Legal News | September 15

Supreme Court Clarifies Exceptions to MMDR Act’s Section 10-A(1) on Mining Lease Eligibility

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court provided clarity on exceptions to Section 10-A(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act). This section had rendered mining lease applications received before 12.01.2015 ineligible. The court emphasised that the 2015 Amendment Act aimed to auction mineral resources allocation.

Exceptions include cases where prospecting licenses were granted and the licensee complied with Section 10-A(2)(b) or where prior approvals or Letters of Intent were issued before the 2015 Amendment Act. The ruling protected applicants who invested in reconnaissance operations. The case specifically dealt with a Dolomite mining application and the court directed the State of West Bengal to execute a mining lease for 20.87 acres of land.

Title: Supreme Court Protects Editors Guild of India Members from Manipur Police FIR, Calls Complaint a Government Counter-Narrative

The Supreme Court has extended protection to members of the Editors Guild of India (EGI) facing FIRs over a fact-finding report on ethnic violence in Manipur. The Court noted that the complaint against EGI members was essentially a “counter-narrative of the government.”

It also emphasised that making false statements in an article, even if the report was assumed to be false, is not an offence under Section 153A of the IPC. The Court granted two weeks for the Manipur police and the complainant to respond to the matter, while the interim order protecting EGI journalists from coercive actions based on the FIR remains in effect.

Title: Supreme Court Seeks National Medical Commission’s Response on Allegations of Unpaid Stipends to MBBS Interns

The Supreme Court has directed the National Medical Commission (NMC) to respond to allegations that around 70% of medical colleges are not paying stipends to MBBS interns or are not meeting the minimum stipend requirements. The directive came during a hearing of a petition filed by medical interns seeking stipend payments from the Army College of Medical Sciences (ACMS).

The ACMS argued financial constraints, but the Court emphasised that financial limitations cannot be a reason to deny stipends and ordered the ACMS to pay at least Rs. 1 lakh per month as stipend. Additionally, the Court granted the ACMS the option to approach the Fee Regulatory Committee in Delhi to assess the financial impact of its orders. The Court also noted the broader issue of unpaid stipends in medical colleges, prompting the NMC to provide a response.

Calcutta High Court: Anganwadi Workers Can Be Transferred in Public Interest

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that Anganwadi workers can be transferred in the public interest, even in the absence of an express provision for such transfers in the applicable rules. The court stated that when Anganwadi services are disrupted due to the worker’s attitude, authorities can issue appropriate transfer orders in the public interest. While there was no explicit provision for Anganwadi worker transfers in the relevant rules, there was also no prohibition against such transfers.

The court was hearing a case where an Anganwadi worker challenged her transfer to another centre, arguing that the transfer was against the purpose of the scheme since she lived far from the new centre. However, the court noted that the worker had allegedly not been performing her duties as required and dismissed her plea.

Calcutta HC Imposes Rs 50 Lakh Penalty on West Bengal Government for Not Transferring Corruption Probe to CBI

The Calcutta High Court has imposed a penalty of Rs 50 lakh on the West Bengal government for failing to transfer the investigation from the CID to the CBI and ED regarding alleged irregularities in a women’s cooperative society. The court had previously ordered the transfer of the probe to these central agencies along with the submission of all related documents.

The cooperative society in question, located in Alipurduar district, ceased operations in 2020 amid allegations of Rs 50 crore embezzlement, leaving depositors without their funds. The penalty amount is to be submitted to the high court’s registrar general within two weeks and the central agencies must receive the documents within three days to initiate the investigation process.

Aaj Tak’s Sudhir Chaudhary Receives Interim Protection from Arrest in Hate Promotion Case

Sudhir Chaudhary, a news anchor for Aaj Tak, has been granted interim protection from arrest by the Karnataka High Court in a case related to a program critical of a state minority corporation’s scheme. The court ordered the Bengaluru police not to take any hasty action against Chaudhary.

The anchor had filed a plea seeking the dismissal of the First Information Report (FIR) filed against him on September 12 and an interim stay on the investigation. Chaudhary is accused of promoting enmity between different groups and making statements conducive to public mischief. The court will reconvene on September 20 to assess the evidence regarding the alleged promotion of hatred in the program aired on September 11.

Supreme Court Asks All High Courts to Provide Status of Virtual Hearings

The Supreme Court of India has asked all high courts and some tribunals to inform the court about the status of virtual hearings. The court issued this notice in response to a petitioner’s concern that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had stopped virtual hearings, causing inconvenience to litigants.

The Supreme Court seeks information on whether video-conferencing or hybrid hearings are being continued or disbanded in various courts and tribunals. The court will consider other issues related to expeditious hearings in the petitioner’s case pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at a later date.

Sister Not Considered “Family” Under Compassionate Appointment Rules: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a sister does not fall under the definition of “family” as per the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1999. The court made this observation while dismissing the claim of a woman who sought “compassionate appointment” in place of her deceased brother, who was a government servant.

The rules specify that in the case of a deceased male government servant, his widow, son or daughter who is dependent and living with him will be considered family members. The court found no evidence to support the appellant’s claim of dependency or financial distress in the deceased’s family.

CJI Chandrachud Rebukes Lawyer for Disparaging Constitution Bench Cases

Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud criticised an email sent by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, who expressed the opinion that the Supreme Court should prioritise ordinary cases over Constitutional Bench matters, which he referred to as “useless.” The CJI defended the importance of Constitutional Bench cases, emphasising that they often involve the interpretation of the Constitution, which forms the foundation of India’s legal framework.

He cited examples of cases with significant social and livelihood impacts. The exchange occurred during a hearing in which Advocate Nedumpara appeared and the CJI emphasised that Constitutional Bench matters serve the public interest and should not be dismissed as irrelevant.