The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging the method of empanelment of advocates to represent the Union Government.

Terming it a ‘publicity interest litigation’, the division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the petitioner, who is an Advocate, has filed the instant petition after being a beneficiary of the very same process which has been assailed in the present petition only because he has been denied extension or reappointment.

Advocate Rajinder Nischal, the petitioner-in-person, approached the High Court contending that the size of the panel to represent the Central government is not fixed and that the government does not even invite applications for appointment or renewal of the panel. He further contended that the appointment of Advocates as Government Counsel is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in ‘State of Punjab v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal’.

The bench noted that the petitioner himself was an empanelled government counsel and that at the time of his empanelment also, neither was there any fixed panel of advocates to represent the Government of India nor was he subjected to any written examination before his appointment as Government Counsel.

Referring to the decision of the apex court in Brijeshwar Singh Chahal, the bench observed that the challenge before the top court was qua a post, whereas in the present case, the challenge is for the mode of empanelment of lawyers.

“Unlike the case before the Apex Court, in the present case there is no fixed salary. In fact, in the present case even a retainer fee is not paid to the lawyers who are empanelled. The Lawyers empanelled by the Government of India are paid their fee on a case-to-case basis. As stated earlier, the Petitioner herein has himself been a beneficiary of the process which he is now challenging in the present petition. The judgment of the Apex Court will definitely apply to those States where monthly salary or a retainer fee is paid to the Law Officers and it will not apply to a case where lawyers are being empanelled and are paid on a case to case basis,” underscored the bench.

The bench further observed, “A litigant can always choose a lawyer to represent him and the Government of India, which is one of the largest litigant in the country, has the freedom to appoint its own lawyers. This Court is of the view that the present petition is nothing but a Publicity Interest Litigation.”

While observing that the instant petition has been filed only to ‘upset the apple cart’, the bench went on to add that the ‘attractive brand name’ of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief and should be aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury.

“Courts must be careful to see that a member of public who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration,” cautioned the bench.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the concerned respondent authorities to undertake and complete the exercise of identification of unauthorized occupations/encroachments/unauthorized constructions over the subject government land, within a period of two months from today, and thereafter, take steps for removal of such encroachments by following the relevant rules and the principles of natural justice, i.e., issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the unauthorized occupants/encroachers, within a further period of four months.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Ninala Jayasurya closed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction declaring the inaction of the Respondents in considering the petitioner complaints dated 12/04/2022, 04/05/2022 and 29/11/2022 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of Articles 14, 19(g) and against the Procedure in 26 of The A.P. Board of Revenue Standing Orders, consequently directing the Respondents to consider the petitioner complaints to conduct enquiry against the illegal construction in Government land an extent of Tadepalligudem, West Godavari district.

The issue of encroachment of government lands/public utility lands vested in the State, which are meant for common benefit of individuals, was considered in detail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396, while dealing with a case of encroachment of village pond. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court, having noted its earlier decisions in M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu reported in 1999 (6) SCC 464; Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa reported in 2004 (8) SCC 733 and Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi reported in AIR 2001 SC 3215 (followed by the Madras High Court in L. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu [2005 (4) CTC 1 Madras]), issued the following directions as contained in paragraph 22 of the judgment, which reads thus:

“22. Before parting with this case, we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/ Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose, the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.”

Since no steps are being taken by the Government and its authorities in protecting the government lands, despite the directions of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) as noted above, and the public authorities are failing in their duties in protecting the government lands, which are meant for the common use of general public, despite bringing to their notice, public spirited persons are approaching the High Court to intervene and direct the public authorities to protect the government lands from encroachments.

In a batch of such writ petitions, being W.P.(PIL).No.140 of 2022 & batch, filed alleging inaction of the State and its authorities in protecting the government lands of different classifications, viz., tank land/grama kantham/ burial ground/forest land/road margin/play ground/cart track/hill poramboke/ coastal areas/grazing land etc., the High Court, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) and the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Protection of Property) Rules, 2011 framed by the State Government pursuant to the directions in the said judgment, issued the following directions, vide common order dated 14.09.2022:

(i) The executive authority, i.e., Panchayat Secretary, of the respective Gram Panchayats in the State shall identify the Gram Panchayat lands, which are unauthorizedly occupied/ encroached, and take steps for removal of such encroachments by issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the unauthorized occupants/encroachers in terms of the procedure prescribed in Rules of 2011. This complete exercise shall be done within a period of six months from today.

