The Calcutta High Court was recently left disturbed after a woman admitted that she had filed a false case against three men, accusing them of raping her daughter, under political pressure [Court On Its Own Motion Vs. XXXX(Victim Girl) & Anr].

The Court noted that three men spent almost a year in jail on account of the false rape case before the complainant admitted that it was only lodged due to her abject poverty and due to pressure by local politicians who promised to help her family.

"Can one’s poverty be a good ground for making false allegations against an innocent person?" the Court asked.

A Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray proceeded to direct the trial court to close the case against the three accused.

"The relevant case will be concluded/terminated in the said court and not before this High Court," the Bench clarified.

Notably, the High Court also ordered the trial court to conduct an enquiry into the woman and her daughter on whether they would be liable under law for lodging a false complaint and fabricating evidence.

"As a result of such an act, three innocent persons being the petitioners herein, have spent almost one year behind the bar, and this fact, therefore, should also be taken into account by the Learned Judge. After enquiry, if the Learned Judge, Special POCSO Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad, finds that the defacto-complainant and/or her daughter (if major) are responsible for fabrication of false evidence under Section 192 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ... he shall initiate criminal proceedings against them," the Court said in its September 24 order.

The woman had claimed that the three men had raped her minor daughter. The accused were booked for rape under the Indian Penal Code and sexual assault under the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POSCO Act). The accused persons had languished in judicial custody for nearly a year.

During a bail hearing, however, the woman admitted that she had lodged a false case against the accused under political pressure. The High Court took a serious view of this. Therefore, apart from granting the accused bail, it also initiated a suo motu case, wherein it asked the woman to explain why she should not be prosecuted for filing the false case.

The woman offered an unconditional apology and explained that the false complaint was made under immense pressure from local political leaders. She added that her husband has been bedridden since 2017 due to a broken spinal cord and that their income was very limited. They relied heavily on State-sponsored grants from various social schemes, she said. She mentioned that at the end of July 2023, some local political leaders approached her to fabricate a false story.

The Court was told that these leaders had switched their allegiance from the ruling party to the opposition and had promised that the woman's family would be included in more social schemes and given more financial aid if she filed a false case.

Her counsel urged the Court to take a lenient view by referring to a 2018 poem titled "A Tea Seller and a Judge," written by Advocate Bharat Chugh, who was then serving as a railway magistrate.

The poem tells the story of a minor tea seller who, compelled by abject poverty, violated the provisions of the Indian Railway Act, 1989, while hawking in trains and railway stations. The magistrate had ultimately acquitted the young boy, given the circumstances that led to his actions.

The High Court, however, pointed out that no innocent person suffered in the tea seller's case.

"He (tea seller) violated the provisions of law due to his poverty. But, we must reiterate that poverty cannot be a ground for lodging false complaints against innocent persons. The contention of the defacto-complainant as such does not impress us," the Court said.

The Court also found that her daughter may not have been a minor when the rape case was filed, after being told that the daughter has been married and divorced twice.

The Court noted that while the POCSO act usually protects children even if they make a misleading complaint, this protective umbrella would not grant immunity to the daughter in this case.

"If a victim misleads the authority regarding her age and persuades the authority to take legal action against an innocent person by claiming that she is a minor, we think that the benefit of the provisions as envisaged under Section 22(2) of POCSO Act, 2012 is not available to such victim who is not a minor at the time of lodging false complaint," the Court said.

Advocates Sabir Ahmed and Somnath Adhikary appeared for the petitioners (accused).

Advocate Soumyajit Das Mahapatra appeared for the complainant woman and her daughter.

Advocates Arindam Sen and Shiladitya Banerjee appeared for the State.

[Read Order]

High Courts should not order probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) solely on the basis of letters received by it from various private parties, the Supreme Court held on Thursday [State of West Bengal v. Jashimuddin Mondal].

A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan held that such an exercise of entrusting an investigation to the CBI can be done only in very rare cases when the court is satisfied that the State police cannot do justice to the case.

