A Bengaluru Court on Tuesday has sent the Actor and social activist Chetan Kumar was sent to 14-day judicial custody by a Bengaluru Court on Tuesday for the offence of hurting religious sentiments.

The Additional Metropolitan Magistrate J Latha heard the bail application of Chetan bail application before adjourning it for March 23.

An FIR was registered at Seshadripur police station for offence under Section 295A (outraging religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code based on a complaint filed by one Shivakumar of Bangalore.

The police arrested Chetan in the morning and produced him before the magistrate after which he was sent to judicial custody.

The complaint referred to tweets by Chetan which said that “Hindutva is built on lies”. Other tweets of his discussed concerns “for the most marginalised and selfless courage displayed in Mahad Satyagraha”

The complainant said that Chetan has hurt religious sentiments of majority of Hindus, created enmity between castes and instigated communal riots.

The actor was booked last year under the Indian Penal Code for posting a tweet about Justice Krishna Dixit of the Karnataka High Court when he was part of the bench hearing the hijab ban matter.

In his tweet Chetan ha said that Justice Dixit, who had made disturbing comments in a rape case, is now determining whether hijabs are acceptable in government schools, and questioned whether he has the clarity to do so.

Chetan was later granted bail in the case.

Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay has filed a PIL in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Union Home Ministry to set up a Renaming Commission for finding out the original names of ‘ancient historical, cultural and religious places’, which had been renamed after foreign invaders, in order to maintain the sovereignty of the country, besides securing the right to dignity, religion and culture guaranteed under Articles 21, 25 and 29 of the Constitution.

The petitioner, while citing names of hundreds of such cities, further sought directions to the Archaeological Survey of India for conducting a research and publishing the initial names of ancient historical cultural religious places, which were renamed by barbaric foreign invaders, in order to secure the ‘right to know’ guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.

The plea contended that the country was celebrating its 75th anniversary of independence, but it still had historical, cultural and religious places named after brutal foreign invaders, their servants and family members.

As per the plea, the invaders had renamed general places, but what was worth noting was that even after completing 75 years, the country was still stuck on those names, which was against the sovereignty, right to dignity, right to religion and right to culture guaranteed under Articles 21, 25 and 29 of the Constitution.

The plea however mentions that the governments has not taken steps to undo the names and remove the injury inflicted.

The plea stated that the reason for change of the name in the Mughal Garden at Rashtrapati Bhawan as ‘Amrit Udyan’ is a great step forward but this is a lone example, the government did nothing to rename the roads named after invaders like Babur Road, Humayun Road, Akbar Road, Jahangir Road, Shahjahan Road, Bahadur Shah Road, Sher Shah Road, Aurangzeb Road, Tughlak Road, Safdarjung Road, Najaf Khan Road, Jauhar Road, Lodhi Road, Chelmsford Road and Hailey Road etc which holds the  residences of the Cabinet Ministers, Senior civil servants,Parliamentarians and the Judges, who are custodian of the Constitution of India and protector of fundamental rights.

Talking about the name game,the plea stated that the citizens feel odd that when ‘Pandavas’ with the blessings of Lord Krishna and Balram, converted deserted land into Indraprastha (Delhi) why is there not a single one road, municipal ward, village or assembly constituency in the name of Lord Krishna, Balram, Yudhishthira, Bheema, Arjun, Nakul, Sehdev, Kunti, Draupadi and Abhimanyu.

It is strange to note that on the other hand there are roads, municipal wards, village and constituencies in the name of jnvaders to cane to India.

The petitioner submitted that the It was also in the plea that the name of Nalanda Vihar was named after conversion missionary Sharifuddin Ahmed and called ‘Bihar Sharif’.

The historical city of Karnawati was rechristened after Ahmad Shah and called ‘Ahmedabad’.

The historical Ajatshatru Nagar was named after the barbaric Begu and called ‘Begusarai’.

The Cultural city of dwar Banga which meant a door to Banga was renamed after the cruel ‘Darbhang Khan’ and called ‘Darbhanga’.

The very city ‘Haripur’ (a name of Vishnu)was named after the vicious ‘Haji Shamsuddin Shah’ and called ‘Hajipur’.

The city of Jamalpur was named on a conversion missionary Jamal Baba whereas the original name was Singhjani.

The Vedic city of Videhpur was renamed after Muzaffar Khan and called Muzaffarpur.

