No excllucive guidelines to regulate media reporting of sub-judice matters: SC

The Supreme Court on Tuesday laid down a constitutional principle where aggrieved parties can seek from appropriate court the postponement of the publication of court hearings and a decision taken on a case-by-case basis.

The court, however, refrained from framing broad guidelines for reporting of sub-judice court matters, saying it cannot be done "across the board."

The bench observed that freedom of speech and expression is not an absolute right under the Constitution and the journalists should understand the 'lakshman rekha' so that they do not cross the line of contempt.

A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice SH Kapadia said it was laying down the constitutional principle which will allow the aggrieved parties to seek from appropriate court the postponement of the publication of court hearings.

The bench said the concerned court will decide the question of postponement of reporting court proceedings on case-by-case basis.

"We are not framing guidelines but we have laid down constitutional principle and appropriate writ courts will decide when the postponement order has to be passed on case-by -case basis," the bench also comprising justices DK Jain, SS Nijjar, Ranjana Prakash Desai and JS Khehar said.

"Hence, guidelines on media reporting cannot be framed across the board," the bench said.

While propounding the doctrine of postponement of publication of court proceedings, the bench said it is a preventive measure and not a prohibitive and punitive measure.

It further said that temporary ban on publication of court proceedings is necessary to maintain balance between freedom of speech and fair trial for proper administration of justice.

The bench said the postponement of publication of court proceedings would be required where there is a substantial risk of prejudicing the trial and administration of justice.

Further the CJI, who read the judgement, said reasonable restrictions on reporting of court proceedings were needed for societal interest and this doctrine of postponement is one of "neutralising technique".

Read more...

Indian maid gets relief from US Court

1
inShare

Share on Tumblr

An Indian maid, who had accused her former employer, an IFS officer, and her husband of harassment and "slavery", has received a favourable ruling from a US court, which approved her petition that she be awarded $ 1.5 million as compensation by the couple.In his order, US District Judge Victor Marrero "adopted in entirety" the report of US Magistrate Judge Frank Maas in which Maas had recommended that Shanti Gurung be paid 1.5 million dollars as compensation for the "barbaric treatment" and "emotional distress" Neena Malhotra and her husband Jogesh Malhotra caused her when she was employed as their domestic help for three years since 2006.

"The application of plaintiff Shanti Gurung for an award of damages is granted; accordingly, judgment is entered in favour of Gurung and against defendants Jogesh Malhotra and Neena Malhotra in an amount of $ 1,458,335 in accordance with the calculations and breakdown of that amount set forth in the report," Marrero said in his ruling on Tuesday. He also ordered that the case is now closed. Marrero said the Malhotras did not file any objections to Maas' report even though they had 14 days to do so. He said the court is not required to review any portion of a magistrate judge's report that is not the subject of an objection. After a thorough review of the documents submitted, "the Court concludes that the findings, reasoning and legal support for the recommendations made in the report are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and are thus warranted.

"Accordingly... the court adopts the report's factual and legal analyses and determinations, as well as its substantive recommendations in their entirety as the Court's ruling as to Gurung's application for an award of damages," Marrero said. In his recommendation filed on February 21, Maas had said Gurung should be awarded the compensation as she was a victim of "outrageous and shocking conduct." Gurung was employed by the Malhotras when Neena was serving as a counsellor at the Consulate General of India in Manhattan. Gurung had alleged that she was treated like a slave by the Malhotras and forced to work long hours without adequate compensation.

Marrero's ruling came just days after the Delhi High Court restrained Gurung from pursuing her lawsuit in the US. The Delhi court had also accepted the argument that Neena is a diplomat in the services of the Government of India and was sent in official capacity to the US and thus enjoys sovereign immunity.Any order passed by a court there would tantamount to interfering with the right of the Indian government to determine terms and conditions of employment of its diplomatic officers abroad, Justice Kailash Gambhir had ruled.

A message left with Gurung's lawyer Mitchell Karlan seeking comment on the development in the case was not immediately answered. Neena, an Indian Foreign Service officer, served as a Press and Culture Counsellor at the Indian Consulate in New York from 2006-2009. When she came to New York in 2006, Neena brought Gurung from India to serve as her house maid. In July 2010, Gurung filed a complaint before the US court accusing Malhotras of ill-treating her.

Read more...

Divorced woman can’t be evicted from home:SC

A woman cannot be evicted from the matrimonial home after divorce except through procedure established by law, as there is no provision for her automatic eviction, the Supreme Court has ruled. A bench of justice GS Singhvi and justice SD Mukhopadhyay, in a judgment, said though a woman may not have a legal right to continue in the house of the ex-husband, yet the latter cannot forcibly evict her.

The court gave the ruling while upholding an appeal filed by Ranjit Kaur challenging the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana HC which had upheld her eviction from the house of a disputed property upon a decree of divorce granted to the husband Major Harmohinder Singh, an army officer.

“...even though in the decree of divorce, the appellant has not been given a right of residence and her occupation of the suit property can be treated as unauthorised, respondent No 1 (Singh) cannot evict her except after following the procedure established by law.

“The material placed on record shows that the appellant had entered into the property as the wife of respondent No. 1.

