i. Insurer cannot be burdened with responsibility to follow up on inadequate disclosure by assured – The Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the assured to ensure that she makes full and complete disclosures of the material facts and the insurer cannot be bound to follow up on incomplete disclosures. In the case, the assured was required to provide a claim history for 3 years, which was not done and so the insurer repudiated the claim. The NCDRC had found in favour of the assured, holding that since the previous policy was attached with the new proposal, the insurer could have found the relevant information with ordinary diligence and if disclosures were incomplete, the proposal could have been returned. But the Supreme Court disagreed with the approach and held that the insurer cannot be responsible for following up on incomplete disclosuresby conducting questioning the previous insurer about the nature of the claims, if any, that were made under the earlier insurance. On the other hand, it was the duty of the assured to lay out all the facts completely and was under an obligation to make full disclosure. [Oriental Insurance Company v Mahendra Construction, Civil Appeal No. 3359 of 2019, date of judgment: 01.04.2019]

ii. First conviction under the Anti-Hijacking Act pronounced in the Jet Hijacking case – Birju Kishor Salla has become the first convict under the Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016. He was found guilty of hijacking Jet Airways flight 9W-339 by the NIA Court Ahmedabad bench. He had left a note in the toilet on a tissue paper threatening to kill passengers or setting off a bomb, allegedly placed inside the storage compartment if the crew would attempt to land the plane. It asked them to take the plane to POK. This was immediately brought to the attention of the captain who then sought permission for emergency landing in Ahmedabad from the ATC, which was allowed. Shortly after that bomb squad and other police personnel checked the plane for explosives and took the passengers for questioning. Birju’s counsel argued that a simple note in the washroom was not enough to be treated as a credible threat or that the circumstances did not amount to ‘taking control’ of the aircraft. But the Court explained that not only the Captain of the flight but other agencies like ATC, CISF, BDDS, Fire services, and Airport Authorities treated the threat as credible and took safety measures accordingly. [State of Gujarat v Birju Salla, NIA Special Case No. 1 of 2018, date of order: 11.06.2019]

iii. Wife need not be subjected to virginity test if the divorce is sought on grounds of non-consummation –The Calcutta High Court upheld a trial court order dismissing a petition filed by the husband seeking a virginity test of his wife in a divorce petition, which was sought on the grounds of non-consummation. The wife had filed a petition seeking a test of the potency of her husband, claiming that the marriage was not consummated because of his impotence. The Court firstly highlighted that the virginity test was not a reliable test as the tearing of the hymen could occur by a variety of non-sexual acts. Further the Court held that the husband’s contention that because the marriage was not consummated, the wife should be subjected to a virginity test could not be accepted. [C.O. No.3309 of 2018, date of order: 21.06.2019]

iv. Section 20, Contempt of Court Acts and Article 215 of the Constitution should be read harmoniously – The MadrasHigh Court emphasised the harmonious reading of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 215 of the Constitution. The former places limitation of one year on actions under Contempt of Courts Act and the later empowers the Court the contempt to hold persons in contempt in a broader sense than just as provided in the Act. While the power to hold a person in contempt is inherent in the court, it is subject to Section 20. The application was found to be barred by limitation. [P.Rajammal v J.Kailainathan, Contempt Petition (Madurai) No. 1009 of 2016, date of order: 14.06.2019]

v. NDTV facing numerous proceedings: On 14th June, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) had passed an order barring the promoters of NDTV, Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy, from holding any directorial positions in NDTV for two years, which was later stayed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (‘SAT’). The SEBI’s decision was widely criticised as ‘witch-hunt’, and out of malice by the Modi Government, since it was a highly disproportionate order. In another case of harassment, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the ruling of the Income Tax Department against NDTV promoters Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy regarding their dealings in the securities market. [Radhika Roy v DCIT, Income Tax Appeal No. 2019, 2020/Del/2017 date of order: 14.06.2019]

vi. CBI directed to provide status report on investigation against Lawyers’ Collective – The NHRC has called upon CBI to provide status report on the investigation launched by it into the activities of the NGO Lawyers’ Collective, an organisation known for its human rights advocacy, headed by Senior Advocates Indira Jaising and Anand Grover. The FIR was registered by the CBI on the basis of 2016 report of the Ministry of Home Affairs which had found FCRA violations by the NGO. The petition on the basis of the NHRC ordered CBI to give its report, was filed by Henri Tiphagne, a human rights activist associated with Human Rights Defenders' Alert and Maja Daruwala, Senior Advisor of Commonwealth Human Rights. They argued that the organisation was being targeted for its work as a part of a systematic pattern to silence those who were questioning government policies. CBI filed its report on the basis of an order of the Supreme Court in a petition filed by another NGO, ‘Lawyers Voice’. [Complainant – Henri Tiphagne, Victim – Anand Grover and Ors., Complaint No. 981/13/16/2019, dated 21.06.2019]

vii. Rape victims need not approach courts for termination of pregnancies below 20 weeks – The Madras High Court issued guidelines on termination of pregnancy in a case dealing with a rape victim who wanted to terminate her pregnancy. The woman had been bounced from hospital to hospital, even though, as the court noted, the termination could have been carried out by the first hospital itself without referring the case to a medical board. The term of pregnancy was less than 20 weeks and according to the provisions of the Act, it could be terminated. Responding to the request of the petitioner’s counsel that guidelines should be laid down in such cases, the court ruled that the woman who wants to terminate her unwanted pregnancy need not be sent to a medical board and it can be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. If the pregnancy is beyond 20 weeks then she is required to approach the High Court which would then refer the matter to the permanent medical board set up by the Government of Tamil Nadu. [X v State, Criminal Original Petition No. 14506 of 2019, date of order: 19.06.2019] (IPA Service)