Retired Delhi High Court judge Justice Talwant Singh on Tuesday said that books on International Law were very important for those preparing for the Judiciary.

Speaking during the launch of a book written on International Law by former IAS officer Jasbir Singh Bajaj, Justice Singh said that the book was important for Judiciary aspirants as it delved in detail the issues related to international legal matters.

He said that in today’s times, it had become very difficult to crack the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) examination.

The former judge stressed on the importance of such books for clearing the Civil Services exam.

He said the book would further benefit the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) aspirants taking up Law as an optional subject.

Union Minister General (retired) V.K. Singh was the Chief Guest at the event, while former Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officer Rahul Chhabra graced the occasion as the Guest of Honour.

Justice Singh, along with former Vice President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai, were honoured on the occasion.

Justice Talwant Singh of Delhi High Court on Wednesday recused himself from hearing a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against a Special Court order that set aside the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by CBI against former Amnesty International India chairman Aakar Patel

On April 16, the Special Court had upheld a Magistrate court verdict that set aside the CBI LOC against Patel.

Special CBI Judge Santosh Snehi Mann however had granted relief to CBI by rejecting the Magistrate direction to the CBI Director to tender a written apology to Patel.

The CBI wanted to challenge the order by Mann’s concerning the issuance of the LOC against Patel.

When the matter was taken up by the Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, who was representing the CBI, and presented relevant paragraphs of the Special Court order that the agency found challenging.

The Additional Solicitor, however, made it clear that there was no grievance against the setting aside of the LOC issued against Aakar Patel.

“We believe that this reasoning will be quoted and applied in all other cases,” Raju informed Court.

Aakar Patel was represented in court by Advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir,who clearly said that

“It can’t be quoted anywhere because CBI Court is not a court of record. What is the apprehension?”He opposed the plea by CBI

The single-judge, however, subsequently, recused from the matter.

The LOC was issued against Patel in case pertaining to FCRA through “commercial” methods after Amnesty UK remitted ₹10 crore and subsequently ₹26 crore to its India entities without the approval of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).

Aakar Patel was therefore not allowed to leave the the country.

Aakar Patel after being
refrained from leaving the country moved to
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) court, which went in his favour as the LOC was set aside and a direction was sent to the CBI director to render apology to the victim.

The ACMM order, Patel again booked tickets to the US, but again his travel couldn’t be possible as CBI did not withdraw the LOC.

CBI in the meantime filed for a revision application before the Special Court.
assailing the ACMM

CBI specifically challenged paragraphs 26 to 28 and 38 of the Special Court order insofar as they lay down that recourse to LOC can be taken only on co-existence of the following three circumstances:

(i) Look Out Corner Notice can be issued only in cognizable offences; and

(ii) Accused is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in trial court despite non-bailable warrants (NBWs) and other coercive measures; and

(iii) There is likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.

The Supreme Court today stayed the Delhi High Court order which had termed the imposition of IGST on oxygen concentrators which are imported by individuals as gifts from abroad as “unconstitutional”.

The bench led of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah issued notice returnable in four weeks. The Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the Delhi High Court order which had held that imposition of IGST on oxygen concentrators that are imported by individuals and are received by them as gifts [i.e. free of cost] for personal use, is unconstitutional.

The apex court observed that it is a debatable issue whether Article 14 is applicable to matters related to taxation policy.

Attorney General KK Venugopal appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that on 28 May 2021, at the Forty-Third meeting of the GST Council, a decision was taken to constitute a Group of Ministers to scrutinize the need for “further relief to Covid-19 related individual items immediately”. The Group of Ministers is to submit its report by 8 June 2021. It was submitted that the judgment of the High Court trenches upon a pure issue of policy. It has been further submitted that the exemption which has been granted in respect of the concentrators which are imported by the State or its agencies falls in a clearly distinct classification.

The Delhi High Court, while holding that the IGST imposed on import of oxygen concentrators for personal use is unconstitutional, had said: “This is a George Floyd moment for the citizens of this country. The refrain is ―I can’t breathe‖, albeit, in a somewhat different context and setting.”

A divisional bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh had noted: “The logical sequitur of this would be that persons who are similarly circumstanced as the petitioner, i.e., those who obtain imported oxygen concentrators as gifts, for personal use, cannot also be equated with those who import oxygen concentrators for commercial use.”

The petition before the High Court was filed by Gurcharan Singh an 85-year-old person challenging the IGST on the import of oxygen concentrators as gifts for personal use. Singh opposed the 12% IGST imposed on an oxygen concentrator sent as a gift from his nephew in the US.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae in the matter by the High Court, had submitted: “The right to life encompasses within it, the right to health. The right to health includes within it, the right to affordable treatment. The State has not only a duty but a positive obligation is cast upon it to ensure that the health of its citizens is duly protected.

“While there is no right in law to claim exemption from taxes, however, once the State invokes the provisions of Section 25 (Power to grant exemption from duty)of the Customs Act such delegated legislation can be judicially reviewed,” Datar added.

Whereas, counsel appearing for the state contended, “several measures have been taken which include exemption from customs duty and extension of concessions qua IGST in respect of specified goods imported into the country.

“The imposition of IGST on imported oxygen concentrators, which are gifted, and are for personal use, does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution. If this argument of the petitioner is accepted, it will lead to absurd consequences in as much citizens will attempt to seek exemption from property tax, and food items since both housing and food items have been considered as a facet of the right to life as encapsulated in Article 21 of the Constitution,” counsel for the state added.

However, bench had observed, “The Courts and the State have to adopt a humanistic approach, which, in our view, is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. The failure to do so both, by the Court and by the State, would lead to an unbridgeable chasm between law and justice, resulting in, disruption of social order.”

Also read: Supreme Court wants Central govt to complete reappointment process of NCLT, NCLAT members in 2 months

The bench had further directed, “To obviate misuse of the oxygen concentrators, by the petitioner and/or persons similarly circumstanced, she/he/they would have to furnish a letter of undertaking to the officer designated by the State that the same would not be put to commercial use.”

Source: ILNS

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Talwant Singh on Friday declared the imposition of IGST on oxygen concentrators imported for personal use unconstitutional and quashed the relevant notification. The bench was hearing the Gurcharan Singh vs Union of India case.

The order said the petitioner, and similarly placed people, will, however, have to file a letter of undertaking that the same will not be used for commercial purposes and will be for private use of the petitioner only.

Read Also: Supreme Court grants bail to YSRCP MP Raju

Justice Shakdher said: “The life saving drug would include oxygen concentrator under Drugs and Cosmetics Act. We have touched upon it and have said that in the times of war and such circumstances different methods have to be adopted.”

SOURCE ILNS