Legal News | 30th September

Kerala High Court: Reject Plaints Promptly Under Order VII Rule 11, Avoid Waiting for Trial Conclusion

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court emphasized the importance of promptly assessing plaints under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to determine their validity, rather than waiting for the trial’s conclusion. Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that delaying the rejection of a plaint until the trial’s end contradicts the purpose of the law.

Order VII Rule 11 requires the explicit mention of a cause of action in the plaint; otherwise, the court must reject it. The petitioner sought the rejection of a claim, alleging it lacked a valid cause of action and was an abuse of process. The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, instructing the trial court to reconsider the rejection promptly, within one month.

Delhi High Court Orders ‘Delhi Darshan’ Bus Ride for Old Age Home Residents as FIR Gets Quashed

In a unique judgment, the Delhi High Court has directed three accused individuals to organize a ‘Delhi Darshan’ bus ride for senior citizens living in an old age home in the national capital as part of a settlement agreement, leading to the quashing of an FIR. Justice Saurabh Banerjee instructed the accused to collectively hire a bus for a minimum 4-hour tour of Delhi, ensuring necessary provisions for food, water, and a medical attendant for the elderly passengers. The FIR, filed in 2020 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, was quashed at the request of the complainant, who had voluntarily settled all disputes with the accused.

Supreme Court Shifts Burden of Proof to Hospitals in Evident Medical Negligence Cases

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the principle of “res ipsa loquitur” in medical negligence cases, particularly when negligence is evident. This principle, which means “the thing speaks for itself,” shifts the burden of proof onto hospitals or medical practitioners. The case involved an ex-Indian Air Force official who contracted HIV during a blood transfusion at a military hospital.

The court awarded him Rs 1.5 crore in compensation, stating that the hospital’s breach of care standards led to the transfusion of infected blood. When negligence is evident, the onus shifts to the hospital to prove due care, as highlighted in previous judgments. However, the court cautioned against sole reliance on “res ipsa loquitur” and emphasized its role in estimating logical probability based on circumstances.

Tripura High Court Temporarily Blocks WhatsApp from Revealing Originator of Fake Resignation Message by Chief Minister

The Tripura High Court has issued an interim stay on an order requiring WhatsApp to disclose the originator of a message containing a fake resignation letter attributed to Chief Minister Manik Saha. The court allowed the police to continue their investigation into the matter while temporarily blocking the directive. WhatsApp filed a petition against the trial court’s order, which had granted the police’s request to reveal the message’s originator.

The FIR was registered due to allegations of forgery and concerns about damaging the Chief Minister’s reputation. WhatsApp argued that the order didn’t align with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 and that there was no imminent threat to public order. The case is set for further hearing on December 15.

Srinagar Court Rejects PDP Leader Waheed Para’s Request for Year-long Travel for Father’s Treatment

A Srinagar court has denied the plea of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) leader Waheed ur Rehman Para to travel outside Jammu and Kashmir for a year for his father’s cancer treatment. Para, who faces charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, sought permission to travel to Delhi and Mumbai but was refused due to concerns that it could hamper the trial and that he might flee the country.

The court noted Para’s history of filing applications to travel both within and outside India and expressed doubts about his intentions. It concluded that such permission could lead to misuse of liberty and potential connections with individuals associated with terrorist or secessionist activities in India.

Law Commission of India Recommends No Change in Age of Consent Under POCSO Act

The 22nd Law Commission of India, chaired by Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, has submitted a report stating that the existing age of consent of 18 years under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act should not be modified. However, the Commission has proposed amendments to the POCSO Act to address situations where children aged 16 to 18 years give approval, if not explicit consent, for intimate relationships.

In such cases, the Commission suggests introducing guided judicial discretion in sentencing to ensure a balanced approach that safeguards minors’ best interests. The Commission’s recommendations stem from references received from the Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, which raised concerns about statutory rape cases involving minor girls and de facto consent issues. The proposed amendments would grant courts discretion to reduce sentences based on various factors.

Bombay HC Judge Labels Social Media as a ‘Weapon of Mass Distraction’

A Bombay High Court judge has described social media as a ‘weapon of mass distraction,’ emphasizing its potential to divert attention and consume excessive time. This statement reflects growing concerns about the impact of social media on individuals’ daily lives, attention spans, and productivity. The judge’s comments underscore the need for responsible and mindful use of social media platforms.