Legal News | September 13

Supreme Court Allows Flexibility in Section 148 NI Act Deposits for Cheque Bounce Appeals

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that the mandatory 20% deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) isn’t an absolute rule when seeking suspension of sentence in cheque bounce cases. The Court stated that if an appellate court deems a case exceptional, it can grant suspension without imposing the deposit condition, with reasons recorded. 

This decision revisits the rigid stance on deposits, emphasising a purposive interpretation of Section 148. Notably, the appellants didn’t initially plead for exceptions in lower courts. The ruling highlights that a blanket order imposing a 20% deposit isn’t justified, overturning previous judgments. Consequently, the High Court was directed to reevaluate the case.

Supreme Court Contemplates Remission for Life Sentences in Minor Girl Gang Rape Cases

The Supreme Court has raised a crucial question concerning Section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which mandates life imprisonment without remission as the minimum sentence for those convicted of gang-raping girls below 12 years. The Court heard a plea challenging the constitutional validity of this provision and pondered whether it can be interpreted to allow remission despite its explicit language. 

Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal cautioned against interpreting the law in a way that contradicts its stated “natural life” sentence. The petitioner argued that such a strict interpretation violates constitutional rights, as some convicts may serve disproportionate sentences. The case will be reevaluated on December 5, with the Attorney General suggesting it await potential changes in the penal code by parliament.

UGC Allows CLAT Scores for Delhi University’s 5-Year Law Courses

The University Grants Commission (UGC) has reversed its stance, permitting Delhi University (DU) to consider this year’s Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) scores for admissions to its recently introduced five-year integrated law courses. Initially, the UGC had mandated Common University Entrance Test (CUET) scores for undergraduate and postgraduate admissions in central universities like DU. 

However, this U-turn aligns DU’s admissions with the prevalent CLAT system. The move follows an affidavit filed by the UGC in support of DU’s decision before the Delhi High Court. Students aspiring for DU’s law courses can now apply with CLAT scores, eliminating the confusion surrounding the admission process.

Delhi High Court Allows Hearing of Plea for UPSC Prelims Answer Key Disclosure

The Delhi High Court has granted permission to hear a plea seeking the disclosure of the answer key for the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Civil Services Preliminary Examination 2023 before the final results are declared. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh emphasised that the petitioners, who did not qualify in the prelims, were not challenging the examination process but merely requesting the answer key’s disclosure. 

The court rejected UPSC’s preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, which claimed that the matter should go before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) due to its relation to appointments and recruitment. The court held that fundamental rights and legitimate expectations were involved, making it appropriate for the High Court to consider the case. The matter is scheduled for a hearing on merits on September 26, 2023.

Delhi High Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Family Court Appeals

The Delhi High Court has ruled that appeals against decrees or orders from family courts must be filed within 30 days of the decree or order’s pronouncement. This clarification came after the court noticed an inconsistency between the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), which stated a 90-day limitation for appeals and the Family Courts Act, 1984, which prescribed a 30-day limitation. 

The court clarified that the 90-day limitation period specified under Section 28 of the HMA applies to appeals from district courts, while appeals from family court decrees or orders must adhere to the 30-day limitation period as per Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. The court also mentioned that delays in filing may be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This judgment contradicts previous conclusions reached by other benches in the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court.

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Guidelines on Police Media Briefings in Criminal Cases

The Supreme Court has directed the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to create a comprehensive manual outlining guidelines for police media briefings in criminal cases, aimed at preventing media trials. The Court observed that the existing guidelines, which were drafted a decade ago, need updating due to the increased coverage of criminal cases in print, electronic and social media. 

The Court emphasised the importance of balancing press freedom with the rights of accused individuals to a fair and unbiased investigation and the presumption of innocence. It noted that media reportage can harm the reputation of the accused and hinder the rights of victims and survivors of crime. The MHA will consider the views of state Directors General of Police (DGPs) and other stakeholders while formulating these guidelines, which must be completed within three months. The Court’s decision came in response to a petition by People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) regarding police encounters.

Calcutta High Court Orders Governor to Respond Regarding University Chancellor Bill

The Calcutta High Court has directed Dr. CV Ananda Bose, the Governor of West Bengal, to file an affidavit in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging his inaction on a bill that aims to make the Chief Minister the Chancellor of all State Universities instead of the Governor. 

The West Bengal Universities (Amendment) Bill, 2022, has not received assent or rejection from the Governor since June 2022. The petitioner argued that this delay is due to the impending removal of the Governor from the role of ‘Chancellor.’ The court has requested the affidavit to be filed by October 4, with the petitioner allowed to respond by October 13. The case will be heard again on October 16.

Supreme Court Asks Government to Reevaluate Driving License Laws

The Supreme Court has raised questions about whether a person holding a driving license for a light motor vehicle should legally be allowed to drive a transport vehicle of a particular weight. A five-judge constitution bench, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, stressed the importance of these policy issues affecting the livelihoods of many individuals and called for a “fresh look” at the matter at the policy level. The bench requested the Union government to complete this assessment within two months and report back. 

The court emphasised that any interpretation of the law must consider road safety and the safety of public transport users. This issue arose following the apex court’s 2017 verdict in the case of Mukund Dewangan versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited, where it was argued that the ruling was accepted by the Centre and rules were amended accordingly. The court is examining the impact of this legal question on various aspects of driving licenses and insurance claims.

Calcutta High Court Orders Governor to Respond on University Chancellor Bill

The Calcutta High Court has directed West Bengal Governor Dr. CV Ananda Bose to submit an affidavit in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging his inaction on the West Bengal Universities (Amendment) Bill, 2022. The bill proposes making the Chief Minister the Chancellor of all State Universities, replacing the Governor.

The Governor has neither assented to nor rejected the bill since June 2022. The petitioner argues that the delay is linked to the Governor’s impending removal as Chancellor. The court has set a deadline of October 4 for the affidavit submission, with the petitioner allowed to respond by October 13. The case will be heard again on October 16.