(ii) So far as the encroachments over the lands concerning the Municipalities/Forest Department/Revenue Department are concerned, even if no separate Rules have been framed prescribing the procedure to be followed in the matter of removal of encroachments over those lands, the officials of the concerned Departments, i.e., the Departments of Municipal Administration, Forest and Revenue, shall also undertake and complete the exercise of identification of unauthorized occupations/ encroachments over the lands belonging to their respective Departments, within a period of two months from today, and thereafter, take steps for removal of such encroachments by following the principles of natural justice, i.e., issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the unauthorized occupants/ encroachers, within a further period of four months.

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has disposed of an application seeking a direction to Punjab to stop polluting drinking water in Ganga Canal flowing to Sri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan.

The application has been filed by one G.S. Bansal. The applicant has averred that hundreds of persons are getting sick by drinking the polluted water. Some Senior Officers of the Punjab Administration are, by their inaction, supporting the factory owners in polluting Ganga Canal. The applicant has further averred that this Tribunal has warned several times but has not made any difference.

Vide order dated 05.07.2022, this Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee with direction to submit factual and action taken report.

In compliance thereof report of the Joint Committee has been filed vide email dated 16.03.2022.

The principal bench comprising Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi (Judicial Member) and Dr. Afroz Ahmad (Expert Member) have gone through the report of the Joint Committee. In the report of the Joint Committee, it has been mentioned that District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan received good quality of water throughout the year except in May and June when quality of water gets deteriorated due to stagnation near the gates during closure period of canal. Remedial measures have already been/are being taken as mentioned in the report of the Joint Committee. Appropriate filtration and chlorination of the drinking water received from the canal is done before supplying the same to the public through the distribution system. On analysis of the water samples drawn at different levels for chemical and bacteriological parameters and heavy metals from January 2022 till February 2023 no heavy metal were detected and various parameters were found within permissible limits. The sources of pollution discharging effluent to the drains leading to rivers have already been identified by the Punjab Pollution Control Board and remedial measures by way of setting up of STPs are being taken.

In the report, it has been mentioned that the incidents of cancer patients found in the area could not be attributed to canal water but still suggestion has been made for getting the study conducted from ICMR or any other Institute of Repute by CPCB regarding the problem so that appropriate remedial measures can be taken, if so required. The Joint Committee has also recommended that Government of Rajasthan must ensure that the raw water from the canal reaching the urban and rural areas of the District receives conventional treatment and disinfection before its supply to the public for potable purpose and to ensure that no unauthorized supply of canal water without required treatment and disinfection is available to the public, specifically in rural areas.

The NGT accept the report of the Joint Committee and directed that appropriate remedial measures as mentioned in the report of the Joint Committee be taken.

It is also directed by the NGT that Rajasthan Pollution Control Board (RJSPCB) and Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) to get a joint study conducted by Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi or Indian Toxicological Research Institute (ITRI), Lucknow to find out the root causes of increasing cancer patients in both the States as suggested in the report of the Joint Committee. The expenses of such study may be borne by RSPCB and PSPCB jointly in equal proportions. The Member Secretary, RSPCB shall be the nodal officer for the purpose of carrying out of the study and all maters related thereto. On completion of the study, copies of the study report shall be sent by the Member Secretary, RSPCB to the Chief Secretaries of Government of Rajasthan and Punjab respectively who shall take appropriate measures in accordance with the observations/recommendations in the study report, as may be required, in time bound manner. The Member Secretary, RSPCB and PSPCB shall also ensure that a copy of the study report be also uploaded on the website of the RSPCB as well as the PSPCB.

