Demand for Tamil as official court language not illegal: Madras High Court allows Madurai lawyer to go on fast till demand is met
- News
- Columns
- Interviews
- Law Firms
- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
- हिंदी
- ಕನ್ನಡ
Demand for Tamil as official court language not illegal: Madras High Court allows Madurai lawyer to go on fast till demand is met
The Court allowed the lawyer to sit on an indefinite fast at the Rajarathinam Stadium in Egmore on the condition that there would be no law and order problems or instances of violence due to such fast.
Madras High Court and Tamil
Published on:
20 Feb 2024, 8:54 pm
2 min read
The Madras High Court recently observed that there was nothing illegal about the demand to make Tamil the official language for all communication and pleadings before the High Court.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh permitted a lawyer to go on an ‘indefinite fast’ from February 24 till such demand is met.
The Court directed the Chennai Police Commissioner to permit lawyer G Bhagavath Singh to sit on an indefinite fast at the Rajarathinam Stadium in Egmore on the condition that there would be no law and order problems or instances of violence due to such fast.
“The petitioner wants to express himself strongly demanding Tamil to be used as official language in the proceedings in the High Court. There is nothing illegal in this objective. Hence, permission can be granted subject to the following conditions,” Justice Venkatesh said.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh
The judge accepted Singh’s submission that around 25 people were likely to participate in the fast and that the participants will not create any law and order problems.
Justice Venkatesh further directed Singh to file an affidavit undertaking that he will “not initiate violence while organising meetings in connection with his indefinite fasting and he should co-operate with the police to ensure law and order.”
Advocate R Sankarasubbu appeared for the petitioner, Bhagavath Singh.
Government Advocate A Gopinath appeared for the respondent Chennai police commissioner.
Previously, another bench presided over by Justice G Jayachandran had asked Singh to show he had a right to go on such a fast. At the time, Justice Jayachandran had also said that the Court could “never endorse any life threatening” agitation, and that if the lawyers were really keen on making Tamil the official language of the Court, they should think of productive ways to realise their wish.
[Read Order]
Attachment
G Bhagavath Singh vs The Commissioner.pdf
Kerala High Court stays Magistrate court summons to WhatsApp India representative over first originator info
The Court was hearing a petition filed by WhatsApp challenging the said order of the Magistrate Court issued on November 20, 2023 under Rule 4(2) of the IT Rules 2021.
Kerala High Court and WhatsApp
Published on:
20 Feb 2024, 9:56 pm
2 min read
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday stayed a lower court order summoning WhatsApp’s India representative to provide information regarding the first originator of certain messages in relation to a complaint filed by a woman-politician.
The woman had alleged that the messages outraged her modesty and tarnished her image as a politician.
The High Court was hearing a petition filed by WhatsApp challenging the said order of the Magistrate Court issued on November 20, 2023 under Rule 4(2) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines & Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021(IT Rules 2021).
Besides challenging the order, WhatsApp also said that Rule 4(2) should be struck down as unconstitutional on several grounds.
Rule 4(2) mandates that a significant social media intermediary which provides messaging service must trace the identity of the first originator of a message pursuant to a court order.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas accepted the contention of WhatsApp that since the offence alleged is punishable only punishable with less than 5 years in jail, Rule 4(2) cannot be invoked.
Therefore, the High Court stayed the Magistrate Court order.
In the plea, WhatsApp argued that Rule 4(2) violates fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, is ultra vires the Information Technology Act, and manifestly arbitrary in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The plea highlighted that challenge to the IT Rules is already pending before various High Courts including the Delhi High Court where WhatsApp itself has challenged the same.
Hence, the Magistrate should not have issued the order, it was contended.
Further, it was claimed that even if the order were valid, it would still be unconstitutional and raise significant legal questions.
WhatsApp was represented by advocates Tejas Karia, Swati Agarwal, Shashank Mishra, Akshi Rastogi, Thomas P Kuruvilla and P Prijith.
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
Supreme Court urges Uttar Pradesh to devise policy to ensure government lawyers are paid fees on time
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said that forcing State lawyers to move courts for their dues was not desirable and will discourage talented lawyers from appearing for the State.
