URGENTLY FILL VACANCIES IN STATE, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUMS: MADRAS HIGH COURT TO STATE

The Madras High Court on July 2nd urged that the State is needed to take steps to immediately fill up all vacancies in District and State consumer forums (Citizen Consumer and Civil Action Group v. Union of India and others)

The Court noted that amid the pandemic, proper steps have not been taken to fill vacancies.

However, the Bench has now realized that it is necessary that immediate steps are to be taken to fill all vacancies at District and State consumer forums of Tamil Nadu
Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee yesterday observed that the appropriate Committee headed has already nominated a President for the State Consumer Forum.

However, the government's notification of this issue is awaited. As such, the Court has now directed the State to take immediate steps in the matter, since the nomination of the President was unanimous.

The Bench of Chief Justice Banerjee and Justice SenthilkumarRamamoorthy proceeded to adjourn the case by three weeks after directing the State to file a status report on steps taken to urgently fill up Consumer court vacancies in the State till then. The order was passed in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) moved by the Citizen Consumer and Civil Action Group.

The case has been tagged with a pending PIL, whereas the Court had expressed hope that vacancies would be filled efficiently since the Legislative Assembly elections had concluded.

KERALA HIGH COURT DENIES STAY ON FIR AGAINST AISHA SULTANA IN SEDITION CASE

The Kerala High Court on july 2nd declined to hold the proceedings related to the FIR against filmmaker Aisha Sultana by the Lakshadweep Police for sedition and promoting hostility between different religions (Ayshommabi AM @ AyshaSulthana v. Union territory of Lakshadweep).

Justice Ashok Menon today heard the petition filed by Sultana attempt to suppress the FIR. He noted in his order that the prosecution must be given more time to gather evidence and conduct a thorough investigation in this matter.

He stated that it would be improper for the Court to interfere at this stage of the investigation, and directed the prosecution to file a counter-affidavit regarding the stages of the investigation within two weeks.

Justice Menon had earlier granted anticipatory bail to Sultana regarding the same.

BITCOIN FRAUD: DELHI COURT ORDERS POLICE TO REGISTER FIR ON FRAUD ALLEGATIONS BY BITCOIN SELLER

Delhi Court ordered Moti Nagar Police to lodge an FIR on the complaint of a Bitcoin Seller after bank accounts in which the money was transferred by the accused for the purchase of Bitcoins were frozen and the transactions were marked illegal (Hitesh Bhatia vs. Mr. Kumar Vivekanand).

Metropolitan Magistrate Abhinav Pandey ordered to investigate the complaint by the person dealing in the purchase and sale of Bitcoins through an online portal “Binance”.

The Court gave the opinion that there is a need for an investigation for the alleged fraud committed by the accused or whether there was any fault at the seller's end and as well as an intermediary through which the Bitcoin sales were done.

The Judge noted that while cryptocurrency has not been prohibited in India as of today, such online currency transactions would still have to comply with general laws such as "PMLA, IPC, FERA, NDPS Act, Tax laws, and RBI regulations regarding KYC (know your customer), CFT (Combating of funding of terrorism) and AML (Anti-money laundering requirements).”

SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO STAY DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER ALLOWING PRIVATE SCHOOLS IMPOSE ANNUAL FEES AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay the Delhi High Court order allowing private schools in Delhi to impose annual fees and development charges on students.

A bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar did not agree with the submission of the Directorate of Education of the Delhi government that the order to be stayed for the time being to give relief to the parents of students.

The Supreme court told that however that all the disagreements of the Delhi government would remain open for a formal judgment by the division bench of the high court as the dismissal of the plea here was not on priority.

The Delhi government filed the intra-court appeal before the division bench of the high court and was resenting on not staying the single judge bench verdict.

DELHI HIGH COURT DENIES RELIEF FOR NOW TO THE WIRE, THE QUINT, ALT NEWS FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE IT RULES

The Delhi High Court denied granting relief for now on appeal by the news portals The Wire, The Quint, and AltNews in their challenges to comply with the IT Rules, 2021.

A Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh granted time to the Central government and other respondents to reply to the appeal for interim relief with respect to the Rules.

From the side of the applicant today, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan urged the Court to grant relief from forced compilation under the Rules for some time. However, the Court refused to do the same and listed the matter for August 20.

NINE NEW SUPREME COURT JUDGES LIKELY TO TAKE OATH ON AUGUST 31

The President approved all nine names, including three women, recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium and accepted by the government for appointment as judges of the top court. The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana, comprising of Justices U U Lalit, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud, and L Nageswara Rao had recommended the names on August 19, 2021 for elevation to the Apex Court.

The names of the 9 Judges in the order as recommended by the Supreme Court collegium are as follows -

1. Mr. Justice A.S. Oka, Chief Justice, Karnataka High Court

2. Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court

3. Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Chief Justice, Sikkim High Court

4. Ms. Justice Hima Kohli, Chief Justice, Telangana High Court

5. Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Judge, Karnataka High Court

6. Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Judge, Kerala High Court

7. Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh, Judge, Madras High Court

8. Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Judge, Gujarat High Court,

9. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Senior Advocate.

The new judge's list includes Justice B.V. Nagarathna, who will be in line to be the first woman Chief Justice of India (CJI) in September 2027 - a milestone in the nation's history. The other women judges who have been elevated to the top court are Justices Bela M Trivedi and Hema Kohli.

With the new appointments, the working strength of the Supreme Court goes up to 33 against the sanctioned strength of 34. It currently functions with only 24 judges including the CJI.

The Supreme Court, which has 25 judges against a sanctioned strength of 34, will be left with only one vacancy after the new judges are sworn in. The new judges are to be sworn in on Aug 31.

“EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY”- SUPREME COURT

A Supreme Court Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV, while hearing an appeal in the case of NagarathnaNawabuddin vs State of Uttarakhand, upheld the conviction of a 75-year-old man who was accused of inserting his finger into the vagina of a 4-year-old. The apex court decided that the accused placed his finger into the girl's vaginal opening, based on the evidence of an independent witness.

It was argued that the appellant could not have been convicted of the charges punishable under Section 5/ 6 of the POCSO Act if there had been no penetration or aggravated penetrative sexual assault. He also asked for a reduction in his sentence since he had TB and was of senior age.

In response to the petition for a reduction in the life sentence, the Supreme Court stated that no mercy can be offered to an accused who has committed offences under the POCSO Act, especially where the same has been shown by competent evidence in a court of law. The accused inserted his finger into the vagina, causing discomfort and irritation in urination, as well as agony throughout her body, and the doctor discovered redness and swelling around the vagina. We believe that the case falls under Section 3(b) of the POCSO Act and that it can be classified as penetrative sexual assault. Considering Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act, penetrative sexual assault committed on a girl child under the age of twelve years can be classified as 'aggravated penetrative sexual assault,' punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

It went on to say that such exploitation of children is a crime against humanity and society. The Bench, however, reduced the appellant's sentence to 15 years in jail since he was 75 years old and had TB.

KARNATAKA HC ON HIJAB BAN

The Karnataka high court has referred petitions filed by Muslim college students who have barred entry into classrooms because they were wearing hijabs to a larger bench following a two-day hearing on petitions filed by five girls studying in a Government Pre-University College in Udupi against the hijab restriction in their college. Before the hearing, the Court requested the student community and the general public to preserve peace and tranquility in the aftermath of the order's protests.

In its statement of objections, the State told the Karnataka High Court that it is not interfering with religious beliefs and that educational institutions are not places to profess any particular religion. While senior advocate Sanjay Hegde urged the court to ensure that girl students were not deprived of their education as a result of the ban, the State told the court that it is not interfering with religious beliefs and that educational institutions are not places to profess any particular religion.