The Allahabad High Court rejected an application for quashing entire proceedings in an attempt to murder case following a compromise between the victim and the accused.

The Division Bench of Justice J.J Munir passed this order while hearing an application under Section 482 filed by Narendra Pratap Singh.

The application sought to quash the proceedings of Sessions Trial, (State v Narendra Pratap Singh) arising out of case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Sarai Inayat, District Prayagraj, pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad.

The counsels for both parties submitetd they have compromised the matter, inasmuch as the informant and the accused, that is to say, the applicant and opposite party no 2 are cousins and now, the complainant does not want to pursue the prosecution any further.

The Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 15.02.2023 has rejected the compromise application, holding that in this case, the charges against the accused are of assaulting the complainant-opposite party, the injured Chandra Narayan, with an intent to kill him. The case is of heinous nature and is not compoundable. It is on that basis that the Judge has declined to verify the compromise and rejected the application.

It is quite another matter that the Judge could not have allowed the compromise application herself, because the offence is not compoundable. All that she could have done was to verify the compromise, on which the Court could have acted.

The Court observed in connection with quashing of prosecutions by the Trial Court, where parties have compromised in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, illuminating guidance is provided by the decision of the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others v State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, which was incidentally a case relating to an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Here, what the Court finds is that the injuries sustained by the applicant, as would appear from a perusal of the injury report dated 06.01.1991, are four firearm wounds of entry, and two of exit. None of the wounds show tattooing or charring. It is, no doubt, true that all gunshot injuries have been sustained on the limbs and not on the torso or any vital part of the complainant’s body, but that does not show that the offence was not heinous or there was no intention to kill. If a man shoots another, inflicting as many as four gunshot wounds, notwithstanding the fact that the injuries were sustained on the limbs, where possibly, they would not have produced a fatal result, it does not detract in the least from the gravity of the crime.

“The fact that the victim did not receive injuries to one or other vital parts of the body can only be credited to the victim’s good luck or providence smiling on him. In an offence of this kind, the Court is in absolute agreement with the Trial Judge that anything in aid of composition of the offence, cannot be permitted. This Court too would not exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the prosecution in an offence of this nature, where the conscience of the society is most certainly involved. It is not an offence which is in the domain of a kind of private dispute between parties, about which the society may have no substantial concern,” the Court further observed while rejecting the application.

In view of the above, the prayer to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused by the High Court.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a petitioner aggrieved by the award of sand mining contracts in the name of desilting without following the procedure prescribed by law.

The PIL has been filed by one  Gagneshwar Walia.

The State of Punjab has submitted that the department through its Chief Engineer vide email dated 03.12.2022 had directed the Executive Engineers-cum-District Mining Officers to cancel all tenders floated all across Punjab in August and September 2022 for excavation of sand.

Subsequently all tenders as stated above stand cancelled by the respective Executive Engineers-cum-District Mining Officers in each district.

Vivek Kumar Tankha, Senior Advocate  appearing for the respondents, submitted that all the impugned tenders have been cancelled.

Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the aforesaid statement of facts made by the State of Punjab, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present petition.

In view of the aforesaid statement of facts made by the State of Punjab and in terms thereof, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli disposed of the  petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in case any cause of action survives or arises.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging the Punjab government has not built a new bus terminal at Baba Banda Singh Bahadur ISBT, Mohali, in spite of having spent Rs 500 crore.

The PIL has been filed by one Ram Kumar. Assistant Advocate General Avineet Avasthi, the counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, on instructions from Sukhwinder Kumar, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, SAS Nagar (Mohali), submitted that the bus terminal has already been made functional.

Munish Bhardwaj, advocate for the petitioner, vehemently opposed the said statement.

However, as the said statement has been made at the behest of an officer of the authorities, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli took it on record believing it to be true and disposed of the petition by directing the respondents-authorities to act upon the statement and ensure that no incorrect statement is made before this Court regarding functionality of the bus terminal. 

It is, further, observed by the Court that, in case, the petitioner has any other grievance remaining in respect of the said bus terminal, he may approach the authorities in that regard.