Uttar Pradesh and Supreme Court
Published on:
20 Feb 2024, 8:40 pm
2 min read
The Supreme Court recently called on the Uttar Pradesh government to devise a cogent policy towards paying government lawyers on time so that they do not have to resort to litigation [State of Uttar Pradesh and ors vs Gopal K Verma].
In an order passed on February 12, a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said that forcing State lawyers to move courts for their dues was not desirable and will discourage talented lawyers from appearing for the State.
“If this scenario of creating a situation where the advocate is compelled to approach the Court of law to recover fees from the State of Uttar Pradesh continues, it will discourage the talented Members of the Bar from appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh. We, therefore, hope and trust that a proper and rational policy is effectively implemented so that the fees of the Advocates representing the State will be paid promptly and within a reasonable time,” the bench stated.
Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The observations were made while hearing two appeals filed by the State government against Allahabad High Court orders that had directed the release of payments to lawyers along with interest.
The Supreme Court used its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to reduce the interest amounts of ₹1.16 lakh and ₹4.91 lakh, to lumpsum amounts of ₹50,000 and ₹3 lakh respectively.
The payments have to be made within six weeks failing which they would invite 8 per cent interest per annum from the date of the top court’s order.
The appeals were, accordingly, disposed of.
Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad with advocates Pradeep Misra, Daleep Dhyani, Suraj Singh, Manoj Kumar Sharma and Bhuwan Chandra appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Advocates Jayant Mohan, Aarohi Bhalla, Adya Shree Dutta, Somesh Chandra Jha, Pyoli, Ejaz M Qureshi and Shreay Saini appeared for the original petitioners (lawyers) before the High Court.
[Read Order]
Attachment
State of Uttar Pradesh and ors vs Gopal K Verma.pdf
Supreme Court says Apple cannot be expected to trace stolen iPhone using unique identity number
The Court expunged an observation made by an Odisha consumer forum that Apple’s failure to trace a stolen iPhone amounted to deficiency of service.
Apple iPhone
Published on:
20 Feb 2024, 8:35 pm
2 min read
The Supreme Court recently expunged an observation made in an Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order that it is the duty of Apple to trace stolen iPhones. (Apple India Private Limited v. Harish Chandra Mohanty and anr)
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma termed such a remark unwarranted.
“We feel that the said observations were not warranted. Accordingly, we direct that paragraph 14 shall stand obliterated from the order dated 26th November, 2020 of the State Commission. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.”
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Apple India against a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) order passed in a complaint filed over a stolen iPhone.
The complainant had bought an iPhone with insurance that included coverage for theft. However, after filing of a criminal complaint once his phone was stolen, Apple allegedly did not pay heed to the same in terms of compensation.
A district consumer court directed Apple to refund the cost of the iPhone, along with costs of ₹45,000.
The same was upheld by the state consumer forum, which noted:
“It is clear that on receipt of complain from complainant, it was the duty of O.P. No. 2 to take proper steps to trace the stolen mobile. O.P. No. 2 failed to take immediate steps even after receipt of relevant documents from complainant. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part O.P. No. 2. It was the responsibility of O.P. No. 2 to trace the stolen iPhone with the help of unique identity number provided by O.P. No. 2 specifically for the purpose of stealing missing and damage caused to iPhone.”
The NCDRC confirmed the said order, leading to the instant appeal.
After noting that the complainant was adequately compensated for the loss of the iPhone, the Court disposed of the appeal.
Senior Advocate Rajshekar Rao with Advocates TVS Raghavendra Sreyas, Munish Mehra, Riddima Sharma and Siddharth Vasudev represented Apple India.
Advocates Anirudh Sanganeria and Siddharth Sinha appeared for the original complainant.
[Read order]
Attachment
Apple India Private Limited vs Harish Chandra Mohanty and anr.pdf
Delhi High Court rejects plea by Shibu Soren to quash Lokpal proceedings against him
The Court held that there is nothing wrong with the approach adopted by the Lokpal and the single-judge’s order rejecting Soren’s case.