Indicting that it is a real blow to religious identity, the plea further pointed out for the sake of peace and to avert a disastrous war, Lord Krishna proposed that if Kauravas gives only five villages viz Indraprastha (Delhi), Swarnprastha (Sonipat), Panprastha (Panipat), Vyaghrprastha (Baghpat) and Tilprastha (Faridabad);  the Pandavas wont demand more.

Giving the historical background of Lord Krishnas’ Mahabharata, ‘Tilprastha was later named after the brutal invader Sheikh Farid and now called Faridabad. The petitioner had put forward the historical documents in form of autobiography of Jahangir named Jahangir Nama’ which speaks in length about Sheikh Farid who destroyed temples and converted thousands of Hindus.

Talking of more examples. the plea talks about Narmada Puram which has been named after brutal Hoshang Shah and now called Hoshangabad’

Ahmednagar takes its name from barbaric Ahmad Nizam Shah, who changed Ambikapur after winning the battle against Bahamani forces.

Talking about the eccentric king Muhammad Bin Tughluq who changed the name of Devgiri in 1327 to Daulatabad, the plea stated brutal Tughluq believed that the Hindus will never be submissive and obedient to the Islam unless reduced to abject poverty and destroyed a hundreds of Hindu temple and identities has his name as a city.

The ancient Hindu City of Dharashiv was named after the barbaric Ohman Ali Khan and called Osmanabad. I

Further the ancient city Mokalhar was named after conversion missionary Baba Farid and called Faridkot.

Nizamabad was named after Nizam of Hyderabad. Originally it was Indur and founded by king Indradatta.

The Vedic City Virat which is a important character name in Mahabharata has been named after cruel Hoshiar Khan and called Hoshiarpur.

Karimnagar was named after merciless Syed Karimuddin.

Mahbubnagar was named after Mir Mahbub Ali Khan.

The plea made the Court revisit the name Alipore which is named after Syed Mir Jafar Ali Khan, the traitor who sold out to Robert Clive and played a crucial role in the British victory at Plassey.

Shaktipeeth Kiriteswari was named after barbaric Murshid Quli Khan who imposed harsher punishments on Hindus and the city has been called Murshidabad.

In Uttar Pradesh, holy city Ramgarh became Aligarh after Najaf Khan won the battle.

Gajprastha became Ghaziabad after Ghazi-ud-Din won the battle.

Ghazipur is named after Sayyad Masood Ghazi, the cruel conqueror who symbolises brutality of idol-hating.

Vindhyachal is Mirzapur and Ramganga Nagar became Moradabad.

Ambikanagar became Amroha and Aryamgargh became Azamgarh..

The vedic city Panchal, which was asassociated with none other than the Draupadi(panchali) was renamed after the Farrukhsiyar and called Farrukhabad.

There are many municipal wards like Aminabad, Alambagh, Hussainabad, Khurramnagar, Moulviganj, Akbari Gate in Lucknow; Nayabganj, Fazalganj in Kanpur; Shahganj, Sikandra, Tajganj, Fatehabad in Agra; Sadiqpur, Sahibabad, Sehani Khurd in Ghaziabad; Ahmad Road, Muzaffar Nassim Road, Nawab Yusuf Road, Noorullah Road in Prayag Raj; Abdullapur, Ajampur, Alampur, Ahmedpur, Barkapur in Bareilly; Naurangabad, Wajidpur, Masud Nagar, Salempur in Aligarh; Alamgirpur, Alipur, Mustafabad, Nasrullapur, Saidpur Khurd, Salajuddi in Muzaffarnagar; Hussainpura, Itahad Nagar, Mustafabad in Amritsar; Ferozepur Road, Pakhowal road in Ludhiana: Ambabari, Mirza Ismail Road, Khema-Ka-Kuwa, Jinnah Road in Rajasthan; Habib Ganj, Hamidia Road, Hoshangabad Road, Jahangirabad Sultana Road in Madhya Pradesh.

The petitioner submitted that total number of such villages, wards, towns and cities are around 1000 but government did nothing to change their name till date.

The petitioner has questioned the law on continuing with the names of ancient historical cultural religious places, and said that keeping names like such is against the sovereignty.

The plea has requested the Centre and States for changing the names of ancient historical cultural religious places in their original name.