Protests against the hijab have risen in several regions of Karnataka, with some becoming violent. Activist right-wing audiences heckled hijab-wearing women on various campuses. Tensions rose at certain educational institutions in Udupi, Shivamogga, and Bagalkote, prompting police and government officials to interfere. Last Monday, the state administration issued an order requiring students in schools and pre-university colleges across the state to wear uniforms set by the government or the management of private institutions.

UNFORTUNATELY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS RUNNING WITH 90 PERCENT OF THE CORRUPTIVE OFFICERS: JUSTICE P VELMURUGAN

While recently disposing of a contempt case brought against an investigating officer for deliberately disobeying the High Court's orders, Justice P Velmurugan of the Madras High Court took a poor view of the state's police, observing that it was time to sensitize personnel and purge corrupt ones.

These scathing comments were made during the hearing of S Vasanthi v M Baggiyalakshmi. In this case, the petitioner filed a police report against two males. After the investigation was completed, the police concluded the case and filed a charge sheet with the judicial magistrate court, which issued specific orders. The petitioner appealed the magistrate's decision to the High Court, which ordered the police to undertake a new investigation. Following the Court's decision, the investigating officer undertook a new investigation and dismissed the complaint as an "error of fact" claiming that the issue was civil. The petitioner subsequently filed a contempt motion, alleging that the police did not conduct the investigation fairly and, as a result, breached the Court's decision. However, counsel for the respondent contended that following inquiry, it was determined that there was no prima facie evidence and that the matter should be dismissed. The officer expressed her sincere regret for any misconduct on her part.

After reviewing the data, the Court came to the conclusion that the police had not engaged in willful disobedience. The court, however, did not believe the investigating officer's competency was enough. As a result, the contempt petition was dismissed. Nonetheless, the petitioner was offered the option of pursuing legal action against the police officer for her inability and negotiating a solution with the magistrate.

DISTRICT, STATE, CONSUMER FORUMS CAN ADDRESS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACCUSATIONS: KERALA HIGH COURT

Recently in the case of Dr.Vijil&Ors. v Ambujakshi TP the Kerala High Court ruled that complaints about medical negligence or service defects can be filed before the District and State Consumer Disputes Redress Commissions.

According to Justice N Nagaresh, the Consumer Protection Act of 2019's definition of "services" is broad and not exhaustive, particularly for public utility services.

"Medical services would thereby come within the purview of Section 2(42) unless the service is provided free of charge or under a personal service contract," the judgment read.

The Court further stated,

"A reading of Section 2(42)'s inclusive section reveals that the Parliament meant to emphasize that some services, such as banking, financing, insurance, and transportation, which are in the nature of public utility services, would fall under the umbrella of services.' This is a broad definition, not a complete one. As a result, all services made available to potential users would come under Section 2(42), with the exception of those provided free of charge or under a personal service contract. The phrase "but not limited to" in Section 2(42) explains the Parliament's purpose ", said the single-Judge.

The decision was made in response to a petition submitted by numerous doctors against whom the respondent had filed a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redress Commission, demanding compensation of $32,52,000 for loss of vision allegedly caused by their medical negligence.

 The petitioners had disputed the complaint's maintainability before the District and State Consumer Disputes Redress Commissions, but they were both rejected.

 They then petitioned the High Court for an order finding the District and State Commissions' orders to be without jurisdiction and hence invalid.

 They also requested a declaration that the Consumer Protection Act's consumer fora do not have authority to hear complaints about medical malpractice or insufficiency in medical services.

It was pointed out that in Indian Medical Association v VP Shantha and Ors, the Supreme Court declared that the medical profession would fall inside the definition of service under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, 1986. However, as per Section 2(42) of the Act of 2019, Parliament has removed medical profession/practice' from the list of facilities underserviced.'

Despite the Supreme Court's pronouncement of law, the physicians stated that this omission plainly reveals Parliament's purpose not to include medical profession/practice' within the meaning of service as specified under the new Act, 2019.

The petitioners' arguments were rejected by the High Court because Section 2(42) of the Act 2019 contains the term "but not limited to." This explains Parliament's stance, which has offered a list that is inclusive rather than exclusive.