The Assistant Advocate General submitted that, in case, the petitioner does so, the authorities shall immediately look into the issue, raised by the petitioner, and take a decision thereon expeditiously and in accordance with law.

The Supreme Court today restrained the Punjab government  from taking any coercive action against GVK Power.

The three-judge bench of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli heard a Petition filed by GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Ltd. by Advocate Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar seeking directions to the Punjab Government (Respondent No.1 ) and Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd:-

(a) To quash the Default Notice dated 29.10.2021 issued by Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (Respondent No.2 ) at the behest of State of Punjab purporting to terminate the Amended and Restated power purchase agreement (PPA) dated 26.05.2009 executed with GVK, 

(b)  to comply with its obligations to procure power generated at Petitioner’s 540 MW Thermal Power Project located in Goindwal Sahib, Punjab in terms of the Amended and Restated PPA.  

It is submitted that the actions of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 are violative of provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, Constitution of India and settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court.

The petition stated that  the claim of frustration of contract is belied by the fact that after issuing the notice on 29.10.2021, Respondent No. 2 has again requested Petitioner (GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Ltd. ) to generate and supply power with effect from 08.12.2021. This conclusively establishes that the Amended and Restated PPA has not been frustrated, continues to be in effect and the parties are bound to perform their respective obligations thereunder.

It is submitted that the Impugned Notice and actions of Respondent No.2 are pursuant to and upon instructions and directions of Respondent No.1 in terms of the following:- 
(a) On 18.09.2021, the incumbent Chief Minister of Punjab, Captain Amrinder Singh resigned from the post of the Chief Minister. Thereafter, on 20.09.2021,  Charanjit Singh Channi was sworn in as the new Chief Minister of Punjab. 
(b) With an eye on the upcoming State Elections, Respondent No. 1 decided to terminate and cancel all power purchase agreements with Independent Power Producers (IPPs) such as Petitioner . 
(c) On 28.10.2021, Respondent No.1 took the decision to terminate the Amended and Restated PPA. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 issued the Impugned Notice on 29.10.2021. The fact that this action was upon the direction and decision of Respondent No. 1 is evident from newspaper reports dated 29.10.2021 as well. 
(d) On 09.11.2021 the Punjab Vidhan Sabha passed the Punjab Renewable Energy Security, Reform, Termination and Redetermination of Power Tariff Bill, 2021 (Punjab RE Tariff Bill) and The Punjab Energy Security, Reform, Termination and Redetermination of Power Tariff Bill, 2021 (Punjab Energy Bill) pursuant to which identified power purchase agreements with private companies are sought to be terminated.

The Petitioner challenged the Impugned Notice on the following grounds: 

(a) The actions of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 amount to malice in law, done with the sole aim and objective of furthering the agenda of the State Government in light of the upcoming elections. The actions are a classic example of regime revenge with Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 seeking to cancel PPAs including the Amended and Restated PPA which was entered into in 2009 and under which Petitioner No.1 has been supplying power since 2016. 

(b) The malice in law is evident from the fact that the purported event of frustration being cancellation of the captive coal block pursuant to Coal Judgment which occurred in 2014. Thereafter Respondent No. 2 had already given its consent to Petitioner No. 1 for procuring coal under Shakti Scheme. Moreover, Petitioner No. 1 has been supplying power since 2016 and Respondent No. 2 has been accepting the power and paying tariff without protest. 

(c) The allegation of commercial impracticability and high tariff is belied by the fact that tariff for the Project is determined by Ld. PSERC under Section 62 read with Section 86 of the Electricity Act. These tariff orders have been implemented by Respondent No.2. No appeal has been filed by Respondent No.2 challenging the tariff orders passed by Ld. PSERC. 

(d) When the Amended and Restated PPA itself provides for tariff determination and relief for change in law and force majeure events, claiming frustration on the ground of cancellation of the Captive Coal Mines which is a change in law and force majeure event is contrary to law. This is a deliberate and calculated attempt by Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 to accumulate political mileage and gains at the cost of the Petitioners. 

