Legal News | September 12

SC Rejects Government’s Plea to Defer Sedition Law Challenge

The Indian Supreme Court has declined the Central government’s request to postpone the hearing challenging the validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with sedition. The government sought the delay, citing its plan to replace the IPC with a new code, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. However, the Court ruled that Section 124A remains in effect until replaced and the challenge must proceed. 

The Court also indicated that a Constitution Bench of either five or seven judges would reconsider the 1962 Kedarnath Singh judgment, which upheld Section 124A’s validity. The petitioners argue that Section 124A infringes on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and fails to distinguish between “State” and “government.”

Watching Porn in Private Not an Offence: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has ruled that watching pornography in private without exhibiting it to others is not an offence. The court opined that such an act is a citizen’s private choice and interfering with it would infringe upon the person’s privacy.

Therefore, it held that viewing an obscene photo or video in private is not an offence under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the sale, distribution and display of obscene material. The court quashed a case against a man who was seen watching obscene videos on his mobile phone in public, stating that it did not amount to an offence under Section 292 IPC.

Supreme Court: Unconstitutional Laws Void from Inception

The Supreme Court of India, in a recent verdict, reaffirmed that when a law is declared unconstitutional, it is deemed void from the moment of its enactment, citing Article 13(2) of the Constitution. The ruling, delivered by a constitution bench, emphasised that any law infringing on fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution becomes unenforceable from its inception. 

This decision stems from a 2014 judgment declaring Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 unconstitutional and it was held to have retrospective effect. The verdict clarifies that the earlier judgment applies to pending cases, making such laws ‘void ab initio,’ with no legal force from their inception.

SC Refers Sedition Law Challenge to Larger Bench, Rejects Deferral Request

The Indian Supreme Court has referred the challenge to the sedition law (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code) to a bench of at least five judges. This decision comes as a response to the Central Government’s request to delay the hearing due to a proposed bill to replace the Indian Penal Code. The Court ruled that even if the new bill becomes law, it will apply only prospectively, leaving past cases unaffected. The decision to refer the matter to a larger bench was also influenced by the 1962 judgment in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, which upheld the provision. 

The Court emphasised the need to reevaluate Kedar Nath in light of evolving interpretations of fundamental rights. The sedition law challenge continues to be relevant, regardless of the new bill. The Court has yet to decide whether a five-judge bench or a seven-judge bench will hear the case.

SC Rejects Asaram Bapu’s Bail Plea in 2013 Rape Case

The Supreme Court of India has declined to entertain the bail plea of self-proclaimed godman Asaram Bapu, who was convicted in a 2013 rape case involving a minor girl. The bench, consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, advised Bapu to file a fresh plea before the Rajasthan High Court for the suspension of his sentence if his appeal against the conviction at the trial court does not progress expeditiously. 

Asaram Bapu’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition after a brief hearing, which was granted. The godman’s appeal against a Rajasthan High Court order denying him bail and suspending his sentence was under consideration. Asaram Bapu has been in custody for over ten years and cited health issues and prolonged custody as reasons for bail.

Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Wrongful Activities by RBI During Demonetisation

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a 2019 petition by a Mumbai resident, Manoranjan Roy, alleging wrongful activities by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) during the 2016 demonetisation. Roy, a tax volunteer, accused the RBI of failing to follow proper procedures and aiding undeserving beneficiaries in exchanging unaccounted ₹500 and ₹1,000 notes during demonetisation. 

The court found Roy’s claims to be based on “half-baked” information and observed that no criminality could be ascribed to the RBI. The court emphasised that unless there is evidence necessitating an investigation by an independent agency, the courts should refrain from interfering in the monetary regulatory framework. Roy’s petition was dismissed as a “fishing inquiry” unsupported by credible evidence.

Rajasthan High Court Extends Stay on Arrest of Baba Ramdev Over Anti-Muslim Remarks

The Rajasthan High Court has extended the stay on the arrest of Baba Ramdev until October 16 in connection with a case filed against him for allegedly making anti-Muslim remarks earlier this year. Ramdev has also been ordered to appear for police interrogation on October 5. 

The court’s decision comes in response to a plea by Ramdev to quash the case, which was filed on a complaint by a Barmer resident upset by Ramdev’s remarks during a gathering of seers. The FIR against Ramdev includes charges under Sections 153, 295A and 298 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to promoting enmity and outrage of religious feelings.

Allahabad High Court Allows Parties and Advocates to Argue Cases via Video Conference

The Allahabad High Court has introduced facilities for parties and advocates to present and argue their cases through videoconference, effective from September 12. The Registrar General of the High Court issued a press release on September 11, announcing this development. 

Individuals interested in participating in proceedings through virtual mode at the Allahabad High Court benches in Allahabad and Lucknow are instructed to submit their requests to designated email addresses.

SC to Deliberate on Whether SIT Has Authority to File Chargesheet Under Section 173(2) CrPC

The Supreme Court is set to deliberate on an important question regarding the powers of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to file a chargesheet under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This case arises from the formation of an SIT by the State of Karnataka in 2015 to investigate corruption allegations against Lokayukta officials. 

The Karnataka High Court had dismissed the chargesheet filed by the SIT, asserting that the SIT is not a police station. The petition argues that police officers appointed to the SIT have the same powers as local police officers under the CrPC, as authorised by the state government. The Supreme Court has issued a notice returnable within 4 weeks.