Advocate Upadhyay in his plea has also asked for a direction to the Centre and state governments for updating their websites and records by mentioning the original and ancient name of all the places that were then under threat or pressure were changed on names of barbaric invaders do that everyone knows about the real name of ancient historical cultural religious places.

Ajanta Oreva,the private contractor, who was operating the Morbi bridge in Gujarat during the time it snapped has informed the Gujarat High Court that the State and other authorities cannot pass the buck and lay the entire blame for the bridge collapse on Oreva.

Senior Advocate Nirupam Nanavati, who represented the Contractor told the bench of Chief Justice (CJ) Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J Shastri that the company concerned had no interest as far as earning of profits from overseeing the suspension bridge but took up the task of operating the bridge after it was persuaded to do by some “influential persons”

The contractor said that he was there  defend himself as others have literally passed buck to him and he needs to defend himself.

The advocate Nanavati further pointed out that his client’s only concern was to ensure the heritage bridge was operated properly.

The counsel of the contractor added that it  was not a commercial venture and he was persuaded to look after the bridge which collapsed due to the overcrowding.

Nanavati said that since his client is being solely blamed for the incident, he must be allowed to defend himself.

The bench was was told that it was a sheer misfortune which led to this disastrous incident which shattered all.

The bench was further informed that the contractor, as a goodwill gesture, has already decided to compensate the victims of the tragic incident.

The counsel of the contractor said that the his client has taken up the real of the seven children, who have been orphaned in this tragedy.
He assured the court that his client will take care of the orphans by providing them residence, education, other amenities of life, give them jobs either in our firm or get them one.

The bench, however, clarified that even if the contractor offers to compensate the victims, the same would not be considered as a ground in his favour in future as the criminal law has been set in motion.

The bench criticised the Morbi Nagar Palika for failing to take any stern action against the contractor, who used the bridge in the absence of any prior permission or approval either by the civic body or the State.

The CJ asked if the contractor was threatening Morbi Nagar Palika ,why wasn’t an action taken despite being a powerful authority.

Meanwhile, Advocate General Kamal Trivedi representing the State, filed an affidavit stating that over 63 bridges across the State are in need of repairs. Of these, 23 bridges require major repairs while 40 need minor ones.

AG Trivedi further told the court that the State was actively considering bringing in a uniform policy for inspection of all the bridges across the State.

The bench ordered the State to file another affidavit spelling out the steps it has undertaken to bring in this policy. A further directive was issued to the State to ensure that all precautions are taken and the bridges which need repairs are attended to immediately.

The matter would be again taken up on February 20.

The Allahabad High Court has allowed the bail application of a pastor accused of converting 90 Hindus to Christianity.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sameer Jain passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by the pastor, Vijay Masih.

The application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case under Sections 153A, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and under Section 3/5(1) of U.P Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur, during pendency of trial in the court below.

The FIR of the case was lodged against as many as 36 persons and 20 unknown persons including the applicant and according to the allegation, Masih and the other co-accused were making the religious conversion of 90 Hindu.

The counsel for the applicant submitted that only on the basis of general allegations, the applicant has been accused in the matter along with 35 others and except the bald allegations there is no evidence on record on the basis of which it could be reflected that the applicant indulged in such activities.

He further submitted that out of 35 accused persons, 6 have been released on bail. He placed bail order of Vijay Singh, Vikram Singh, Prince and further submits that co-accused Vijay Singh was the first accused who was released on bail in the matter and his bail order and therefore on the ground of parity applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail.

He further submitted the applicant does not have any criminal history and has been in jail since October 30, 2022.

The AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that as many as 6 accused persons who were also named in the FIR have already been released on bail by the Court. 

Although there are allegations against the applicant that he along with 35 others were involved in religious conversion of 90 Hindus but from the record it appears that on the basis of general allegations he was made accused in the matter along with 35 named persons and out of 35 person 6 persons have already been released on bail, the Court noted.

Therefore, considering the fact that similarly placed other accused persons have already been released on bail, in my view the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.

The Court ordered, let applicant Vijay Masih (Pastor) be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

The Apex Court has given its views on the comments by Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju about the Collegium system of appointing judges along with talking about the Collegium recommendations not getting cleared by the government

A bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice AS Oka have warned the Union Government against passing a judicial orders for making sure that the recommendation by Collegium are cleared.

Justice Kaul in a tone of concern and anger said to the Attorney General R Venkataramani who was representing the Central government that he has been hearing it all over the media and has ignored the reports but now this is little beyond that as this has come from somebody high enough also with an interview.

