Delhi HC Seeks Delhi Government's Response On Implementation Of Street Vendors Act
The Delhi High court has sought a reply from the Delhi Government regarding the implementation of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. It also sought a reply related to the schemes under the said Act and the functioning of the TVCs (Town Vending Committees). The matter was being discussed by the Bench composed of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh. The Court observed that though the Act was implemented in 2014, the functioning of the TVCs under the Act were not as prescribed. The matter is currently listed for hearing on August 12, 2021.
What do you think about this case?
Delhi High Court Declares Christian Couple Who Wrongly Adopted Child Under Hindu Adoption Act As They Took Good Care of Child
The case was of JS & Anr. V. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Anr. In this case, a Christian couple had adopted a child and taken care of her for 6 years, however, they had not followed the correct and legal route for adoption. The adoption had taken place under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, which is not applicable to Christians. The Delhi High Court has granted relief to the couple by declaring them to be the adoptive parents of the child, as they have taken good care of the child. The Court however stated that Christians could not have executed an Adoption Deed under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and that the law was uselessly flouted in this case as observed by Justice Asha Menon.
What do you think about this case?
Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas By Rape Survivor and Convict To Marry Each Other
Former Catholic priest, Robin Vakkumchery, was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment under the POCSO Act for raping and impregnating a minor. However, a plea has been filed by the victim seeking to marry the convict, in order to reduce the social stigma and give legitimacy to the unborn child. The convict too had filed a plea seeking the reduction of his sentence so that he could marry the girl. The plea has been dismissed by the Supreme Court by the Bench composed of Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari. The victim was represented by Senior Advocate Kiran Suri.
What do you think about this case?
Father Moves Supreme Court Seeking Extradition Of IS Daughter Currently In Afghan Jail
A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court by a father seeking directions for necessary action being taken for the extradition and repatriation of his daughter and minor granddaughter. Both are presently detained inside a prison in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The plea has also sought directions for initiation of steps to extend diplomatic protection or consular assistance to the detenues through its Consular or Diplomatic Office in Afghanistan. According to a plea filed by V.J. Sebastian Francis, extradition is being sought of his daughter Sonia Sebastian and minor granddaughter, who left India in July 2016, with an intention to join the ISIS in Afghanistan, after his daughter's husband along with others decided to propagate the vision of the terrorist organisation ISIS in waging war against Asiatic Nations. The plea was filed by Advocate Lakshmi N Kaimal and Renjith B Marar.
What do you think about this case?
SC: Possible Apprehension Of Breach Of Law and Order Cannot Be A Ground For Preventive Detention
The case is of Banka Sneha Sheela V. State of Telangana. In this case, the Supreme Court has held that a possible apprehension of breach of law and order cannot be a ground for detaining a person under Preventive Detention Laws. The decision was given by Justice R F Nariman and Justice Hrishikesh Roy. The Court explained that mere contravention of law disrupts law and order but in order to classify it as disruption of ‘public order’, the community or public at large should be affected. Expressions like ‘Law and Order’, ‘Public Order’, and ‘Security of State’ have different meanings.
What do you think about this case?
SC Expunges Remarks Made Against Lawyer By Uttarakhand High Court
The Supreme Court observed that the judges should avoid unnecessary remarks on the conduct of the counsel which may have no bearing on the adjudication of the dispute before the court. The decision was given by the Bench composed of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice R F Nariman. The Supreme Court has ordered the expunction of the remarks made against a lawyer by the Uttarakhand High Court.The case is of Neeraj Garg V. Sarita Rani.
What do you think about this case?
MP HC: Trial Court Judges To Be Tolerant Towards Lawyers During Examination Of Witnesses
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that judges of the Trial Court must be patient and tolerant in their conduct towards lawyers during the examination of witnesses. The decision was given by the Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar. The matter was related to the challenging of the order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge whereby the right of the petitioner/accused to cross-examine the Investigating Officer had been closed.
What do you think about this case?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
