Entire wealth of the country is concentrated in the hands of a few while a vast majority cannot afford two square meals a day, Supreme Court judge Justice BR Gavai lamented on Friday.

Echoing the words of Dr. BR Ambedkar in the final constitutional debate in November 1949, Justice Gavai said that the political equality granted by the universal adult franchise shouldn't blind us to inequality in other spheres.

He highlighted the need to address the lack of economic and social mobility which trap citizens within the brackets in which they are born.

"Dr. Ambedkar said that on a political plane we have achieved equality and justice by providing for one person, one vote. But what about economic and social justice inequality? We have a society compartmentalised into tight categories where persons cannot travel from one compartment to another compartment. On an economic plane we have a society where the entire wealth of the country is concentrated in a few hands whereas the vast majority find it difficult to eat even two meals a day. Therefore, he (Dr. Ambedkar) warned us that we have to make every effort to eradicate these inequalities. If we do not do so then the edifice of democracy we have so labourously built will collapse", Justice Gavai said.

Justice Gavai was speaking at an event organised by the Kerala High Court to launch several new initiatives which include India's first exclusive digital court to deal with cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act and Kerala's sixth special court to handle cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Chief Minister (CM) Pinarayi Vijayan, who also addressed the gathering, spoke about the vision of the constitution framers in including Article 17 in the Constitution abolishing untouchability in the nation.

The CM affirmed Kerala's commitment to uplift all sections of society.

"Those who attempt a study of the Indian Constitution without a correct comprehension of the social history of this country will be perplexed to find a provision like Article 17 in it. That Article reflected the vision of the founding fathers of the Constitution aimed at liberating large masses of people who were sidelined and subjected to disabilities by reason of their birth in certain castes treated as untouchable. Comprehensive amendments of SC/ST Act envisage the establishment of special courts. Kerala has already established five such courts and the one being inaugurated in Ernakulam is the sixth special court. It is a testament to Kerala's commitment to safeguarding the rights of marginalised communities. It is only natural that a State that makes budgetary allocation that is higher than the normative share of SC/STs in the State's population sets up a course to ensure justice to them," the CM said.

Regarding the other initiatives launched today which are part of the effort to digitise the judiciary, Justice Gavai opined that they would make justice more speedy, affordable and accessible.

"In the last 60 years, the country on the executive, legislative and judicial side have played their role in adhering to the constitutional promise of social and economic justice. I am sure that these endeavours will provide speedy, affordable and accessible justice", he said.

Justice Gavai also spoke of the role played by technology in enabling the Indian judiciary to adapt quickly during the pandemic period.

"Technology provided solace to millions of Indian citizens. After 2020 we have seen that all over the country there have been great strides in technology. We have also been using AI and now we have judgments which are translated into various vernacular languages. The system is not for the judges or the lawyers, it is for the people. Judges and lawyers work for the ultimate consumer of the system which is the citizen of India," he said.

Supreme Court judges Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal also spoke about the adaptability afforded by technology but added words of caution to not leave behind those who may be inept at navigating an increasingly digitised justice delivery system.

Acting Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court and Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Raja Vijayaraghavan V spoke about the effort put into materialising the Kerala judiciary's vision of a more digitised system. They expressed their hope that these initiatives would go a long way in not only improving accessibility and transparency but also in tackling the judiciary's pendency problem.

[Read our live coverage of the event]

The Madras High Court Friday asked BJP Member of Parliament Shobha Karandlaje to clarify whether she was willing to hold a press conference as suggested by the Tamil Nadu government, to apologise for her comments alleging that the State of Tamil Nadu had a role to play in the Rameshwaram Café blast in Bengaluru.

Justice G Jayachandran told the counsel appearing for Karandlaje not to blow hot and cold and said that she should clarify whether she would apologise or whether she wished to contest the State’s proposal in Court.

“You can’t blow hot and cold. If you are apologising, then stick with it. You can’t say you are apologising and then later say you will contest the matter on merits at a later stage,” Justice Jayachandran said.

The judge made the comments after Karandlaje’s counsel said that she had expressed reservations about the draft apology letter that the State had shared. The counsel also pointed out her previous post on X where she had already apologised for the issue.

The draft apology letter was shared by Advocate General PS Raman after he had told the Court on the previous hearing that the State was willing to withdraw the case lodged against Karandlaje if she held a press conference to apologise for her comments.