Therefore, even though, after passing of the decree of the divorce she may not have a legal right to continue to remain in possession of the suit property, respondent No. 1 cannot be given liberty to forcibly evict her,” the bench said.

The apex court, however, rejected the plea of the woman that Singh should be restrained from alienating the suit property (house).

The couple was staying at the disputed property in SAS Nagar, Mohali. They were married in 1978. A decree of divorce was granted on October 4, 2001, in favour of the husband who had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

Read more...

Mass protest against Jayarajan Judgment

Setting the stage for a confrontation with the judiciary, Kerala’s opposition Communist Party of India (Marxist) on Wednesday called mass protests against the high court verdict sentencing party leader M V Jayarajan to six months imprisonment in a contempt of court case.

The decision to wage a political fight against the judiciary was announced by party secretary Pinarayi Vijayan after visiting Jayarajan, a member of the party secretariat, at the Poojappura Central jail here along with former home minister and deputy leader of opposition Kodiyeri Balakrishnan.

Activists of the CPM and the party’s mass and class organisations will be staging demonstrations in front of the high court at Cochin, on Monday. The protests will be held from 10am to 5pm, Vijayan said.

He said that a close examination of the judgment had revealed that the high court had exceeded its limits. The judgment creates an impression that the court was trying to suppress people’s protests against injustices.

He said that the verdict also showed that the court was prejudiced against Jayarajan. The judges had first pronounced rigourous imprisonment but later changed it to simple imprisonment after finding that the law had no provision to award rigourous imprisonment in contempt of court cases.

Vijayan pointed out that the judges had also called Jayarajan a ‘worm’ in their verdict. “Calling people worms was highly improper in a democratic set up. The court should remember that the people are supreme in democracy,” he added.

The CPM politburo member pointed out that the division bench verdict in the contempt of court case had deviated from the essence of democracy and the basic principles of the constitution.

He clarified that the party’s struggle was not against the judiciary. “We are not against the judiciary. It is the only forum available to the people to seek protection from the excesses of the executive,” he added.

The CPM leader said that the party will also continue its legal battle against the high court verdict. He said that the party had taken steps to file an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the Bharatiya Janata Party came out openly in support of Jayarajan. Party state president V Muralidharan said the high court verdict had given rise to a feeling that the court had acted in a vengeful manner against the CPM leader. Rejection of Jayarajan’s plea for suspension of the verdict to file an appeal in the apex court has strengthened this feeling among the general public.

Read more...

Sale of mortgaged property must be transparent : Bombay H.C.

The Bombay high court has set aside the order of the Mumbai Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in the sale of the Mysore unit of Jay Electric Wire Corporation, now closed, and asked the recovery officer to issue public advertisements inviting fresh bids. The earlier sale was challenged by the employees’ union, Central Bank of India and Standard Chartered Bank, who were secured creditors. According to them, the sale did not fetch fair market value and was vitiated by irregularities. Allowing their writ petitions, the court observed that “it is necessary that the sale process must be conducted with transparency and in accordance with law. In the present case, we find that the element of transparency was completely lacking. The grounds which weighed with the appellate tribunal are misconceived. Its conclusion that there was no material irregularity is specious.”

Read more...

Easier bail for evaders of customs, excise duty

The Supreme Court has ruled that offenses under the Customs Act and the Central Excise Act are non-cognisable and bailable. In non-cognisable offenses, the police have no authority to arrest a person without warrant. The central government argued in the case of Choith Harchandani vs Union of India, that the offenders under these two laws were not entitled to bail, quoting the Criminal Procedure Code. The court rejected the government’s arguments and allowed the appeals of the alleged offenders about arrest and bail. There were several appeals from high courts in excise and customs cases. All the offenders under these two laws were ordered to be released.

Read more...

Repacking gas attracts excise duty

Buying gas in bulk from market and repacking them in smaller cylinders after tests and giving different grades to it to be sold in open market would attract excise duty, the Supreme Court stated while dismissing the appeal of the manufacturer in the case, Air Liquide North India Ltd vs Commissioner. The company supplied helium gas to customers according to the specifications of its customers. It bought gas by its generic name and after tests and analysis sold them to different customers based on their specific requirements at a profit margin. The process was not revealed by the company as it claimed that it was its “trade secret”. The court held that the process of tests and categorization gave the gas different marketability and amounted to manufacture, attracting duty.

Read more...

Pay excise duty on laminated particle board : SC

The Supreme Court last week ruled that manufacturers of laminated particle board will be liable to pay a higher excise duty as after processing, the product becomes a distinct marketable commodity different from the original one. The panels, after lamination, become water resistant, scratch resistant and look attractive due to printed design paper. 

Read more...

Asked action for questionable probe in murder case

Additional sessions judge N K Kaushik has asked Delhi Police commissioner to take action against R R Khatana, for conducting a questionable probe into a murder leading to the acquittal of all three accused. The judge said that inspector had tried to "raise unnecessary dust just to cause utter confusion and hide the truth". Noting that there was a string of lapses in the probe conducted by Khatana in the murder of west Delhi resident Hitender Singh, the court said, "It appears the inspector made it a point, in a calculated manner, may be in collusion with the accused, to ensure the failure of the prosecution's case during investigation itself."