(e) The Impugned Notice and actions of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 are manifestly arbitrary and discriminatory. The Impugned Notice has been issued for ulterior motives indicated above, without following due process and in complete and utter contravention of the provisions of the Electricity Act and the Amended and Restated PPA. 

(f) The decision to terminate the Amended and Restated PPA is premeditated and pre-judged as the decision to terminate the said PPA was that of the Respondent No. 1 in the Meeting dated 28.10.2021. 

(g) Premature termination of the Amended and Restated PPA amounts to deprivation / expropriation of the property of Petitioner  in contravention of the constitutional safeguards under Article 300A

(h) Issuance of the Impugned Notice is contrary to Petitioner’s right to carry on its business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Article 19(1)(g) guarantees Petitioner No.1 right to carry on its profession in a fair, reasonable and equitable treatment especially with regard to a regulated sector. 

(i) Mere incidence of expense or delay or commercial onerousness in performance of the Contract is not valid ground to claim frustration. Therefore, merely because Respondent No.2 is of the view that tariff claimed by Petitioner  is excessive does not create a valid ground for termination of the PPA. 

(j) After citing frustration of the Amended and Restated PPA, from 08.12.2021 onwards, Respondent No. 2 has scheduled power from Petitioner . Therefore, by accepting performance in accordance with the, Respondent No. 2 has accepted by conduct that the PPA is not frustrated. 

(k) Termination of a Power Purchase Agreement solely on the ground of initiation or admission of insolvency proceedings against a corporate debtor is impermissible. 

(l) Respondent No.2 is not entitled to unilaterally terminate the Amended and Restated PPA which has been approved by the Ld. Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 62 read with Section 86 of the Electricity Act. Once approved, the PPA becomes a statutory contract and cannot be unilaterally altered/rejected by either party. 

(m) The tariff charged by Petitioner  is computed and approved by Ld. PSERC in accordance with Section 61 and 62 of the Electricity Act, the Amended and Restated PPA dated 26.05.2009 and the applicable Tariff Regulations notified by Ld. PSERC. Since the Orders of Ld. PSERC determining tariff have not been challenged by Respondent No.2, the same have attained finality qua Respondent No.2. Therefore, Respondent No.2 is precluded from contending that Petitioner ’s tariff is excessive having accepted Ld. PSERC’s finding.

The Supreme Court has set aside the summons passed by the Sessions Judge, Khiri saying the Sessions Judge will apply his mind in the light of principles laid down by the Constitution Bench.

The bench of Justices K.M. Joseph and P.S. Narasimha allowed the appeal filed against the summons issued purporting to invoke power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC),  which has brought the newly summoned person to the Supreme Court. The facts of the case is that an FIR came to be lodged on 27.06.2015 by the woman who alleged in the FIR that her husband (deceased) told her that he is leaving for work to meet the appellant. The deceased was the driver of the appellant. In the FIR, it is stated that at 2 pm, the deceased called and informed his wife that he is going to Gola and shall return by evening. 

Thereafter, her husband’s phone was switched off and an unidentified dead body was found. The woman reported that the murder of her husband was committed by his employer (appellant ) with the help of his friends. The statement came to be recorded from her on 27.06.2015. She also gave an additional statement. Thereafter, the police investigated the matter and chargesheet was filed against three persons. 

An application was filed on behalf of the prosecution invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Sessions Judge, Khiri, by order dated 11.09.2018, took the view that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be invoked and ordered to summon the appellant. This order came to be unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court. It is thus the appellant came before the Supreme Court. 

Gaurav Srivastava, counsel for the appellant, pointed out that the Courts have erred in law in invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The appellant has relied on the judgments of this Court rendered in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Labhuji Amratji Thakor and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another AIR 2019 SC 734.

Also Read: NCPCR files affidavit in AltNews co-founder plea, wants direction to Twitter to remove post

The Apex Court observed that the statement of law with regard to  the standards which have been fixed by the Court for invoking the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is contained in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2014) 3 SCC 92 , which states :-

“105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 

106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if ‘it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence’ is clear from the words “for which such person could be tried together with the accused.” The words used are not ‘for which such person could be convicted’. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.”

