Legal Circles dt. 10-12-2023

Dear Sir/s,

Please find attached herewith the weekly column, Legal Circles by Dr H C Upadhyay.

Regards,

Business Editor, NVS

LEGAL CIRCLES

DR. H.C UPADHYAY

* WHY ALL THIS BROUHAHA OVER MAHUA ?

December 8 will be recorded in gold letters in the history of our democracy! On this day, the parliament once again exercised its authority as the protector of democratic values and sent the corrupt, unruly and indisciplined Member of Parliament, Mahua Moitra out for ever lock, stock and barrel! Earlier , the Ethics Committee of parliament after holding an Enquiry had found her guilty of the charges of collecting money from an industrial group for asking questions in the Loksabha. Since, 1988 as many as 42 'Honourable' M.Ps have faced such insulting treatment at the parliament. Now, Mahua has become the 43 rd in this list of discredited M.Ps.

Therefore, her anguish is understandable. She has termed her unceremonious expulsion as the verdict by a Kangaroo Court. The use of such derogatory and defamatory epithets by a person who was till a moment before, the part and parcel of the august House, only confirms the decision of the parliament that she does not deserve to occupy such a coveted post.

Her party supremo Mamata Banerjee not only gave Mahua a clean chit but also predicted her thumping victory in the next general elections ! Obviously, the the voters, only if they are deaf and dumb, will vote this uncivilized creature to parliament ! Other opposition bandwagon joining the chorus just for political reasons has to look into its own history when some of its own members had been axed for being unruly, corrupt or defamatory in their address to the Chair or fellow members.

In fact, through this Column, we have unequivocally condemned the unruly behaviour of the legislators. We have also time and again advocated for the transperancy, honesty, sincerity and integrity of the people's representatives. With the advancement of technology the proceedings of the parliament and assemblies are watched live throughout the world. This adds additional responsibility on all the stakeholders to maintain decorum in their deliberations. Indeed, it is childish to argue that Mahua has been penalised just because she is a woman. In criminology, it is a well recognised principle that it is the offence and not the gender of the offender that is considered. In the past, an overwhelming number of men M.Ps too, have suffered the similar ignonimity . In 2005 in the infamous case of 'cash for query ', as many as 11 M.Ps were stripped off their membership by the parliament and none of them was a woman ! Further, they belonged to different parties such as, BJP, RJD, BSP etc. Interestingly, the BJP who was the major opposition party then, had also called the expulsion, as the Kangaroo Court verdict !

Hope, the expulsion of Mahua Moitra from the parliament by the august House would be seen from the positive angle. Remember, when medication fails, the only option is surgery. The surgery may be painful for the patient and agonising for the relatives, but it is good and beneficial for the overall health. The parliament must retain its majesty at any cost, the voices of dissent and baseless insinuations notwithstanding.

* SC DEFERS A.P GOVT. SLP TO JAN.19

The Supreme Court on December 8 adjourned the Special Leave Petition filed by the Andhra Pradesh government against the High Court's order granting regular bail to the former Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu in 341 Cr., Skill Development scam to January 19 next year.

A bench of Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma aceded the request of the petitioner's Counsel Harish Salve who said that he will file a Counter in the matter.

* WOMAN CAN BE THE KARTA OF HUF: DELHI -HC

In a remarkable judgement, a division bench of the Delhi High Court has ruled that according to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act women are treated on par with men. Therefore, a woman can also be the Karta (Family Head). The Court observed that after the 2005 amendment to say that a woman can be a coparcener but cannot be a Karta, would be giving an interpretation which would not only be anomalous but also against the stated object of introduction of amendment.

Quoting Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, the bench underlined that "real change happens one step at a time."

* PENDING CRIMINAL CASE, NO BAR FOR PASSPORT: TS-HC

A single bench of Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court has ruled that pending of a criminal case against a person cannot be a ground for rejection of application to renew a passport.

The court directed the passport authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of his passport within a week.

Rejecting the argument of the passport authorities that a cheating case was pending against the petitioner, the Court observed that it is only when a person is convicted and a jail sentence is awarded, the authorities will acquire some discretion. In the instant case even the trial has not commenced, the Court added.

The petitioner, Ravikanti Venkatesham of Mancherial had sought the directions to the passport authorities.

* P&H-HC ON FREE AND FAIR TRIAL

A single bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the right of an accused for free and fair trial over takes the police power of secrecy in public interest.

Allowing an appeal of one, Paramjit Kaur, the wife of an accused for supplying the recording of conversation between the police authorities under Section 91 of Cr.PC , the court cited a supreme court 's judgement in Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India (2015) and directed the police authorities to provide the requested information to the petitioner.

* CONSUMER COMMN. AWARDS COMPENSATION, COSTS FOR DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam awarded the compensation of Rs.30,000 and litigation cost of Rs.10,000 to a consumer who complained against a caterer stating that after eating food he suffered diahorrea and vomiting.

The respondent caterer did not file his version and also did not appear before the Commission. Therefore, the court concluded that the caterer was admitting his guilt and ordered him to pay to the complainant as above. The complainant had claimed Rs. 50,000 towards medical expenses and physical and mental agony as a result of the food poisoning.