While acquitting the murder accused in the case - Darshan Dabas, Navin Deshwal and Manish Lakra - the court held the inspector responsible for weakening the case and referred the matter to the police commissioner. "A copy of the judgment be sent to the police commissioner to take appropriate action against the delinquent investigating officer (Khatana) for not collecting cogent and requisite evidence in the matter, as per law, to get the offenders of such heinous offence punished," the judge said while also seeking a compliance report of its order from police.

The case dates back to November 10, 2008, when Nazafgarh resident Singh was found dead in his car parked near a banquet hall. Lying in a pool of blood, the man had sustained several bullet injuries. The police had also found the window-pane of the car's front door shattered and the driver's seat soaked in blood. A live cartridge and a shell were also found in the car besides a broken baseball bat stained with blood.

The prosecution had listed 47 witnesses to bolster its case but the public prosecutor later dropped several of them, saying their deposition was irrelevant. During the trial all witnesses including the parents, brothers and the wife of the deceased had turned hostile.

Read more...

Only actual damages to Air Crash sufferers

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, on Thursday, set aside a single judge's verdict holding that Air India Ltd. was bound to pay a minimum compensation of one lakh Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), equivalent to Rs.75 lakh, each to the legal heirs of those killed in the Mangalore air crash on May 22, 2010. (The SDRs are supplementary foreign exchange reserve assets defined and maintained by the International Monetary Fund.)

The Bench, comprising Justice C.N. Ramachandran Nair and Justice P.S. Gopinathan, while setting aside the judgment, observed that the third schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, incorporating the Montreal Convention, did not provide for any minimum compensation for death of, or injury to, an air passenger. The court, however, observed that the carrier was liable to pay the actual damages proved by the claimants in the case of death or injuries. The liability so payable could be determined through negotiated settlements or in a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

The Bench felt that the air carrier, as a matter of good will, should offer a reasonable minimum compensation if the actual damages payable in law were low, so that unnecessary litigation could be avoided. In fact, the air carrier could pay damages up to Rs.75 lakh to the claimants on proving negligence on the part of the carrier
The court said if no settlement was possible, the actual damages payable had to be claimed and proved by the injured or the legal heirs of the deceased in a civil court.

The single judge's verdict came on a writ petition filed by the parents of B. Mohammed Rafi, 24, of Kasaragod, who was killed in the air crash. They sought a compensation of a minimum of one lakh SDRs based on the Montreal Convention.  Allowing an appeal filed by Air India, the Division Bench observed that compensation had to be claimed by the kin of the air crash-victims based on sound provisions of the law of tort and determinants of compensation, such as age, income status, loss of dependants, and other relevant factors.

Air India said a total compensation of Rs.50 crore had been paid to the legal heirs of 62 persons killed in the cash and the six injured. The highest compensation of Rs.7.757 crore had been paid to the legal heirs of a cardiologist who was killed in the crash. The average compensation paid was Rs.80 lakh. Negotiations were on with the legal heirs of other victims. The airline said the petitioners had been paid Rs.20 lakh. During negotiations, they were offered a settlement of Rs.35 lakh. However, they refused to take the offer. As many as 158 people were killed when an Air India Express plane from Dubai plunged over a cliff into a wooded valley.

Read more...

Government has no power to suspend screening of a film cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification

The Supreme Court of India held that the government had no power to suspend screening of a film that had been cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification. The CBFC, or censor board, is an empowered regulatory body constituted to view, rate, and censor objectionable portions of a film prior to its release. In coming down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government order suspending the screening of the Hindi film Aarakshan, which deals with issues of caste and reservation, the Supreme Court of India has struck another blow for freedom of expression and against the tendency of the state to resort to censorship at the first sign of political protest.

To seek to ban or suspend the screening of a film certified by the censor board under the procedure established by law (in this case, the Cinematograph Act 1952) goes against the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution and is a threat to democratic dissent and artistic creativity. Hearteningly, the court found no merit in the contention that screening the film would cause a breach of peace and law and order. Besides pointing to the fact that the film had been released without difficulty in other parts of the country, the judges referred to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in the 1989 Ore oru gramathile case and ruled that it was for the state to maintain law and order and that “it shall maintain law and order effectively and meaningfully.” No democratic society can allow unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of expression under cover of maintaining public order.

As for the merits of the contention that a high-level committee appointed by the Uttar Pradesh government had recommended suspension of the film on the ground that it dealt with the sensitive issue of reservation, the Supreme Court was categorical that public discussion on such social issues was necessary in a vibrant democracy, and that informed decisions could be taken on the basis of such discussion and dissent. On the other hand, shutting out discussion on sensitive social issues, far from aiding public order, would have the effect of deepening social divides and breeding public unrest. Political stability and public order, it is clear, cannot be bought at the cost of freedom of expression and right to dissent. Successive Supreme Court rulings on the issue, which draw force from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, should deter governments from going down this road again under pressure from organised groups or special interests or for any other reason. The Hindu hopes that Aarakshan will be the last film to face a ban in India.

Read more...