The Justice added that if we have to, we will take a decision and kindly get this resolved before a judicial decision is taken in this regard.

The bench without naming anyone, made a quick reference to the interview given by Law Minister Rijiu at the Times Now Summit.

The Law minister said that the Central government cannot be accused for sitting over collegium recommendations and the judges’ body should not expect the government to simply sign off on all the recommendations.

The law minister clearly said that it is only till a new system is in place that the Collegium system recommendations will be given weightage.

Kiren Rijiju further said that the government will do its due diligence before acting on Collegium recommendations.

The Apex Court said that the government can certainly put forward its objections to the recommendations made by Collegium, but cannot hold back names without conveying any reservations.

The bench said that it is questioning on the High Court names which are pending since 1.5 years.

The bench said that it is nothing but creating anguish and frustration and questioning the method of appointment, we only issued notice to find out problem

The Court said that timelines are to be followed and just not only laid out. The bench said that many recommendations are pending.

The bench believes in good people joining the bench and timeline has to be adhered to unless there is an exception.

The bench asked why has there been no information in the cases they just recommended which have crossed the timeline of 4 month limit.

It also lamented how such delays were affecting seniority of judges.

The Court remarked that once the names have been reiterated it completely disturb the seniority.

The court has adjourned the matter for hearing on December 8 after the Attorney General and Solicitor General assured the Court that they will look into the matter.

The Delhi High Court has recently held that registrations of device marks do not automatically grant the appellant exclusive right in respect of a word.

A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan was hearing an appeal preferred by Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd seeking an order restraining the respondents from using the trademark “VASUNDHRA FASHION”.

“it is also necessary to bear in mind that examining the dominant part of the trademark for comparing it with the conflicting mark is solely for the purpose of determining whether competing marks are deceptively similar when viewed as a whole. It is, thus, not permissible to hold that two competing marks are deceptively similar by examining a portion of one mark and comparing it with the portion of another mark, if the composite marks viewed as a whole are dissimilar.”-the court held

Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd had claimed that has the exclusive right to use the VASUNDHRA Trademarks, including the name “Vasundhra”, having spent a considerable amount of money and effort to establish its brand identity through the promotion and advertising of the said marks.

The Respondent contended that the class of goods, which are dealt by it. Further also contending, its goods are supplied to different class of purchasers and 80% of its business is derived from Gujrat and the balance 20% is through online sales.

The single judge bench of Delhi High Court had held that Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd did not hold any registration for the word mark “VASUNDHRA” and hence was not entitled to protection.

The respondent Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani was represented by Advocate Raghvendra M Bajaj, who was assisted by Advocates Anshuman Upadhyay, Naseem and Prashant.

The Delhi High Court has recently granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of raping his colleague on the pretext of marriage. The petitioner and the prosecuterix were employees of Jamia Milia Islamia University.

Justice Poonam A. Bamba found force in the petitioner’s argument that the ‘petitioner being a married man was not competent to marry the prosecutrix (who herself was married) and could not have induced her into physical relationship on false promise of marriage.’

Senior Advocate and former Union Minister Salman Khurshid appearing on the behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner and the prosecuterix knew each other since 2019 and were in consensual relationship, which was evident from their WhatsApp chats.

Khurshid further submitted the prosecuterix had started to make unreasonable demands in garb of the relationship, subsequently a settlement was reached on April 13, 2022, whereby the petitioner had to purchase a flat amounting to Rs. 6-6.5 lakhs in Jamia Nagar for the prosecutrix, dispute arose when she started demanding marital status.

Priyanka Dalal, Assistant Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail by stating that repeatedly raped the prosecutrix by extending false promise of marriage, although, he had no intention to marry her.

She further submitted that when he prosecutrix requested the petitioner to marry her, he startedextending threats to her and blackmailing her and upon being threatened by the petitioner that he will release their intimate video, the prosecutrix took a drastic step of consuming sleeping pills and attempted suicide, due to which she remained admitted in hospital from 19.05.2022 to 21.05.2022.

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a PIL with a cost of Rs 10 lakh while observing “It is very unfortunate that the noble forum of PIL is now being used for blackmailing the citizens. This is not a PIL at all. It is, in fact, a litigation based upon certain photographs resulting in blackmailing type of litigation.”

