LiveLaw Daily | Kapil Sibal| CJP Protest| Shiv Sena Merger| Prathap Simha | Delhi Police Violence

[00:00:00][music] >> Hello and welcome to Live Law Daily. I'm your host Debojit Das and today, July 22nd, is observed as National Flag Day, a day meant to celebrate the very constitution the flag represents. But while citizens across the country struggle to get their voices heard today, the courts had their own eventful day dealing with a wide variety of issues. So, let's get into it.

[00:00:29]Our first story today comes in the aftermath of Sunday's police action against students marching towards Parliament over the alleged NEET paper leak. The incident has now drawn a sharp response not just from political leaders and civil society, but from the country's legal fraternity itself. More than 650 lawyers, including senior advocates Indira Jaising, Gopal Subramaniam, Raju Ramachandran, Sanjay Hegde, Rebecca John, Huzaifa Ahmadi, Siddharth Luthra, and Prashant Bhushan have issued a joint statement condemning the alleged use of force by the Delhi police against protesters at Jantar Mantar. Calling the incident unacceptable, the lawyers said that students seeking accountability were met with violence instead of dialogue. They described the police action as an attack on the constitutional values of free expression, human dignity, and the right to dissent and expressed solidarity with those who were, in their words, harmed, intimidated, and traumatized during the crackdown. The statement makes another significant point. It says that Parliament is not an ivory tower beyond the reach of its citizens. And that peaceful demands for accountability from young people should be met with respect, not force. The signatories have called for those responsible for any excessive use of force to be held accountable and urged the government and constitutional institutions to ensure the safety of peaceful protesters. A similar message from the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association has also been received. In a resolution passed on Tuesday, the Supreme Court Bar Association strongly criticized what it described as the brutal lathi charge on peaceful students, noting that members of the legal fraternity, including Supreme Court Bar Association members, were also injured. It has demanded an immediate, impartial, and time-bound inquiry into the incident and called for action against those found responsible for the alleged use of excessive force.

[00:02:17]>> [music] >> Our second story today concerns the anti-defection law and a constitutional challenge that could have significant implications for how political parties function in Parliament and state legislatures. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal has approached the Supreme Court in his personal capacity, questioning the current interpretation of the 10th Schedule that allows legislators to avoid disqualification by taking the route of a political party merger.

[00:02:44]Mentioning the matter before Chief Justice of India Suryakant for urgent listing, Sibal argued that the composition of Parliament cannot be allowed to change in the manner it has in recent years through what are described as mergers under paragraph four of the 10th Schedule. According to him, the present interpretation enables breakaway groups to escape the anti-defection law by engineering mergers with other political parties.

[00:03:07]Sibal also pointed out that similar issues are already pending before the Supreme Court. In particular, he referred to the Shiv Sena led by Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray and his petition challenging the Lok Sabha speaker's decision recognizing the merger of six of its members of Parliament with the Eknath Shinde led Shiv Sena faction. He also referred to the pending Congress challenge against a Bombay High Court judgment concerning the merger of legislators in Goa. Taking note of the request, the Chief Justice agreed to list Sibal's petition the same day. The plea comes amid a series of recent defections and mergers involving legislators from the Aam Aadmi Party, the Trinamool Congress, and the Shiv Sena, raising fresh questions over whether the merger provision under the 10th Schedule is being used to defeat the very purpose of the anti-defection law.