Also Read: Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings, NBW against woman accused of abetting suicide

Therefore the Court is of the view that matter should be reconsidered.

The Top Court observed that the test as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court for invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. inter alia includes the principle that only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. The power cannot be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. “The test to be applied, as laid down by the Supreme Court, is one which is more than prima facie case which is applied at the time of framing of charges.”

“We are of the view that from the facts of this case, it becomes necessary for us to direct the Sessions Judge, Khiri, to consider the matter afresh in the light of the principles which have been clearly enunciated by this Court. The appeal is accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment will stand set aside and we also set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge issuing summons. The Sessions Judge, Khiri, will apply his mind in the light of the principles which have been laid down by the Constitution Bench,”

-the order reads.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought the Punjab Government’s response on a plea filed seeking action against fake social media accounts of the State Police Department of Punjab, and use of the name and emblem of the Punjab Police on such fake social media accounts.

A division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli has issued notice on the plea and direct State Govt to file its reply. The Court would hear the matter next in March 2021.

The plea has been filed by Nikhil Saraf (petitioner-in-person) seeking directions to the State of Punjab for constitution of a commission under a Retired High Court Judge or any other mechanism that is independent and unbiased for swift, time bound and stern action against all the erring Police officials, to submit a action taken report before the High Court till the time State Police Complaints Authority is constituted as per directions of the Apex Court. 

According to the petitioner, action needs to be taken against the Police Officials of Punjab Police and others for floating fake social media accounts of the State Police Department of Punjab, for use of the name and emblem of the Punjab Police on such fake social media accounts. The petitioner has sought action against State Police officials for bringing disrepute and insult to the uniform by ‘modeling in uniform’ for self glorification and contemptible publicity, by publishing very objectionable pictures on their social media accounts, bringing disrepute, unbecoming of a law enforcement agency and indulging in acts of gross misconduct. 

The plea has sought direction to the commission constituted in absence  of State Police Authority to take stern disciplinary action against all police officials who were mandated to check such gross misconduct and abuse of power by the police officials, but did not act in accordance in law.

Also Read: Tata Sons Vs Cyrus Mistry: We want transparency, says Mistry’s advocate

The petitioner has sought setting up of a potent and responsive mechanism to check misuse of social media by the government officials and restrain Punjab Police officials from publication of their pictures in uniforms on various social media platforms till the final adjudication of the matter.

New Delhi: The Bar Council of Delhi has written a letter addressed to the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi for withdrawing the legislation pertaining to farmers as it creates a bar of Civil Court’s jusrisdiction under farmers laws and entrustment of same to SDMs/ADMs.

The Council has attempted to invite the Prime Minister’s attention to the farmer’s laws enacted by the government in the recent past claiming them to be beneficial to the country’s farmers and how they are detrimental to the interest of the legal professionals. The subject matters covered under these laws are so vast that all disputes up till now entertained by civil courts will be adjudicated by SDMs/ADMs who are not part of regular Courts.

The letter has emphasised on the importance of constitutional provisions for separation of Judiciary from Executive in maintaining its independence and Probity. If these farmers laws are resorted to it will cause substantial damage to the District Courts in particular and uproot the lawyers.

According to the Council, the government has surreptitiously inserted such provisions, prejudicial to lawyers and litigants which pose a serious threat to the judicial institution as well. The issues have wider implications and consequences which have not been addressed while enacting the law.

Bar Council of Delhi, in its letter has referred to PM Modi as champion of the cause of masses and stated that even when not in power, he called right to protest a universal right and affirmed that government in power must listen to people’s grievance and come out with an amicable solution.

The Council has requested PM Modi to withdraw these legislations and give an audience to the farmers’ leaders to come out with an amicable solution, thereby bringing a legislation in welfare and upliftment of this country’s farmers. 

Read the letter here;

Read Also: Even with the court’s backing, a Right to be Forgotten law will be almost impossible to implement