While Justice Jayachandran initially said that he was inclined to dictate orders and dismiss Karandlaje’s quashing petition, her counsel urged the Court to adjourn the hearing saying that a senior counsel had been engaged to represent the BJP MP in the case.

The Court then granted a week’s time and adjourned the matter for further hearing to August 23.

Karandlaje is seeking quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) registered against her by the Madurai City Cybercrime Police.

As per the FIR, following the blasts in Rameshwaram Café in Bengaluru on March 1 this year, Karandlaje had allegedly said in a public statement,

“People trained in Tamil Nadu plant bombs here. Bomb was planted at the hotel.” 

An a significant move, a Med-Arb (Mediation-Arbitration) Centre has been launched at the Gujarat High Court Arbitration Centre in the High Court campus.

On August 15, after the customary Independence Day flag-hoisting ceremony, Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal of the Gujarat High Court inaugurated the Med-Arb Centre in the presence of High Court Justices, specially trained mediators and other legal luminaries.

Med-Arb is a form of alternative dispute resolution that involves the integration of mediation in matters referred for arbitration.

In May this year, the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority (GSLSA) had organized an orientation and training program whereby eleven advocates, who exclusively deal with commercial cases or arbitration matters were trained by expert mediators.

These specially trained officials will now act as mediators at the Arb-Med Centre.

In an address made at the orientation event held in May, Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal had observed that the introduction of mediation within arbitration, particularly for commercial disputes, could lead to faster resolutions.

A centre to tackle disputes using this approach has now been set up.

Its inauguration ceremony on Thursday was followed by a cultural programme, “Muskan" in which differently abled children expressed their talent.

The Madras High Court on Friday took exception to the State's indiscriminate and casual use of preventive detention law against citizens.

A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam said that the State has to give a serious thought to the issue and take a step back to consider who can be termed a 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Goondas Act).

“Who is a Goonda? That is the important aspect that the State needs to seriously thing about. Can this court allow you to invoke the Act so casually? We are just reminding you that the Supreme Court has made it clear that illegal detention of a citizen by even one day is illegal. There is a report by the Supreme Court that says that Madras High Court is not passing timely orders in preventive detention matters. We want to bring it to your notice. How can you invoke the Goondas Act in cases of individual offences like these?” the bench said.

The Court further said that according to a published report by the Supreme Court, it takes an average detenue under the preventive detention law, a minimum of 181 days to get relief from the high court.

The Court made the observations while hearing a petition filed by one C Selvaraj seeking quashing of a preventive detention order issued against him by the State authorities in relation to a financial fraud case.

It noted that that present case involved use of bogus bank accounts and salary certificates to secure major loans from a bank. However, the authorities had booked Selvaraj, an accused in the case, under the Goondas Act.

Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) E Raj Thilak told the Court that bogus bank accounts had opened with the aid of the detenue and false salary certificates had been issued based on which loans were sanctioned. 60 credit cards worth ₹38 lakh and personal loans worth ₹3 crore were availed by 59 customers with fake salary slips. All of this had been facilitated by the detenue, the APP told the Court.

The preventive detention order had been deemed necessary to prevent him from causing any further cases of fraud, the State said.

The High Court however, said that these were all “individual related offences” and therefore, the police had to conduct an investigation to recover the amount misappropriated.

“The nature of the allegations here in our opinion may not strictly fall under the requirements for invoking the preventive detention Act of 1982. There is no element of breach of public order. Individual offences of bank transactions can’t be brought under this Act. Therefore, we are not inclined to approve the preventive detention order,” the Court said while quashing such detention order and allowing the petitioner’s plea.

The Delhi High Court on Friday ordered Samajwadi Party to take down allegations of rape made on X (formerly Twitter) against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) IT Cell head Amit Malviya.

Senior Advocates Arvind Nayar and Nalin Kohli appeared for Malviya before Justice Vikas Mahajan and argued that Malviya is the IT Cell head of a major political party and has built his reputation with great difficulty.

“These kinds of statements can’t be made for anybody… It is causing damage every day. Lakhs of people have seen this,” Nayar said.

He pressed for an interim order to take down the tweet and said that order may be given by dasti (service of court notice by hand) as well.

Justice Mahajan agreed and added that order will be given by dasti.

Malviya has sued the Samajwadi Party (SP) for defamation. The suit has been filed through advocates Surjendu Sankar Das and Annie Mittal.

