Legal News | 25 September

Supreme Court Protects Century-Old Trees in Property Dispute, Invokes Article 142

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India utilised its constitutional powers under Article 142 to safeguard century-old trees on disputed land in Shirdi. The case involved landowners, plot holders and a municipal council in a legal dispute. The Court granted the losing side’s request to propose an alternative plot for constructing a swimming pool and game hall, preserving the trees designated as amenity space.

Justices BR Gavai and SVN Bhatti issued the direction, overturning a previous Bombay High Court decision. The High Court had allowed the conversion of the land to a residential one with limited purposes, leading to the appeal. While upholding some of the council’s arguments, the Court maintained the rights of the land and plot holders to request the use of another plot for amenity facilities while protecting the ancient trees.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Urges Police to Establish WhatsApp Groups for Criminal Trials

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP) and Director of Prosecution to consider creating WhatsApp groups for individual criminal cases. This move aims to ensure the presence of witnesses in trial courts, addressing delays caused by non-attendance. Justice Anand Pathak emphasised the need for a workshop to gather expert suggestions on the practical implementation of these WhatsApp groups. The court’s order reiterated recommendations made in the previous year, encouraging every police station to form WhatsApp groups with complainants, key witnesses, the Public Prosecutor and officials to facilitate a speedy trial.

The groups would serve as a mechanism to inform witnesses in advance about their court appearance. The court emphasised maintaining privacy and dignity within these groups, limiting their use solely for trial facilitation. The directive came during a murder case dating back to 2018, where witness non-appearance had caused significant trial delays. The case will be reviewed for compliance in November.

Supreme Court Orders SpiceJet to Pay $1 Million Monthly to Credit Suisse for Debt Clearance

The Supreme Court has directed SpiceJet to make monthly payments of $1 million to Credit Suisse for six months to settle long-standing debts. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah issued this order in response to a plea by Credit Suisse, which had been receiving $500,000 monthly payments from the airline. The bank sought an increase to $1.5 million per month.

SpiceJet’s Chairperson and Managing Director, Ajay Singh, has been instructed to personally attend the next court hearing on October 20. The dispute between Credit Suisse and SpiceJet arose from the airline’s failure to pay $20 million in dues to Swiss aircraft maintenance company SR Technics, with both parties entering into an agreement last year to resolve the issue.

Gujarat High Court Takes Suo Motu Notice of Rape and Harassment Allegations at GNLU

The Gujarat High Court has taken suo motu cognisance of recent rape allegations and claims of harassment directed at a queer student at the Gujarat National Law University (GNLU). The allegations were initially made anonymously on an Instagram page and later reported by the Ahmedabad Mirror. A second-year law student at GNLU alleged rape by a fellow student, while another student claimed harassment due to their sexual orientation.

The court expressed grave concern over these issues’ impact on students’ well-being and ordered the GNLU Registrar to provide a report on the matter. GNLU has been directed to identify students, record their statements confidentially and share the university’s norms or Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for addressing student ragging incidents. The court emphasised that if the victims’ statements are credible, immediate legal action should be taken. The matter will be heard on October 10.

Madras High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order After 13 Years, Frees Lawyer

The Madras High Court has ordered the release of lawyer S Sahir Hussain, who had been arrested and held in judicial custody in June based on a preventive detention order issued under the COFEPOSA Act in 2010. In a ruling on September 19, a bench of Justices M Sundar and R Sakthivel deemed the preventive detention order issued by the Tamil Nadu government in December 2010 as lacking proper application of mind.

The court also considered the unexplained delay between initiating the inquiry against Hussain and issuing the detention order, which resulted in Hussain’s arrest by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) nearly 13 years later. The court concluded that the link between the grounds of detention and its purpose had been severed, quashing the detention order.

Hussain had faced accusations of importing imitation stones with undervalued duties. The proposal for his detention order was made in November 2010, but it was issued eight weeks later. An interim stay on the order had been granted by the High Court in November 2011, but the case bundle went missing before it could be taken up for a final hearing. The bundle was eventually located in January and the detention order was confirmed by a division bench at that time. However, Hussain was arrested by the DRI in June 2023. The recent order, quashing the preventive detention order, came in response to a habeas corpus petition filed by Hussain.

Senior Counsel Abdul Hameed and Advocate S Elambharathi represented Hussain, while Additional Public Prosecutor A Gokulakrishnan, Deputy Solicitor General of India R Rajesh Vivekanantham and Additional Public Prosecutor E Raj Thilak appeared for the State government and the DRI.

Chair-elect of Bar Council of England and Wales Advocates Streamlined Process for Foreign Lawyers in India

Samuel Townend, Chair-elect of the Bar Council of England and Wales and King’s Counsel (KC), has suggested that the Bar Council of India (BCI) simplify its regulations for foreign lawyers and law firms practising in India, particularly for individual barristers handling occasional cases. Townend noted that the current registration process for foreign lawyers is cumbersome and costly, especially for those not intending to permanently settle in India.

He proposed allowing individual foreign advocates to participate in non-court-based dispute resolution processes in India, such as Indian-seated international arbitration, without the need for extensive registration. Townend emphasised that the goal is not to compete with Indian law firms but to collaborate and assist Indian lawyers and their clients, particularly in domestic seated international arbitration and alternative dispute resolution processes. His remarks were made during the International Lawyers’ Conference organised by the BCI in Delhi.