Top Legal Headlines - 24th March, 2021:Delhi Court Affirms Conviction of AAP MLA

Assault Case (AIIMS): Delhi Court Affirms Conviction of AAP MLA Somnath Bharti U/Ss 147,149 IPC & PDPP Act, Upheld for 2 Year Jail Term

On Tuesday, the Delhi Court has affirmed the conviction of AAP MLA Somnath Bharti in the AIIMS Assault Case under Section 147 (punishment for rioting) read along with Section 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

This judgment was pronounced by Special Judge Vikas Dhull in an appeal preferred by AAP MLA Somnath Bharti, while the Judge allowed the appeal partly, this appeal challenged an earlier order dated 23rd January, 2021 sentencing him to 2 years of imprisonment in the case.

The Court ordered that, “accordingly the appeal is dismissed qua the conviction and sentence of appellant u/s 147 IPC read with Section149 IPC and under Section 3(1) of PDPP Act. Appellant be taken into custody and be sent to Jail for serving the sentence as awarded by the Ld.Trial Court vide its sentence order dated 23.01.2021 offence under Section 147 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 3(1) of PDPP Act."

This case dates back to 2016 wherein a FIR was registered on 10.09.2016 on the ground of a complaint against Somnath Bharti, Jagat Saini, Dileep Jha, Sand deep, Rakesh Pandey and approximately 300 unknown associates of Som Nath Bharti for allegedly breaking the fence of boundary wall of AIIMS, which is Government property. Furthermore, the complaint also alleged that they misbehaved and injured the security personnel of AIIMS while he was protecting the government land.

Enforcement Directorate(ED) vs. Kerala Police: ED Assails Kerala Police's FIR against ED Officials, Moves to Kerala High Court

On Tuesday, The Enforcement Directorate(ED) has moved the Kerala High Court against the State Police's FIR filed against the agency. The matter was moved before a bench of Justice VG Arun. 

A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the Kerala Police against the Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleging that officers of the agency coerced key accused in the gold smuggling and dollar smuggling cases to implicate the Chief Minister and others.

Aggrieved by this, the ED has moved the High Court. In furtherance, the ED has prayed that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducts an investigation into the allegations contained in the FIR. This writ petition is filed by mns Nayar & Co representing the ED, has sought the quashing of the FIR.

In regards to the FIR made against the ED, the ED has asserted that the motive of the FIR against its officers was done to derail investigations into the gold smuggling and consequent money laundering offences.

Supreme Court: Court or Tribunal Can Condone Delay under Section 5 Limitation Act Even in the Absence of a Formal Application

On Monday, the Supreme Court of India held that there is no bar to exercise by the Court or Tribunal of its discretion to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in the absence of a formal application. Nevertheless, it was observed by the Court comprising of Justices Indira Banerjee and Hemant Gupta that, it can always insist that an application or an affidavit showing cause for the delay be filed.

The Supreme Court of India was considering an appeal against a judgment of NCLAT judgment in which one of the issue raised was whether delay beyond three years in filing an application under Section 7 of IBC can be condoned, in the absence of an application for condonation of delay made by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, Corporate Debtor’s contention was that the delay in filing the application under Section 7 of the IBC, could not have been condoned. 

The Supreme Court noted that Section 5 does not speak of any application and it enables the Court to admit an application or appeal if the applicant or the appellant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the application and/or preferring the appeal, within the time prescribed by law. 

The bench comprising of Justices Indira Banerjee and Hemant Gupta consequently clarified that a Court can always insist that an application or an affidavit showing cause for the delay be filed and no applicant or appellant can claim condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as of right, without making an application.

Karnataka High Court: Failure of State to Provide Basic Shelter to Urban Homeless, Violates Right to Life under Article 21 

On Tuesday, the Karnataka High Court directed the State Government to place on record the outcomes of the survey of urban homeless carried out in the State. If such Survey has already been completed, the State will have to take appropriate decisions on the number of shelters required in the State.

Acknowledging the fact, the division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated that the "State must be conscious of the fact that its failure to provide basic shelter to urban homeless may amount to violation of Right to Life guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution of India. If poor homeless in the cities ar e without shelter, it is a violation of their Right to live a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.

The bench in its order reiterated that "We are dealing with the issue of providing shelters to urban homeless, the second issue with which we are concerned now is making provision for night shelters. State government has filed a statement of objections. The statement of objections is silent on the survey of urban homeless in the state of Karnataka." In furtherance, it added that, "As per the list submitted to the court of the 64 shelters set up in the state, only 47 are functional. The capacity of functional centers in the city (Bengaluru) is not more than 300."

TN Govt. Informs Madras High Court: Woman IPS Officer's Sexual Harassment Complaint

On Tuesday, the Tamil Nadu Government has suspended the 'Delinquent Officer', Special DGP, who has been charged with sexual harassment of an IPS cadre woman officer two days after the Madras High Court asked it to do so.

The Madras High Court has further taken suo-moto cognizance of alleged sexual harassment of an IPS cadre woman officer by her senior, a Special DGP, and has decided to monitor the investigation into the case itself.

In regards to the case at hand, the Madras High Court while expressing satisfaction with the investigation till now, the Court also praised the efforts put in by the Investigating Officer in the case.

The Court especially observed that IO sacrificed a lot of energy and time in this case, and within such a short time, he managed to record the statements of nearly 87 witnesses apart from recording the statements of the accused persons.

International news

Lisa Montgomery: only female inmate on federal death row in the US in almost the past 70 years, has been executed for murder.

Lisa Montgomery received a lethal injection at a prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, after a last-minute stay of execution was lifted by the US Supreme Court. The present case attracted a whole lot of attention because her lawyers argued she was mentally ill and suffered serious abuse as a child.

52 year old Lisa Montgomery strangled a pregnant woman before cutting out and kidnapping her baby in Missouri in 2004. Her victim at the time, 23-year-old Bobbie Jo Stinnett, was left bleeding to death but her baby was safely recovered and returned to her family.

Lisa Montgomery is the first female federal inmate to be put to death by the US government in 67 years. According to witnesses present, a woman standing next to Lisa Montgomery during the execution process, removed the inmate's face mask and asked her if she had any last words. Montgomery responded "no", and said nothing else.

Boris Johnson misses EU deadline to explain law-breaking

 UK is facing legal action from the European Union after Boris Johnson missed the    bloc’s deadline to explain why he is planning to renege on parts of the Brexit withdrawal agreement in the event of no-deal.

On 1st October, 2020 the European Commission sent a “letter of formal notice” to the UK over Johnson’s Internal Market Bill, which breaches elements of the divorce treaty signed earlier.

In furtherance, the Prime Minister had signed up to the Union’s customs code as part of the agreement, but has since argued that the UK should be exempt from certain rules in the event of no-deal. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Brandon Lewis admitted in the Commons in September that the bill breaks international law in a “limited and specific” way.

When questioned about the same, a European Commission spokesperson said: “To date, I can confirm that the EU has received no reply from the UK, therefore we are considering next steps, including issuing a reasoned opinion (of the European Court of Justice).”