The dispute is tied to allegations of rape against an SP leader in Uttar Pradesh's Ayodhya. SP leader Moeed Khan and another man named Raju Khan are stated to be the accused in the case.

On August 3, SP Chief Akhilesh Yadav tweeted that a DNA test must be done and the guilty should be punished, but if the allegations are proven to be false, then action must be taken against the officials involved.

The same day, Malviya quoted Yadav's tweet and asked what he wanted to prove through a DNA test.

"But nothing other than this kind of disgusting politics can be expected from Akhilesh Yadav... In the coming days, wherever SP wins, there will be many news of such misdeeds against the daughters and daughters-in-law of backward society in every village. SP is less of a political party and more of a gang of criminals," Malviya said.

SP Media Cell's Twitter handle reacted to Malviya and put up a post on X with pictures of BJP leaders with people accused of rape.

This included photos of Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Asaram Bapu (Asaram has been convicted of rape) and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath's photo with Swami Chinmayanand (Chinmayanand has been accused of rape).

The tweet went on to say that there were talks that Malviya used to invite women to his hotel and rape them, and talks of his "illicit" relations with men.

The Delhi High Court on Friday passed orders for restoration of the ad hoc committee constituted by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) to manage affairs of the Wrestling Federation of India.

Justice Sachin Datta passed the order after noting that the dissolution of the committee was unwarranted.

"Since this Court has concluded that the dissolution of the ad-hoc committee was unwarranted, it restores the mandate of the ad-hoc committee appointed by the IOA vide order dated 27.12.2023. However, it shall be open to IOA to reconstitute the ad-hoc committee so as to ensure that the same is a multi-member body comprising of eminent sportsperson/s and/or experts who are well-versed in dealing with the International Federations, so as to allay any concerns that the UWW might have as regards the steps taken qua the WFI," the Court said.

The Court also said that Ministry Youth Affairs and Sports would be at liberty to withdraw its order of December 12, 2023 by which it had asked IOA to constitute the ad-hoc committee.

"Further, it is clarified that the ad-hoc committee shall continue to act as such, only till such time as the order dated 24.12.2023 issued by the Respondent No.1/MYAS [Ministry Youth Affairs and Sports] is in force. It shall be open to the Respondent No. 1 to withdraw/review the said order, if circumstances so warrant. This order shall not be construed as imposing any limitations or constraints in this regard," the Court said.

The Court passed the order while dealing with a plea filed by wrestlers Vinesh Phogat, Bajrang Punia, Sakshi Malik and Satyawart Kadian.

The wrestlers had asked the Court to appointed a one-man committee under a retired judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court to manage WFI.

Justice Datta said that at this stage, he is not inclined to accept the prayer for appointment of a retired judge as the administrator.

The wrestlers were at the forefront of the wrestlers’ protest against former WFI President Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. After Singh’s tenure, Sanjay Singh became the head of the wrestling federation. He is considered close to Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.

The Centre had suspended the WFI on December 24, 2023, just three days after it elected the new office-bearers, for not following the provisions of its own constitution while taking decisions.

The government requested the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) to constitute an ad hoc committee to manage and control its affairs. However, in February 2024, the United World Wrestling (world wrestling body) lifted the suspension of WFI which led to IOA dissolving its ad hoc committee.

Phogat, Punia, Malik and Kadiyan filed an application in the High Court seeking directions to the Central government to not revoke the suspension of the WFI and to appoint a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India to take over its management.

“Pass specific directions to enable the One Man Committee to be the only nodal entity to exclusively communicate with UWW and specific directions to the Indian Olympic Association to facilitate the same as per the directions and instructions of the One Man Committee and pass further Orders directing Respondent No.2-WFI to strictly adhere to the instruction of One Man Committee and not to act beyond the instructions of One Man Committee,” the plea demanded.

[Read Judgment]

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently observed that there is no power vested with Lok Adalats to dismiss a case referred to it for non-prosecution or if a party fails to appear before it [Syed Tajamul Bashir V/s Mohammad Ayoub Khan].

Justice Sanjay Dhar clarified that the Lok Adalat can either pass an award if the parties before it arrive at a settlement or (if no such settlement is reached) refer the case back to the court concerned for its disposal under law.

