Legal News | 18 September

Jammu and Kashmir High Court Affirms FIR Registration via WhatsApp Complaints

In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court have declared that FIRs can be registered based on complaints received via WhatsApp. The court stated that filing a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) after informing the police through WhatsApp is sufficient compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC.

The case involved a property dispute between the petitioners and respondents, siblings in a deceased father’s estate. The respondents had forwarded their grievances to the local police via WhatsApp chats, with the police acknowledging and legally processing these complaints. The court upheld this as valid, emphasising that the mode of complaint submission did not affect its merits.

Pakistan Supreme Court Initiates Live Streaming of Hearings Under New Chief Justice

In a historic move, Pakistan’s Supreme Court has begun live streaming hearings for the first time as Justice Qazi Faez Isa took the oath as the 29th Chief Justice of Pakistan. His 13-month tenure, ending in October 2024, commenced with the live broadcast of cases challenging the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023.

This act, previously challenged by the now-retired Chief Justice Bandial, altered the formation of benches on constitutional matters by a committee of three senior judges, diluting the CJP’s power in suo motu cases. Justice Isa’s actions also include rejecting a guard of honour upon his arrival at the apex court, marking a break from past traditions.

Supreme Court Halts Karnataka High Court’s Nullification of JD(S) MP Prajwal Revanna’s 2019 Election

The Supreme Court has issued an interim stay on a Karnataka High Court decision that invalidated Prajwal Revanna’s 2019 election as the Janata Dal (Secular) Member of Parliament for Hassan. While Prajwal Revanna’s election has been temporarily reinstated, the apex court has specified that he will not receive legislative perks, allowances or be allowed to vote in the Lok Sabha during the stay order.

The High Court had found Revanna guilty of multiple corrupt practices, including non-disclosure of facts, improper disclosure of property assets, tax evasion, proxy voting and excessive campaign spending. The High Court had also called out a defeated BJP candidate for his own involvement in corrupt practices. The Supreme Court is hearing appeals by Revanna, his father HD Revanna and brother Suraj Revanna against the High Court’s order. The case has seen previous interventions by the Supreme Court in favour of Prajwal Revanna.

Delhi High Court Permits Delhi University to Utilise CLAT 2022 Scores for 5-Year Law Course Admissions

The Delhi High Court has granted permission to the University of Delhi (DU) to consider Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2022 scores for admissions to its newly introduced five-year LLB course this academic year. The decision was made by a division bench led by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula. This comes in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by law student Prince Singh, who had requested that Common University Entrance Test (CUET) scores be used for admission instead of CLAT scores.

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand, representing DU, explained that the CUET prospectus did not include the five-year course when the Bar Council of India granted DU approval for it. The Court has appointed Senior Advocate Arun Bhardwaj as Amicus Curiae to assess whether CUET is mandatory for all Central university admissions and the matter will be reconsidered on November 23. The Central government and University Grants Commission (UGC) have stated that CUET is essential for general degree courses as per the National Education Policy and UGC’s 566th meeting, but the Court is seeking clarity on the issue.

Supreme Court Seeks CBI’s Response to TMC Leader Anubrata Mondal’s Bail Plea in Cattle Smuggling Case

The Supreme Court has issued notice for Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Anubrata Mondal’s bail application regarding his alleged involvement in a cross-border cattle smuggling scandal. The Court sought the response of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to Mondal’s plea. Mondal, currently incarcerated in Delhi’s Tihar jail, was arrested by the CBI in August of the previous year. In a hearing presided over by Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Mondal, highlighted that Mondal had been in custody for 14 months while other accused had been granted bail.

The bench directed Rohatgi to serve notice to the CBI to assess the status of the investigation. Anubrata Mondal, a prominent TMC leader, is implicated in a multi-crore cattle smuggling network. Both the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate are investigating his involvement. Mondal had been denied bail by the Calcutta High Court in January.

Supreme Court Declines to Overturn Madras HC’s Ban on Plaster of Paris Ganesh Idols Sale

The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with an order by the Madras High Court that prohibits the sale of Ganesh idols containing plaster of paris in Tamil Nadu. The bench, consisting of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, dismissed a petition challenging the Madras High Court’s division bench decision that had stayed an earlier single judge’s order allowing the sale of Ganesh idols made with plaster of paris. T

he petitioner, an artisan, had argued that only the immersion of such idols in water bodies was restricted, not their manufacturing and sale. However, the Supreme Court upheld the ban on the sale of such idols, stating that they could have been made from natural clay instead. The division bench had previously ruled that traditionally, Ganesh idols were made using clay and the restriction only applied to plaster of paris idols.

Supreme Court: Res Judicata Can’t Be Decided in Application Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as Previous Suit Documents Have to Be Seen

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the principle of res judicata cannot be applied as a ground for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court clarified that the decision to invoke res judicata involves a comprehensive examination of various factors, including the pleadings in the previous suit, the Trial Court’s judgment and the Appellate Courts’ judgments.

The Court emphasised that when considering an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of the CPC, only the averments in the plaintiff’s plaint can be taken into account and the defendant’s pleas in the written statement are irrelevant. The ruling ensures that res judicata matters must be decided in a more comprehensive legal context rather than at the stage of rejecting a plaint. This decision aligns with previous judgments emphasising the limited scope of Rule 11 in assessing the grounds for rejection of a plaint.