Important Legal News – July 2024 [Updated Daily @6PM]

Mohd. Arbaz & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi with connected matters: Supreme Court to Examine Adequacy of Forensic Labs and Necessity of FSL Reports in NDPS Cases

The Supreme Court of India has raised questions about the adequacy of Forensic Science Laboratories (FSL) and the necessity of FSL reports in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) cases. The court has issued notices to the Union Government and all States, highlighting the need for sufficient forensic facilities and technical staff. 

The core issue under examination is whether a chargesheet without an FSL report can be considered incomplete under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ujjal Bhuyan is handling petitions related to bail in various NDPS cases. The court emphasised assessing current forensic lab capabilities and ensuring timely submission of FSL reports.

Notices for interim bail and other related matters are returnable on August 29, 2024. This follows the court’s 2016 directives in the Union of India v. Mohan Lal case regarding proper handling and storage of seized narcotics.

Sandeep Sharma V/s Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and others: Continuous 7-Year Practice Not Required for District Judge Appointment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Rules

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that continuous seven-year practice as an advocate is not required for appointment as an Additional District and Sessions Judge under Article 233(2) of the Indian Constitution. The court clarified that the candidate must have seven years of practice and be an advocate at the time of application and appointment, but this practice need not be uninterrupted.

The judgement came in response to a petition challenging the appointment of a respondent whose career included breaks due to roles as a District Legal Aid Officer and Civil Judge. The court found that his cumulative active practice periods met the eligibility criteria.

The decision disagreed with a previous Delhi High Court ruling, emphasising that the requirement of continuous practice is not supported by the Constitution or Supreme Court precedents. The court also invalidated a rule allowing judicial service periods to count towards the seven-year practice requirement, reinforcing the distinct nature of advocacy experience.

Shriniwas Rav Nayak vs State of UP: Allahabad High Court Rules Right to Freedom of Religion Does Not Include Right to Convert Others

The Allahabad High Court denied bail to Shriniwas Rav Nayak, accused of illegal conversion, ruling that the right to freedom of religion does not include the right to convert others. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal emphasised that while the Constitution allows individuals to profess, practice, and propagate their religion, it does not permit conversion.

The court noted that converting others through misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, or allurement is prohibited under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The informant alleged that the accused had asked him to leave Hinduism for Christianity, promising relief from his troubles. The court found sufficient evidence to deny bail, highlighting the misuse of religious freedom for conversion.

Bihar Challenges Patna HC’s Quashing of 65% Reservation Law in Supreme Court

The Bihar government has appealed to the Supreme Court against the Patna High Court’s decision to nullify a law increasing reservation for SC/STs and backward classes from 50% to 65% in public employment and educational admissions. The High Court deemed the amendment, which reduced the open merit category to 35%, unconstitutional and violative of equality under Articles 14, 15 and 16.

It argued that the caste survey showed adequate representation of backward communities due to existing reservations and merit. The court suggested revisiting the 50% reservation limit and excluding the ‘creamy layer’ from benefits. Bihar’s appeal was filed by advocate Manish Kumar.

Vanshika Yadav vs Union of India: Supreme Court to Hear NEET-UG 2024 Malpractice Petitions on July 8

The Supreme Court bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, will hear petitions on July 8 challenging the NEET-UG 2024 exam conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA). The petitions allege malpractices, including paper leaks and the arbitrary grant of grace marks to 1,563 candidates.

Earlier, the Supreme Court issued a notice regarding the paper leak and refused to stay the result declaration. Subsequent petitions demand a CBI probe and the annulment of the results. The Ministry of Education has formed a committee to recommend reforms in the exam process and NTA’s functioning. The court emphasised NTA’s accountability and the impact on the exam’s sanctity.