[00:03:56]And our third story today concerns the fallout from the Delhi police action against student protesters marching towards Parliament over the alleged NEET paper leak. The issue was first mentioned before the Chief Justice of India Suriya Kant. A lawyer had sought an urgent hearing saying the protests raised serious concerns about the conduct of NEET and the functioning of the National Testing Agency. The Chief Justice, however, declined to entertain the oral mentioning remarking, "Don't waste our time and don't waste your time." When the lawyer referred to videos allegedly showing police excessive of violence, the Chief Justice of India responded that the court was not interested in videos and did not have time to watch them. The issue then came up before the Delhi High Court where several petitions alleging excessive use of force by the Delhi police were taken up for hearing. Senior advocate N. Hariharan argued that this was not a case of ordinary policing alleging that protesters were assaulted using lathis fitted with nails, pellets, and electric batons. Senior advocate Vikas Singh submitted that the protests had remained peaceful for nearly 20 days and that violence erupted only on the 20th day. Senior advocate Gopal Shankar Narayanan told the court that his team had examined around 130 videos alleging that one showed a senior police officer slapping a woman protester who was not resisting. Opposing the petitions, additional solicitor general S.V. Raju argued that the petitioners had bypassed the statutory remedies under the law. He submitted that none of the alleged victims had approached a magistrate under section 156 subsection 3 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita or filed complaints of their own. He further argued that prohibitory orders under section 163 had already been promulgated before the march and described the petitions as being based largely on social media recordings which could be manipulated. Calling them publicity petitions filed with an ulterior motive, he argued that the petitioners were attempting to hog the limelight. The High Court, however, questioned whether the allegations could simply be treated as isolated incidents.

[00:05:51]Referring to the Supreme Court's judgments in the Ramlila Maidan and Anita Thakur cases, the bench observed that where allegations suggest a larger pattern of police excessive violence, a public interest litigation may be maintainable without requiring every individual victim to first pursue separate legal proceedings. The court has now directed the Delhi Police and the Union Government to file their responses within 4 weeks, ordered that all CCTV footage and videography related to the incident be preserved, and listed the matter for further hearing on September 11th.

[00:06:25]Our next story today comes from the Calcutta High Court, which has held that while an Aadhaar card is not conclusive proof of ownership or residence, it can serve as prima facie evidence of occupation for the purpose of protection under the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act of 1971. A division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya was hearing an appeal by residents facing demolition of quarters owned by the Shyam Prasad Mukherjee Port in Kolkata. The port authorities argued that the occupants had no legal right to remain there, and that the buildings were in a dangerous condition. The High Court disagreed with the manner in which the authorities proceeded. It held that even if occupants were unauthorized, the port could not bypass the mandatory procedure under the Public Premises Act.

[00:07:10]The court said Aadhaar cards, along with documents like voter IDs and gas connection bills, were sufficient to establish prima facie occupation, entitling the residents to statutory safeguards before eviction. Calling the demolition [clears throat] drive unlawful, the bench restrained the port authorities from carrying out any eviction or demolition without first issuing notices, granting a hearing, and following the procedure laid down under sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The court also clarified that if the buildings are structurally unsafe, action must be taken under the applicable municipal laws, not under the public premises act.

[00:07:49]And our fifth story today concerns the continuing legal battle over the split in the Shiv Sena. This time over the merger of the members of parliament in the Lok Sabha. The Supreme Court today issued notice to the Lok Sabha speaker on a petition filed by Shiv Sena faction led by Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray.

[00:08:04]Member of Parliament Arvind Sawant challenged the speaker's decision recognizing the merger of six of their members of parliament with the Eknath Shinde led Shiv Sena. However, the court declined to grant any interim stay on the speaker's decision. Appearing for the Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray faction, senior advocate Devdutt Kamat argued that no disqualification proceedings were pending before the speaker, and therefore there was no occasion to recognize a merger. Referring to the Supreme Court's earlier judgment in the Subhash Desai case, he submitted that the issue raised important questions of constitutional morality and parliamentary democracy. Kamat also pointed out that the merger order was signed by a joint secretary instead of the Lok Sabha speaker himself. Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the Eknath Shinde faction, opposed the plea. After hearing both the sides, the bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice to the Lok Sabha speaker, but refused to stay the merger at this stage. The matter will now be taken up again after 2 weeks.

[00:09:02]>> [music] >> Our next story today concerns a challenge to the center's revised passport fee structure, which came into effect earlier this month. The Delhi High Court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by the Pravasi Legal Cell, which argues that the revised passport rules impose an unfair financial burden, particularly on non-resident Indians, migrant workers, and overseas Indian citizens. According to the petition, passport fees for overseas applicants have increased far more steeply than those for applicants residing in India. During the hearing, the division bench of Chief Justice B.K.

