Legal News | 29th September

Historic Milestone: Women’s Reservation Bill Signed into Law, One-Third Seats Reserved

The Women’s Reservation Bill has received Presidential assent and is now law, known as the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023. This landmark legislation allocates one-third of seats in both Parliament and State legislative assemblies for women, encompassing seats previously reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Union Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal introduced the bill in the Lok Sabha on September 19, where it passed with overwhelming support. On September 19, the Rajya Sabha also unanimously approved the bill, although it faced opposition from AIMIM MPs Asaduddin Owaisi and Imtiaz Jaleel. This legislation marks a significant step towards gender equality in Indian politics.

Law Commission Proposes Limited Roll-Out of e-FIR System and Punishment for False Online Cases

The Law Commission of India, led by Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, has recommended the online registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) for all cases where the accused is unknown. However, when the accused is identified, the e-FIR registration should be allowed only for cognizable offences carrying a punishment of up to three years. This approach is aimed at avoiding disruption in the handling of serious offences.

To combat false e-FIRs, the Commission suggests verification of complainants through e-authentication methods such as OTP for mobile numbers and mandatory submission of valid ID proof like Aadhaar.

Additionally, the Commission proposes introducing penalties, including imprisonment and fines, for false e-complaints or e-FIRs. It suggests amending Section 182 of the IPC for this purpose. The Commission also emphasizes the importance of safeguarding the privacy of sexual offence victims.

While advocating for an expanded list of offences for future e-FIR registration, the Commission recommends that non-cognizable offences be eligible for e-complaint registration. It envisions a user-friendly centralized system for processing information and linking e-FIRs to the e-courts portal, with the potential to simplify the FIR registration process. Currently, electronic FIR registration is operational in eight states but limited to specific crimes.

Legal Experts Debate: Should India Have Separate Arbitration Statutes for Domestic and International Cases?

A spirited debate at the SIAC Annual India Conference 2023 in Delhi tackled the question of whether India should adopt two distinct statutes for domestic and international arbitration. Advocates both for and against the motion presented their arguments.

For the Motion:

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand argued that the split between domestic and international arbitration already exists in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but is not effective. She emphasized the need for different enforceability standards for international and domestic awards.

Advocate Vijayendra Pratap Singh highlighted the importance of protecting assets through interim orders during arbitration proceedings, a provision available for domestic but not foreign awards.

Against the Motion:

Senior Counsel Darius J Khambata contended that the 2015 amendment to the Indian Act introduced a limited binary regime for reverse protectionism, which is detrimental.

Advocate Anuradha Dutt emphasized that India’s arbitration issues stem from implementation and the overall ecosystem rather than the law itself, calling for training and specialization among lawyers, arbitrators and judges.

The debate concluded with a split verdict from former Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and former Supreme Court judge Justice AK Sikri. The audience ultimately voted against the motion, supporting the existing unitary arbitration regime in India.

Delhi High Court Clarifies Settlement Terms in Theos vs. Theobroma Trademark Suit

The Delhi High Court has issued clarifications and finalized settlement terms in a trademark infringement case between confectionery brands Theos and Theobroma. The dispute arose when Theos filed a suit to prevent Theobroma from using the mark ‘THEOS’ as a prefix for various food items. Although the parties initially agreed to a settlement, they later informed the court that they could not reach an agreement based on the court’s July 29, 2022 order.

The court clarified several key points:

• The use of the mark ‘THEOS’: Theobroma can use this mark for specific products.
• Geographical limitation: Theos can still enforce its trademark rights beyond Delhi-NCR.
• Limitation as to Nice classification: Theobroma’s use of the mark is restricted to specific products, regardless of class.
• QR menu card: Theobroma can use the mark on physical and QR code menus in physical outlets.

With these clarifications, the court decreed and disposed of the suit. Both parties were represented by their respective legal teams.

Supreme Court to Scrutinize Minimum Marks Criteria in Delhi HC’s Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer Interviews

The Supreme Court has taken notice of an appeal challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision not to intervene in setting the minimum qualifying marks for viva voce interviews for the position of Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer (Group-C).

The appeal argues that assigning 20% weightage to interviews conducted by three Registrars of the Court, with minimum marks criteria, is questionable for this post. Candidates were given an average of five minutes for their interviews. The Court will assess whether such conditions are appropriate for this position.

Applicants for the position contested the viva voce test results, asserting that the criteria for minimum qualifying marks were flawed. The Delhi High Court initially noted that the petitioners, despite passing three stages of the selection process, could not challenge their disqualification after being declared unsuccessful.

However, the Supreme Court has granted an interim appointment while awaiting a final judgment on the matter, which is scheduled for November 7, 2023. This case ties into the broader issue of whether rules can be altered after the selection process for posts has commenced, a matter recently considered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.