a witness in any chargesheet". The case will now be heard by the regular bench now. [Rajeev Kumar v. CBI, C.R.R. No. 1308 of 2019, date of order: 30.05.2019]

iii. 10% EWS quota cannot be applied to Post Graduate Medical seats in Maharashtra: The Supreme Court held that the 10% EWS quota introduced by the Government in early 2019 cannot be applied to the PG medical seats in Maharashtra for 2019-2020, since the admission process started long time back. The Court referred to its interim directions, wherein it directed that 10% EWS quota would not be applicable for the admission for 2019-2020 unless the Medical Council of India increased the seats, which did not happen. [Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2019, date of order: 31.05.2019]

iv. Mere membership of a banned organisation will not lead to an inference of committing a terrorist act: Upholding a Bombay High Court order, the Supreme Court granted bail to an alleged Maoist sympathiser Konnath Muralidharan, who has been in custody in Pune's Yerwada jail since May 2015.According to the High Court, inference of membership of organization was not sufficient to presume that the accused had indulged in terrorist act, thereby not fulfilling the ingredients of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967. [State of Maharashtra v. Konnath Muralidharan, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4822 of 2019, date of order: 22.05.2019]

v. Termination of employees on the basis of illegal appointment amounts to retrenchment: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court overturned a full bench decision of the Patna High Court that held that if the initial appointment is illegal and void, the termination of service of the workmen on that ground will not be retrenchment and they will not be entitled to any relief, on the principle that those who come through back door shall go through the back door. The Apex Court noted that invalid appointment was not an exception within the definition of ‘retrenchment’ in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and thus it would amount to retrenchment under Section 25F of the IDA. [Bihar State Scheduled Caste Cooperative Development v. State of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. 7340-7341/2013, date of order: 22.05.2019]

vi. Rights of persons with mental illness upheld: In a significant decision, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether post-conviction mental illness is a mitigating factor for converting death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court further directed that the post-conviction severe mental illness will be a mitigating factor that the appellate court, in appropriate cases, needs to consider while sentencing an accused to death penalty. The burden is on the accused to prove by a preponderance of clear evidence that she is suffering from mental illness. [Accused ‘X’ v. State of Maharashtra, Review Petition (Crl.) No. 301 of 2008, date of judgment: 12.04.2019]

vii. Conjugal rights of prisoners upheld: The Madras High Court read down Rule 531(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, which stated that every interview with a convicted prisoner should take place in the presence of an experienced prison officer by holding that the rule does not apply to communication between spouses. The Court held that "when a prisoner meets his wife, he may like to hold her hands. His emotions are bound to be find a physical expression. While private prison cottages may be a distant prospect, the privacy and dignity of the prisoners , the privacy and dignity of the prisoners should be scrupulously protected. Conversations between prisoner and his spouse should be unmonitored". [Rahmath Nisha v. Additional Director General of Prisons & Ors., Tamil Nadu, Writ Petition (MD) No. 12488 of 2019, date of order: 28.05.2019]
(IPA Service)