[00:09:37]Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Kalia questioned whether the issue should be taken up first by the government. The bench orally remarked, "Considering the rate of inflation today, you find this fee to be excessively high. Please represent your cause to the ministry concerned." Instead of examining the constitutional challenge on merits, the court directed the Ministry of External Affairs to treat the public interest litigation as a representation and take a decision in accordance with law, preferably within 3 months. It also directed that the decision to the petitioner before disposing of the case. For context, fee for an ordinary 36-page passport has been increased from 1,500 rupees to 2,500 rupees for resident Indians, whereas the same has been increased from 75 US dollars, which is approximately 7,165 rupees, to 125 US dollars, which is approximately 11,942 rupees for overseas Indians. The petition contends that the revised fee structure is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

[00:10:36]Arguing that passports are essential statutory documents and that the sharp increase disproportionately affects Indians working overseas, especially blue-collar migrant workers.

[00:10:50]Our seventh story today comes from the Calcutta High Court, which has overturned the acquittal of a husband and four of his relatives in a 2006 murder case, holding that the trial court committed a fundamental error in rejecting the testimony of the couple's minor son. According to the prosecution, the child had witnessed his father assault his mother, forcibly administer poison to her, and saw other family members participate in the incident. The trial court had acquitted the accused doubting the child's version. The High Court found that approach to be legally unsustainable. It noted that the postmortem report recorded multiple bruises, abrasions, and other injuries that corroborated the child's account, and held that the trial court had misread the medical evidence. The bench also rejected the argument that the child had been tutored, observing that the minor inconsistencies were natural and did not affect the core of his testimony. Importantly, the court observed that a child who witnesses the murder of his mother is not merely a witness, but a victim himself, and that his evidence must be appreciated in the context of the trauma he has endured. A division bench of the Calcutta High Court consequently convicted the husband and four relatives for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to rigorous life imprisonment for 24 years.

[00:12:03]The husband was also convicted under Section 498A for subjecting his wife to cruelty.

[00:12:13]Our next story today concerns a public interest litigation challenging the proposed inclusion of the human papillomavirus or HPV vaccine in the universal immunization program. The Delhi High Court today issued notice to the Central Government and the Indian Council of Medical Research on a petition which alleges that the proposed vaccination drive is being implemented without adequate safeguards for informed parental consent. The public interest litigation filed by Dr. Sujata Mittal contends that the program targets adolescent girls through schools and public health systems and raises concerns about bodily autonomy, informed consent, and personal liberty under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

[00:12:51]It also refers to instances of alleged adverse medical complications following HPV vaccination and questions the scientific basis and safety monitoring of the proposed nationwide rollout.

[00:13:02]Taking note of the issues raised, the division bench of Chief Justice D.K.

[00:13:05]Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia described the matter as important, issued notice to the Union Government and the ICMR, and requested Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma to assist the court. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on Friday.

[00:13:23]And our final story today comes from Bengaluru, where a civil court has restrained the publication and circulation of a book concerning former BJP Member of Parliament Pratap Simha.

[00:13:32]The suit was filed by Simha against the author, the publisher, and others over a Kannada book titled Kattale Jagattu, which he alleges was deliberately designed to imitate the title of his own book while containing false and defamatory allegations against him.

[00:13:47]According to the suit, the book uses Simha's photograph on its cover and includes allegations relating to fraud, political disloyalty, and his personal life. Simha argued that the publication violated his right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the freedom of speech does not include a right to defame another person. After considering the matter, the court of the First Additional Civil Judge of Bengaluru Rural refused to vacate an earlier interim order and restrained the defendants from publishing, printing, circulating, selling, advertising, or otherwise disseminating the book or any material containing the alleged defamatory statements against the former Member of Parliament. The matter has now been posted for further proceedings on August 25th, when the court will frame the issues for trial.

[00:14:35]And that brings us to the end of today's Live Law Daily episode. If any of these stories caught your attention, you can read the full reports through the links in the description box below. For the latest updates from the Supreme Court, High Courts, and across the legal landscape, head over to livelaw.in.

[00:14:49]Thank you for listening. We'll be back tomorrow with more legal news. Until then, keep following Live Law to stay updated with everything that is law.