Babus, mend your ways, don't browbeat judiciary

Indeed, it is painful to learn that some top level bureaucrats of Telangana have shown the audacity to approach the Chief Minister and express their unhappiness over some observations and unpalatable remarks made by the High Court against them while dealing with the matters of demolition of Secretariat, handling of Covid-19 pandemic etc.

If the media reports are correct, the behaviour of senior bureaucrats in question is highly objectionable as it violates not only the service rules but also the healthy tradition of respecting judiciary. Whatever remarks or observations are made by the High Court have to be taken seriously by the 'Babus' because there can be no smoke without fire.

If the High Court is constrained to use some harsh words against the government in general or even some officers in particular, the High Court obviously has before it some convincing facts produced by the petitioner. The Chief Minister though reportedly maintained his dignified stand by asking the officers concerned to submit a detailed note of their performance to the Court. First of all, he should have refused to lend an ear to the grumbling officers.

In fact, the Chief Minister's response by allowing the complaining officers to present their grievances before the High Court does not behove well.

It is a well-settled principle of jurisprudence that the courts generally do not interfere with the policy matters of the governments. However, they have to take up judicial scrutiny or review of the decisions taken by the government in order to ensure that the provisions of the Constitution of India are duly complied with and no ultravires decisions are taken by the government.

In the current extraordinary situation of Covid-19 pandemic the life and survival of the people at large are at stake.

There is nothing wrong if the High Court comes down heavily on the thick skinned bureaucrats, who, despite repeated directions of the Court, do not swing into action and do the needful. The Chief Minister ought to have taken such bureaucrats to the task.

Hope, the Chief Minister who is also the Chief Executive of the State would ensure that all judicial orders passed by any court, much less than High Court or Supreme Court, are duly complied with by the officers concerned expeditiously so as to render justice to the people. Showing respect to the judiciary will only enhance his stature as the democratic leader of the State.

Amended CPA gets teeth

The amended Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been notified and made effective from July 20.The provisions of the Act have been made more stringent and liberal for the consumers. Now, a consumer can sue at the place of his residence or usual work place, class suits can be filed, the ceiling of Rs.25,000 of the awarded amount payable at the time of filing appeal has been replaced by half of the amount awarded.

The pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Commission has been raised to Rs 1 crore, State Commission to Rs. 10 crore and the National Commission over Rs 10 crore.

The changes in the consumer law will certainly benefit millions of consumers who are routinely taken for a ride by some unscrupulous producers of goods and providers of services.

Supreme hammer falls on biggies

At last, the hitherto seemingly unchallengeable and uncontrollable 'big-wigs' of the legal fraternity now have a cause to shiver in pants, the reason, big brother has noticed all their gimmicks and with all seriousnessit is determined to strike a big blow to them with the holy object of bringing them to senses.

Yes, we are referring to advocates Prashant Bhushan and Yatin Oza.

These two fairly senior lawyers now have been facing the music for allegedly crossing the limits that divides the Bench and the Bar. Prashant Bhushan, in a suo motu cognizance taken by the Supreme Court, is facing the contempt of court proceedings for the unsavory remarks on the sitting Chief Justice of India and damaging the majesty of law. Similarly, the President of Gujarat High Court Bar Association Yatin Oza has been stripped off his status as senior advocate by the High Court for his contemptuous behaviour.

However, this is just a beginning of the process of cleansing judiciary by getting rid of the wild, dangerous and self-centered elements in the judiciary who obviously dance to the tunes of their god fathers within the country and abroad, whose agenda is to paint India as a country where there is no democracy, no liberty, no safety and no law and order.

Mother is mother

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that "…When the child applies for passport for the first time after he becomes major, he has the option to retain the name of biological parent or step parent, as recorded in his birth certificate/educational certificate".

The judgment was delivered by Justice BS Walia, in the case of Divya Nagpal v/s Union of India and anothers, wherein the petitioner prayed the Hon'ble court that all her certificates like birth, Aadhar etc., had the name of her biological mother and after she became major, she applied for a fresh passport including her biological mother's name in place of her step mother's name as it would only fecilitate her travelling plans for abroad.

Coronil not to be used as trademark by Patanjali

The Madras High Court has restrained the business giant Patanjali from using Coronil as trademark for its claimed Covid-19 vaccine till 30th July. The order came after a plea was filed by M/s Arudra Engineering Private Limited in the High Court contending that 'Coronil-92 B' is its registered trade mark since 1993, used as acid inhibitor for industrial cleaning.

In addition to this, the controversial medicine of Patanjali is facing other litigations as well in the Courts of Muzzafarpur, Uttarakhand and Delhi. However, the Madras High Court has noted that Coronil of Patanjali is not a registered trademark and hence it cannot be allowed to infringe the rights of the registered trademark of the plaintiff company.

Campaign for plain English

The Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) is starting a campaign for the use of plain English in all matters concerning the law including legislation, pleadings, contracts and even day-to-day documentation such as application forms, insurance policies, warranty cards for consumer goods, banking documents etc.

The project 'Mind your language-banishing hereof, thereof and whereof and other absurdities of the language of the law' will have a series of modules to be presented by Professor Jyoti Sagar, associate president of the society. A webinar on July 25 will mark the beginning of the project, according to Dr Lalit Bhasin, president.