"There remains no manner of doubt that a Lok Adalat can pass an award only if the parties arrive at compromise or settlement. In case no such compromise or settlement is arrived at, the only option available with the Lok Adalat is to refer the case back to the concerned Court for its disposal under law. There is no power vested with the Lok Adalat to dismiss a case referred to it for non-prosecution, if a party fails to appear before it," stated the August 9 order.

Lok Adalats offer an alternative platform to resolve disputes. Cases pending before courts of law or at pre-litigation stages can be referred to Lok Adalats for the amicable settlement of disputes under the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987.

The idea is to ease the burden of courts and to pave the way for faster resolution of legal disputes.

The High Court was hearing a plea challenging a Lok Adalat's decision to dismiss a cheque bounce complaint for want of prosecution.

The question raised before the Court was whether a Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authority Act has jurisdiction to dismiss a case in default for non-prosecution.

The High Court referred several provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act and observed that when any case is referred to Lok Adalat, it usually has to be disposed of by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise or settlement between the parties.

The Court further noted that Section 20 (6) of the Act says that if no award is passed by the Lok Adalat on the basis of a compromise of settlement, "the Lok the Lok Adalat has to advise the party to seek remedy in the Court, whereafter the Court has to proceed to deal with the case from the stage which was reached before such reference."

In view of this, the Court concluded that the Lok Adalat did not have any power to dismiss the petitioner's case only because he did not appear before it.

Accordingly, it allowed the petition and set aside the Lok Adalat order under challenge.

"The complaint filed by the petitioner before the concerned Court shall be taken up for further proceedings for its disposal in accordance with law, from the stage which had reached at the time of its reference to the Lok Adalat," the Court added.

A similar ruling was recently passed by the Rajasthan High Court.

Advocate Mir Umar appeared for the petitioner.

Advocate Tawheed Ahmad appeared for the private respondent.

[Read Order]

The Delhi High Court recently restrained a host of YouTube channels, websites, and social media handles from infringing or copying any trademark, title, character, or any other intellectual property of the popular sitcom Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah [Neela Film Productions Private Limited v TaarakMehtaKaOoltahChashmah.com & Ors].

Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the ex parte ad interim injunction order on August 14.

It would cover platforms illegally selling the show’s merchandise, copying its character, or creating Artificial Intelligence (AI) images, deepfakes and animated videos, including John Doe (unknown) defendants.

“An order of ex parte ad-interim injunction is passed thereby restraining the defendant nos. 1 to 12 and 14 to 21, (including the John Doe parties), their owners, partners, proprietors, officers, servants, employees and all others in capacity of principal or agent, acting for and on their behalf or anyone claiming through by or under it, from in any manner, hosting, streaming, broadcasting, transmitting, exhibiting, making available for viewing and downloading, providing access to and communicating to the public displaying, uploading, modifying, publishing, updating, sharing (including to its subscribers and users), offering for sale on their websites, through the internet, or in any manner or platform whatsoever, any content, goods or services, that in any manner whatsoever, amounts to infringement/passing off, of the plaintiff’s copyrighted material/ registered trademarks, including, but not limited to the title, the Characters, Format and Underlying Materials in the said show or anything else, which otherwise amounts to an infringement of the plaintiff’s Copyright/registered trademarks/passing off of the goods/services offered by the defendants,” the Court ordered.

Neela Film Productions Private Limited, the producer of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashma has approached the High Court arguing that they own the title, the format, characters, characterizations, character mannerisms, characteristic dialogues, voice, dialogue delivery, mannerisms and all other intellectual property rights (IPR) in the show.

It was stated that several social media accounts, websites, and channels have come up that are infringing on their rights and even selling their products online.

The Court was informed that apart from creating the videos, animations, and deepfakes, pornographic content is also being shown using the characters of the show.

After considering the case, the Bench said that the plaintiff (Neela Film Productions) had made a prima facie case for the grant of injunction.

It, therefore, passed the injunction order.

Advocates Pravin Anand, Ameet Naik, Dhruv Anand, Madhu Gododia, Udita Patro, Rohil Bandekar, Nimrat Singh, Deveesha Tudekar, Dhananjay Khanna and Sujoy Mukherji appeared for the plaintiff, Neela Film Productions.

Advocates Mamta Rani Jha, Rohan Ahuja, Shruttima Ehersa, Vatsalya Vishal, Anishi Sodani, Rahul Choudhary and Diya Viswanath represented Google.

[Read Order]