Legal Update as on 03.11.2022

legal-updates
  1. KERALA HC – TAKING DNA SAMPLES OF THE RAPE ACCUSED DOES NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION – The Kerala High Court ruled that an accused person’s right to be protected from being compelled to provide a blood sample during a criminal inquiry is not covered by Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.
    DAS @ ANU V. STATE OF KERALA

 

  1. BOMBAY HC – IF BIOLOGICAL PARENTS ARE ALIVE, THE CHILD RAISED IN AN ORPHANAGE CANNOT BE DECLARED ORPHAN – According to the Bombay High Court, if a child’s original parents are still living, even if they were raised in an orphanage, they cannot be declared orphans as defined under Section 2(42) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
    THE NEST INDIA FOUNDATION VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

 

  1. DEL HC: UNLESS ARBITRARY, COURTS SHOULD NOT GET INVOLVED IN DETERMINING WHETHER OFFICE BEARERS’ SALARY SHOULD BE INCREASED. – According to the Delhi High Court, courts should avoid intervening with the State’s policy decisions regarding salary increases for Commission office holders unless those decisions are deemed to be clearly arbitrary or unjustified.
    ZAFARUL ISLAM KHAN v. GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS.

 

  1. SC – ‘BRIBE GIVER’ CAN BE PROSECUTED UNDER PMLA IF PARTY TO ‘PROCEEDS OF CRIME’ -According to the Supreme Court, anyone who gives money with the purpose to bribe someone else is knowingly participating in or assisting in an activity that involves the proceeds of crime and is as a result covered by Section 3 of the PMLA.
    DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT VS PADMANABHAN KISHORE

 

  1. SC: A PARTY CANNOT SEEK ADVANTAGE UNDER THE MSMED ACT IF SUCH PARTY WAS NOT A SUPPLIER ON THE DATE OF THE CONTRACT. – According to the Supreme Court, a person who was not a “supplier” at the time the contract was signed cannot claim benefits under the MSMED Act, 2006, and any registration received thereafter will have an effect prospectively.
    GUJARAT STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION VS MAHAKALI FOODS PVT. LTD.

 

  1. KER HC – THE KERALA HIGH COURT REVOKES THE JUDGE’S TRANSFER ORDER AFTER HIS REMARKS ON HIS “SEXUALLY PROVOCATIVE DRESS” – The ruling for the transfer of Kozhikode Principal District & Sessions Judge, S. Krishnakumar, who made the controversial statement about Civic Chandran’s “sexually provocative clothing,” has been set-aside by the Kerala High Court.
    KRISHNAKUMAR V. STATE OF KERALA & ORS

 

  1. MADRAS HC – FAILURE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINTS AGAINST GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL – While criticizing public authorities for taking too long to respond to citizen complaints about government personnel, the Madras High Court concluded that if public authorities did not act on concerns, people would lose “confidence” in them.
    S MUKANCHAND BOTHRA (DIED) AND ANOTHER V. THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS

 

  1. SC – U/SEC 319 CRPC’s discretionary and extraordinary powers should only be used sparingly. – The Supreme Court has stated that the power granted by Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a discretionary and extraordinary one that should only be used when the facts of the case warrant it.
    NAVEEN VS STATE OF HARYANA

Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this blog post is for general information and educational purposes only. Nothing contained in this blog post should be construed as legal advice from The Aran Law Firm or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter.

Tags :

Share This:

Legal Updates