JMM chief Shibu SorenTwitter
Published on:
20 Feb 2024, 7:35 pm
3 min read
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal filed by former Jharkhand Chief Minister and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) patriarch Shibu Soren to quash the Lokpal proceedings against him in a case related to alleged accumulation of disproportionate assets [Shibu Soren v Lokpal of India & Anr].
A division bench of Justices Rekha Palli and Rajnish Bhatnagar rejected Soren’s plea challenging a single-judge order.
The bench said that the Lokpal is yet to decide whether a prima facie case exists against Soren for ordering investigation.
It said that from the allegations of corruption levelled by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey against Soren, it is evident that the complaint pertains not only to purchase of properties bought more than seven years ago but also to ongoing incidents of amassing wealth by misuse of power.
“In the light of these allegations, we are unable to accept the appellant’s [Soren] plea that it was a fit case where the respondent no. 1 [Lokpal] ought to have at the very first instance rejected the complaint as being barred by limitation. In fact, as held hereinabove, the respondent no. 1 is yet to take a decision as to whether or not a prima facie case exists for directing investigation against the appellant by any agency including the Delhi Special Police Establishment [CBI],” the Court observed.
It concluded that there is no infirmity in the approach adopted by the Lokpal.
“For the aforesaid reasons, we find absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order, holding that the writ petition filed by the appellant was premature. The appeal being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed with all accompanying applications,” the Court ordered.
Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar
Soren, who is now a Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament (MP), approached the Court challenging the proceedings before the Lokpal and its order dated August 4, 2022, through which proceedings were directed to be initiated to determine whether a prima facie case exists to proceed further against him.
The allegations against the former Chief Minister are that he amassed huge wealth, properties and assets by adopting unscrupulous and corrupt means in the State of Jharkhand over a period of more than ten years.
The assets, it is alleged, are not only in his own name but even in the names of his family members including sons, daughters, daughter-in-law, friends and various companies in various districts of Jharkhand such as Ranchi, Dhanbad and Dumka etc.
The JMM patriarch has termed the allegations and the complaint mischievous, false, frivolous and motivated and a rambling yarn spun by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey.
According to his plea, the proceedings before the Lokpal were initiated pursuant to a complaint dated August 5, 2020, and that although the CBI commenced a preliminary enquiry sometime in July 2021 against him, his wife and children, no copy of the complaint was provided to Soren till the end of February 2022.
In an order dated January 22, 2024, a single-judge had held that Soren’s plea was premature as the Lokpal was yet to apply its mind to the information provided by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and decide whether an investigation is necessary or not.
The single-judge rejected the argument that the complaint filed against Soren’s client was completely motivated and Lokpal would invariably order investigation.
This led to the appeal before the division bench.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Arunabh Chowdhury along with advocates Pragya Baghel, Vaibhav Tomar, Aparajita Jamwal and Aditya Bharadwaj appeared for Shibu Soren.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta along with advocates Apoorv Kurup, Gauri Goburdhan, Nidhi Mittal, Muskaan Gupta and Akhil Hasija represented Lokpal.
Senior Advocate Atmaram NS Nadkarni along with advocates Rishi K Awasthi, Piyush Vatsa, Amit Vikram Awasthi and Rahul Kumar Gutpa represented complainant Nishikant Dubey.
[Read Judgment]
Attachment
Shibu Soren v Lokpal of India & Anr.pdf
Follow Us
- News⌄
- Interviews⌄
- Columns⌄
- Others⌄
- Law Firms⌄
Copyright © 2021 Bar and Bench. All Rights Reserved
Bar And Bench – Indian Legal News
www.barandbench.comINSTALL APPhttps://accounts.google.com/gsi/iframe/select?client_id=230504701095-fdufhq2faccpl16s79h58r0j1ttoarf0.apps.googleusercontent.com&ux_mode=popup&ui_mode=bottom_sheet&as=M0zadWvM4uGDGUijjsIB6w&channel_id=759c6f348f472a092b96e5cec14ceb8a55e4a69472ad25fd20b5791e3f7d4a4e&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.barandbench.com