The PIL had been filed by New Rise Foundation Regd. Charitable Trust against alleged illegal and unauthorized construction. Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad ordered the costs of Rs 10 lakh be paid to Army War Widows Fund.

Advocate Ajay Digpaul representing the MCD had submitted that the NGO had been involved in blackmailing builders and had not approached the court for the noble cause for which it was promulgated. He further submitted that the same writ petitioner represented by the same counsel has earlier also filed a Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 9150/2022 and when the matter was taken up on 02.06.2022, the Division Bench was inclined to impose cost as it was a frivolous Writ Petition.

“The Petitioner otherwise also wants a roving enquiry to be done based upon some photographs and there is no other evidence brought on record to arrive at a conclusion that the structure in question is an unauthorised construction,” reads the judgment.

The advocate for the petitioner admitted to the fact that the property involved in the present Writ Petition was certainly the property involved in the earlier Public Interest Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 9150/2022. The Court reprimanded the advocate for suppression of facts and stated, “a person who does not comes with clean hands and suppresses material facts is not entitled for any relief whatsoever.”

The Madras High Court has recently allowed the solemnisation of marriage virtually with the groom being in USA and the bride in India. The Court had been approached by the bride for getting marriage certificate by allowing her to sign at the groom’s behest as she had a power of attorney to that effect.

Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench in the judgment narrated a similar situation Lord Ram found himself in: “The Hindu householder has to perform hundreds of ceremonies but not one can be duly performed according to the shastras, if he has not a wife to complement it with her part in it. Now Rama’s wife was not with him then, as she had been banished. So, the people asked him to marry again. But at this request Rama for the first time in his life stood against the people. He said, ‘this cannot be. My life is Sita’s’. So, as a substitute, a golden statue of Sita was made, in order that the ceremony could be accomplished.”

The Court further observed: “If a golden statue of Sita can be a substitute for her physical presence, I have no hesitation to hold that virtual presence through online would meet the requirements of law under Section 12 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.”

Justice Swaminathan further enunciated various instances where marriage by proxy had been allowed, such as marrying a Rajput warrior by garlanding his sword, the US soldiers during WW-I were allowed to marry by exchanging marriage contracts.

The judgment held that the parties were not proposing a proxy marriage, holding that groom’s presence virtually would suffice as Section 12 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 does not bar virtual presence.

“Section 12 (2) of the Act states that the marriage may be solemnized in any form which the parties may choose to adopt. In this case, the parties have chosen the online mode. Since law has to keep pace with the march of technology, the choice of the parties herein very much passes legal muster,” reads the judgement.

The Delhi Government on Monday sought time from the Delhi High Court to file its Status Report pointing out the sanctioned strength and pending vacancies to various posts in jails in the national capital including the post of Medical Officers, Welfare Officers, Counsellors and Teachers.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a plea filed by a practising Advocate highlighting that there are a large number of vacancies for several posts in the Delhi jails.

The matter is slated for next hearing on 23 September, 2022.

Filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, the plea raises concern regarding the ‘acute’ shortage of prison staff, particularly the educational and correctional staff, psychiatric social workers and psychologists, which the plea contends are lying vacant since long.

The plea also pointed out that the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, provides for constitution of Board of Visitors, Service Board, State Advisory Board and Prison Development Board, but the same have not been notified since long.

Stating that the Delhi prisons are facing 20.25% staff shortage and that the Apex Court and the Delhi High Court has taken serious view of the pending vacancies in jails, the plea seeks directions for filling up vacancies of medical officers, paramedical staff, welfare officers, counsellors, teachers for education, yoga teachers, education vocational counsellors and other pending vacancies.

Further, the plea seeks constitution and notification of Board of Visitors, Service Board, State Advisory Board, Prison Development Board and Forum for Prison Staff in line with the Delhi Prison Act, 2000 and Delhi Prison Rules 2018, in in the larger interest of prisoners lodged in Delhi Jails as well as in the interest of Delhi prison administration.

“The shortage of prison staff is a reason for inadequate management of Delhi Jails and many a times the same leads to violence upon the errant inmates by the Jail Staff,” read the plea.

On the last date of hearing, the Bench had asked the Delhi Government and Director General of Prisons to disclose the reasons for vacancies not being filled and what steps have been initiated for filing up of the vacant posts. The Delhi Government and the DG Prisons were directed to immediately initiate the process of filling up vacancies and to expedite filling up of vacancies wherever the process is underway and pending.