i. Conviction restored in murder of ex-Gujarat Home Minister Haren Pandya murder – The Supreme Court has restored the conviction of the accused in the murder of ex-Gujarat Home Minister Haren Pandya. 12 persons had been acquitted by the Gujarat High Court against which the CBI and Gujarat government had filed appeals. The High Court had found the investigation erroneous and botched. But all the accused were convicted earlier for a larger conspiracy under the Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act who had planned to kill VHP and other important leaders of Gujarat allegedly to avenge the Godhra riots. A fresh PIL had been filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) to get the case reinvestigated. This was dismissed by the Court with costs. [Central Bureau Of Investigation v Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum, Criminal Appeal Nos.140­151 of 2012, date of judgment: 05.07.2019]

ii. Meghalaya Government ordered to pay Rs. 100 cr for failing to curb illegal mining – The Supreme Court has directed the Meghalaya Government to deposit Rs. 100 Cr with the Central Pollution Control Board. The Court was hearing an appeal against the order of the NGT, which had found against the State government for its failure to curb illegal mining. The Court reminded the state that it is required to ensure that the Scheme for mining should comply with MMDR Act, 1957, Mines Act, 1952 as well as Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Court also observed that the State is under a constitutional obligation toensure clean environment to all its citizens. [State of Meghalaya v All Dimasa Students Union, Civil Appeal No. 10611 of 2018, date of order: 03.07.2019]

iii. Age relaxation granted at an earlier stage cannot migrate to general category – The Supreme Court has held that if a candidate has availed age relaxation then s/he cannot be accommodated in the general category. The Court held that the age relaxation itself is a facet of Article 16(4), while the extent to which it is to be provided can change from state to state. In this case, the issue at hand was the advertisement issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission which allowed upper-age relaxation for SC/ST and SEBC candidates. So if a candidate were to apply as a general candidate, s/he cannot avail the benefit of age relaxation.[Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v GPSC, Civil Appeal No. 5158 of 2019, date of order: 04.07.2019]

iv. Notice issued to UIDAI in petition challenging the new AADHAAR ordinance – The Supreme Court has issued notice to the central government and the UIDAI in a challenge against the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019 and the Aadhaar (Pricing of Aadhaar Authentication Services) Regulations, 2019. The petition alleges that these ordinances create a backdoor for the government to allow private parties access to Aadhaar data allowing the State to surveil citizens and allow the State to commercially exploit the data. Such provisions, it points out, had been specifically held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in its Aadhaar judgment. [SG Vombatkere v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No.679 of 2019, date of order: 05.07.2019]

v. Tik Tok’s plea to be transferred from Madras rejected – The Supreme Court rejected the plea by Tik Tok’s India operator ByteDance Technology to transfer its case pending in the Madras High Court unto itself. The Court observed that the High Court was competent to answer questions pertaining to freedom of speech. The petitioners then sought liberty to withdraw their petition. [Bytedance(India) v Union of India, Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 822 of 2019, date of order: 04.07.2019]

vi. CBFC rebuked for attempting to censor children’s films – The Bombay High Court has ordered the Central Board of Film Certification to file an affidavit indicating its policy on certification of children’s films while receiving a stern warning from the Bombay High court for co-opting functions of the censor board unto itself. The film in question was produced by Children’s Film Society of India which sought a ‘U’ certificate for its film. Justice Patel, one of the judges on the bench, further went on to criticise the Board, calling them ‘ostriches’, pointing out that just because the CBFC wants to pretend that social issues do not exist does not mean that children cannot be taught about them through movies. [Children's Film Society v Central Board Of Film Certification, Writ Petition No. 6965 of 2019, date of order: 03.07.2019]

vii. Mere inconvenience to wife to attend court cannot be treated as a ground to shift matrimonial proceedings–The Calcutta High Court has held that inconvenience to wife because of attending court for a matrimonial dispute cannot be grounds to transfer the suit to a more convenient place. The wife had pleaded that she had a five year old daughter to take care of and her home was more than 5 hrs away from the court. The Court held that just because the wife was inconvenienced by the travel, it was not necessary to transfer the proceedings. The court also dismissed her application to transfer the petition filed by the husband holding that the natural guardian of the child after five years is supposed to be the father and so the petition should remain where the father had filed it. [Dipika Agarwal v Rishi Agarwal, C.O. No. 622 of 2019, date of order: 04.07.2019]

viii. Thiru Vaiko convicted in sedition case – Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK)Vaiko has been convicted in a sedition case filed in 2009 by the Tamil Nadu government. He has been sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and ₹10,000 fine. Vaiko has been granted suspension of sentence for one month under CrPC 389. The case was filed because of a speech he gave at a book launch event. He spoke on the issue ‘Eezhathil nadappathenna’ (what is happening in Eelam) in which he claimed that the war against LTTE must be stopped if India wants to remained unified. Case was registered against him under sections 124 A and 153 (A) IPC and he was chargesheeted in 2009 itself. [State v Thiru Vaiko, Sessions Case No.120 of 2017, date of order: 05.07.2019]
(IPA Service)