 The High Court ruled that the District and State Consumer Disputes Redress Commissions can investigate complaints against doctors for carelessness in providing services unless the service is supplied free of charge.

As a result, the petition was dismissed.

 Senior Advocate S Gopakumaran Nair and Advocates Sooraj T Elenjickal, Renoy Vincent, Arun Roy, Helen PA, and ShahirShowkath Ali represented the petitioners.

 Assistant Solicitor General of India Manu S and Central Government Counsel V Gireesh Kumar represented the respondents.

VICTIM SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO ASSIST THE PROSECUTION

While hearing a public interest lawsuit brought by mothers of minor sexual assault survivors, the Karnataka High Court ruled that a survivor or complainant should be allowed to help the prosecution if they so wish. In cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed that the investigation officer or the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) must notify a minor survivor's parents, caregiver, or guardian, and lawyer (if appointed), if the accused files for bail or if the prosecution files any other application (POCSO Act).

The plea requested that the Court declare that Section 40 of the POCSO Act (right of the child to seek legal advice) and Rule 4 of the POCSO Rules (procedure regarding care and protection of child) require that the child survivor, parent, guardian, or complainant be notified when an accused person files an application for bail.
According to the appeal, the local police failed to notify them when the accused person submitted a bail application in any of their cases. Because of this crucial failing, the defendants in each case were released on bail without the mothers being notified or having a chance to be heard in the case.

Victims of criminal offences, particularly horrific crimes, should have a say in the criminal prosecution of the accused, according to the Court. The Court stated that the POCSO Act's offences are terrible in character and are frequently committed by perverted individuals.

THE KERALA HIGH COURT HAS GRANTED A 10 YEAR OLD RAPE SURVIVORS REQUEST TO ABORT A 30 WEEK OLD PREGNANCY

The Kerala High Court on Thursday permitted medical termination of a 10-year-old rape survivor's 30-week-old pregnancy to protect her health.
Even though the kid has an 80% probability of surviving the treatment, Justice PV Kunhikrishnan believes there is a risk of serious consequences affecting the 10-year-old's health.
The court in its judgment stated that

"The alleged culprit is her own father. If the allegation is correct, I am ashamed of and of course, the entire society should bow their head for the same reason. I am sure that long arm of our legal system will punish him in a manner known to law"

The Court also expressed dismay for the fact that the suspected rapist is the little girl's own father, and stated that society as a whole should be embarrassed.
The decision was taken in response to a petition filed by the mother of the 10-year-old survivor, who sought permission to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as well as a directive to the concerned hospital to carry out the procedure in accordance with the law.The hospital was ordered to form a Medical Board and provide a report within two days when the case initially came before the Court.

According to the report, the pregnancy was 'breech presentation,' meaning the baby was positioned so that its legs and posterior came out first, necessitating a surgical delivery under anaesthesia. It also said that the kid has an 80% probability of surviving at 30 weeks and 6 days, with an anticipated weight of 1.557 kg. However, there is a danger of neonatal morbidity as well as a negative neuro-developmental result for the new-born kid.

Furthermore, the hospital is ethically and medicolegally obligated to resuscitate and care for the new-born infant owing to the foetus's age.
After reviewing the report, as well as the minor rape survivor's age and other circumstances, the Court agreed to give the hospital a week to complete the necessary procedures under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

Furthermore, the Court ordered that if the baby is born alive and the child's parents are unwilling or unable to assume responsibility for the child, the State and its agencies must assume full responsibility for the child, including medical support and other facilities as may be reasonably possible, while always adhering to the principle of the child's best interests as well as the statutory provisions in the Juvenile Justice Act.

JUDGES RIGHT TO PRIVACY

While hearing the case of SK Nausad Rahaman v Union of India, a bench of Justices DY
Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Vikram Nath declared that the State cannot ignore the core
constitutional values, particularly the preservation of family life, which is a component of
Article 21.