"No doubt that the High Court, while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is empowered to entrust the investigation to the CBI. However, for doing so, it has to come to a reasoning as to why it finds that the investigation by the State Police is not fair or is partisan. Merely on the basis of some letters, such an exercise is not warranted," the top court said.

It, therefore, set aside an order of the Calcutta High Court dated April 19 by which the High Court had affirmed the CBI probe into allegations concerning appointment in schools by Gorkhaland Territorial Administration (GTA).

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the West Bengal government against the Calcutta High Court decision.

On April 9, a single-judge of the Calcutta High Court ordered CBI probe into the appointments. This directive was based on allegations received through multiple letters from residents of the Darjeeling hills accusing GTA officials, including former GTA chairperson Binay Tamang, of making illegal appointments under political pressure.

The High Court order pertained to the alleged illegal appointment of 700 to 1,000 employees including teachers within GTA during Tamang’s tenure as its administrator from 2017 to 2019.

The direction by the single-judge was upheld by a Division Bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Madhuresh Prasad on April 19.

This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The top court conceded that High Courts can indeed order a CBI investigation under Article 226 of the Constitution but underlined that the same cannot be solely on the basis of letters received by it.

"This Court has consistently held that such an exercise of entrusting an investigation to the CBI by the High Court has to be done in very rare cases," the apex court stated in its order.

There has to be cogent reasoning for the High Court to order such a probe, the Supreme Court said.

In the present case, there is not even a whisper as to why the single-judge found the investigation by the State Police to be unfair or partial so as to find it necessary to direct an enquiry to be conducted by the CBI, the Supreme Court concluded.

Hence, it set aside the orders passed by the single-judge and the Division Bench and remanded the matter back to the single-judge to be decided afresh.

Senior Advocates, AM Singhvi and Neeraj Kishan Kaul along with advocates Sanjay Basu, Astha Sharma, Piyush Agarwal, Amit Bhandari, Srisatya Mohanty, Shrivalli Kajaria, Shreyas Awasthi, Debojyoti Das, Ritwik Mohapatra and Varun Tyagi appeared for the State of West Bengal.

Senior Advocates Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Rauf Rahim and Menaka Guruswamy along with advocates Kunal Chatterji, Samim Ahmad, Ali Asghar Rahim, and Shekhar Kumar appeared for the respondents. Advocate Vikram Hegde appeared for the West Bengal board of secondary education.

[Read Judgment]

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud on Thursday defended his judgment in the Sabarimala temple case in which he said that barring of menstruating women to the hill shrine in Kerala amounted to untouchability barred under Article 17 of the Indian Constitution.

The CJI opined that the framers of the Indian Constitution had deliberately not limited the meaning of untouchability under Article 17 to any one social evil.

"The context of this provision (Article 17) was the stratified society we found ourselves in. Reading through the Constituent Assembly debates, I concluded that the framers deliberately left untouchability untethered to caste; that Article 17 provided a guarantee against notions of impurity and pollution-and caste was but one manifestation," he said.

The CJI was delivering the MK Nambyar Memorial Lecture today in New Delhi on the topic - Foresighted Mr. MK Nambyar - Constitutional Journeys Beyond Original Intent.

Nambyar is the father of Senior Advocate and former Attorney General KK Venugopal.

The event began with an introductory address by KK Venugopal followed by remarks by Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan. Venugopal's son, Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal delivered the closing remarks.

The CJI in his speech opposed a narrow, originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

"Originalism wrongly presumes that the intent of the framers can be precisely ascertained. It presumes that history speaks in one voice and this voice is capable of consistent interpretation by different readers. Answering these questions may not necessarily require us to tether ourselves to the elusive original intent of the framers. Should a Constitutional Court freeze the content of constitutional guarantees and provisions to what the ‘Founders’ perceived," he asked.

He said that the Constitutional doctrine must evolve with changes in the society.

"As society evolves, so must constitutional doctrine. The institutions which the Constitution has created must adapt flexibly to meet the challenges in a rapidly growing knowledge economy."

The Constitution was never meant to be a set of iron-clad rules governing the social and legal relations, he underscored.

"It was never their (Constitution makers') intention to lock the provisions of our Constitution in place, for eternity. This would have militated against the necessary flexibility, which is the key for constitutional longevity," he stated.