The Supreme Court ruled that executive orders and administrative directives relating to
transfers and postings did not give an individual an inalienable right to claim the same. It
further stated that an employee does not have a fundamental or vested right to request a
transfer or posting of his or her choice.

In this context, the Bench noted that spouse postings were subject to the administrative
requirement. According to the Court, a policy governing the same must take into account the
necessity of protecting family life as an element of a person's dignity and a postulate of
privacy.

The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from a Kerala High Court verdict where the Hight
The court upheld the validity of a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and
Customs stated that after the enforcement of Recruitment Rules, no application for
Inter Commissionerate Transfers (ICTs) would be considered because the rules did not
include any provision for recruitment by absorption. However, the circular stated that in rare
circumstances and on the basis of extreme compassion, such transfers may be permitted on
a "case-by-case" basis, taking into account administrative considerations.

The Court emphasized the concept that in the event of a conflict between presidential orders
and rules enacted under Article 309, the rules must take precedence. The Court ruled that
when drafting a policy for its own employees, the State must take into account the
importance of protecting family life as a component of personal dignity and a precept of
privacy.

PETITION AGAINST ONLINE FOOD DELIVERY APPS

In the case of Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (MCGM) a petition has been filed stating that during the pandemic when restaurants were shut for public and only delivery of food was permitted through the delivery companies, a number of illegal food outlets sprung up on food delivery apps.
The Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association has filed a complaint in the Bombay High Court, alleging that meal delivery apps Swiggy, Zomato, and Dunzo are distributing food from unlicensed and illegal establishments that sprouted up during the COVID-19 outbreak. Members of the petitioner-association had invested a significant amount of money in their restaurant enterprises, as well as getting the required permits and adhering to statutory requirements on a regular basis, according to the complaint filed by Advocate Aditya Chitale.
During the COVID-19 shutdown, however, new unlawful unlicensed dining establishments sprung up all across Mumbai, doubling their sales.
During the epidemic, when restaurants were closed to the public and only delivery of food was allowed through delivery businesses, a large number of purportedly illegal food outlets with their menus appeared on delivery company websites and mobile apps.
The Association then sent a letter to the Executive Health Officer, expressing its displeasure with such unlawfully functioning dining establishments. As a result, the officer issued notifications to delivery businesses, instructing them to cease picking up and delivering meals from the allegedly unlawfully running dining establishments. The officer had given three similar notifications to senior police inspectors from the Khar, Bandra, and Santacruz police stations, directing them to take legal action.
The petition has sought to take necessary action against dining establishments that are functioning unlawfully in violation of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act; to take appropriate action against food delivery firms that provide services to unlawfully running dining establishments that do not have the necessary permits; to file criminal charges against the officials of the food delivery firms very away and conduct a comprehensive investigation; to ban unlawful sellers from operating and intruding on the operation of roadside spaces; to make it unlawful to sell LPG cylinders to unauthorized sellers and to take legal action against delivery company personnel who utilize non-commercial cars for business purposes.
A bench of Justices AA Sayed and Abhay Ahuja will hear the case on Monday, March 14th.

RBI Adopts External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) Policy as Part of Liberalization Measures

In its A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 11 dated August 1, 2022 the Reserve Bank of India introduced temporary liberalisation measures to "boost forex inflows while safeguarding overall macroeconomic and financial stability." These policies will be in effect for ECBs raised through December 31, 2022. In order to reflect the temporary liberalisation measures, the Master Direction - External Commercial Borrowings, Trade Credits, and Structured Obligations has also been modified as of August 1, 2022.

• The liberalisation measures include I raising the automatic route limit for ECBs till December 31, 2022 from USD 750 million or equivalent every financial year to USD 1500 million or similar per financial year; and
•  raising the All-in-Cost Ceiling for ECBs until December 31, 2022, by 100 bps. Only qualifying borrowers with an investment grade rating from Indian Credit Rating Agencies would be able to access the increased all-in-cost ceiling (CRAs). ECB may be raised by additional qualified borrowers up to the current all-in-cost cap.