The Constitution of a country is more than the mere text, the CJI added.

"It is the foundation of this democratic culture and not the culmination of it. It merely stems from the framers’ intent, but as Mr Nambyar showed us, it blossoms in the lived realities of its constituents in their specific social contexts."

[Follow our live coverage]

[Watch the event]

A petition has been filed before the Bombay High Court by a lawyer seeking registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and BJP MLA Nitesh Rane for making alleged Islamophobic comments that hurt the religious sentiments of Muslim community.

The petitioner, advocate Mohammed Wasi Sayed, has said that he encountered a provocative video featuring self-proclaimed saint Mahant Ramgiri Maharaj, who made derogatory remarks about Prophet Mohammed.

During a public event attended by both the Mahant and CM Shinde, the Chief Minister reportedly expressed his support for the saint and warned the police against laying their hands on Mahant as long as remains in office.

This, Sayed has argued, undermines ongoing investigation.

MLA Nitesh Rane further inflamed tensions by threatening,

“If anybody says anything against Ramgiri Maharaj, we will enter your mosque and hit you one by one.”

He also allegedly made derogatory comments about Muslims by referring to them as “homosexuals.”

These statements, according to Sayed, should be seen as part of a broader trend of rising Islamophobia, which has become increasingly concerning in the country.

As per the plea, the remarks made by Shinde and Rane are strategically aimed at polarizing voters along communal lines, particularly with State assembly elections approaching.

"They started Islamophobic campaigns to divert the public attention from routine problems to hypothetical issues," Sayed said highlighting how such tactics could exacerbate social divisions.

The petition also highlighted the disturbing trend in online hate speech.

“The rise in islamophobia and hateful posts from India is on the rise. It has been felt almost in every corner. The data from Twitter/X is too alarming. The hateful tweets on X are increasing day after day. Therefore, mob lynching is increasing. Most of the hateful text, audio, and videos are undetected due to their being in native languages. The data is partially skewed because the USA and UK have a higher Twitter population as a percentage of their population, and the counted tweets were only in English. Thus, the native languages of India are least represented in the calculations and sampling,” the petition said.

Sayed also flagged the acts of certain social media users who allegedly spread Islamophobic content for political and economic gain.

They exploit social media platforms to amplify anti-Muslim sentiments and their rhetoric has had dangerous consequences, it was contended.

In light of the above, Sayed has sought FIR under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and the Information Technology Act against both Shinde and Rane along with a directive to halt live broadcasts of Rane's speeches targeting the Muslim community.

The Bombay High Court is expected to hear the petition soon.

In a relief to creditor classes with large numbers such as homebuyers, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) announced significant amendments to the Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons Regulations, 2016 on Wednesday.

These amendments, effective from September 24, 2024, are designed to enhance the representation of significant classes of creditors during corporate insolvency proceedings.

The new regulations allow for the appointment of an interim representative who will advocate for a class of creditors, such as homebuyers, while waiting for the approval of a permanent authorised representative from the Adjudicating Authority.

This interim representative will have the same rights and responsibilities as a fully authorised representative during meetings of committees of creditors, ensuring that the interests of these stakeholders are adequately represented.

These amendments are expected to streamline the insolvency process and provide homebuyers with a fairer opportunity to voice their concerns, addressing the challenges they often face in such proceedings.

[Read Press Release]

Amit Vyas, the Founder Partner of Vertices Partners, has initiated legal action against BookMyShow and Live Nation Entertainment, alleging a large-scale ticketing scam linked to the highly anticipated Coldplay concert at Mumbai.

The allegations pertain to ticket sales for the Coldplay concert set to take place on January 18, 19 and 21, 2025, at DY Patil Stadium in Navi Mumbai.

Vyas has filed a formal criminal complaint with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) in Mumbai on behalf of frustrated Coldplay fans across India.

The complaint has accused online ticketing platforms of engaging in unethical practices that hindered genuine fans from purchasing tickets during the official sale, which began at 12 PM on September 22.

Vyas alleges that the platforms manipulated access by logging legitimate users out or blocking them from the site, enabling ticket bots and black-market operators to take control of the sales.

According to the complaint, tickets were marked as sold out on BookMyShow shortly before appearing on third-party resale sites like Viagogo at inflated prices, ranging from 30 to 50 times their original value. This sparked outrage among fans and raised concerns about possible collusion between the ticketing platform and resellers.

BookMyShow and Live Nation have a lot to explain for how tickets were seemingly redirected to the black market and resold at exorbitant prices, Vyas added.

The complaint further alleges that key decision-makers at BookMyShow and Live Nation were involved in orchestrating the scam. The deployment of bots and manipulation of digital queues deprived genuine fans of fair access to the concert violating consumer rights and various provisions of Indian Criminal Law, he has alleged.

Therefore, he has sought registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including organized crime, cheating, criminal conspiracy and criminal breach of trust.

In addition to the criminal complaint, Vyas is also planning to file a public interest litigation (PIL) petition before the Bombay High Court to establish regulatory guidelines for major events in order to prevent future fraudulent activities of this nature.

The Saket District Court recently directed Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Suresh Nakhua to file fresh affidavit in the defamation suit filed by him against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee [Suresh Karamshi Nakhua vs. Dhruv Rathee].

Nakhua had moved the Court against Rathee alleging defamation due to the video uploaded by Rathee on his YouTube channel on July 7.

The video was titled “My Reply to Godi Youtubers | Elvish Yadav | Dhruv Rathee” on his YouTube channel on July 7.

District Judge Gunjan Gupta observed that Nakhua’s affidavit annexed with his petition was defective and directed him to file it afresh.

The judge said that even though the defect in the affidavit is curable, Nakhua had failed to cure the same and filed the suit with defective affidavit.

Nakhua, the spokesperson for Mumbai unit of the BJP, moved the Court alleging that Rathee in his video had referred to him as being part of “violent and abusive trolls”.

As per his suit, the allegations are without any “rhyme or reason” and have the tendency to bring down his reputation.

“That the Defendant No.1 [Dhruv Rathee], who in a highly provocative and incendiary video that spread like wildfire across digital platforms, made bold and unsubstantiated claims against the Plaintiff. The insidious intent behind this video lies in its unfounded insinuation that the Plaintiff is somehow linked to violent and abusive troll activities,” the suit argued. 

Nakhua claimed in his plea that because of the allegations made by Rathee, he (Nakhua) has faced widespread condemnation and ridicule.

“That through this cunningly crafted video, a deliberate campaign to besmirch the Plaintiff's integrity and reputation is apparent, as baseless accusations and malicious connections are artfully insinuated. The primary creator of this video that is Plaintiff seek not only to cast doubt on the Plaintiff's character but also to tarnish his hard-earned standing in society, has planted seeds of suspicion and mistrust that can have far-reaching consequences. The repercussions of such false allegations are manifold, extending well beyond the realm of the video itself to irrevocably impact both the personal and professional domains of the Plaintiff, leaving scars that may never fully heal.”

When the matter was taken up on September 20, Senior Advocate Satvik Varma and Advocate Nakul Gandhi appeared for Rathee and argued that the affidavit filed by Nakhua with his petition was defective since it was not properly sworn and verified. 

It was pointed out that Nakhua claimed to be a resident of Mumbai in his affidavit, but his affidavit had been notarized in Delhi.

Subsequently, despite Nakhua’s admission that his affidavit was defective, he filed an amended petition but with the same defective affidavit.

Advocate Raghav Awasthi, appearing for Nakhua, submitted that the issue of defective affidavit was curable and sought permission to submit an amended plaint with a fresh affidavit. 

He further submitted that Nakhua has an office in Gurgaon but the court rejected this argument and directed him to file fresh affidavit.

The Court will hear the matter next on November 14.

Nakhua was represented by Advocate Raghav Awasthi.

Rathee was represented by Senior Advocate Satvik Varma, with Advocates Nakul Gandhi, Mujeeb and Shantanu.

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the review petitions filed by the convicts in the Bilkis Bano gang rape case challenging the cancellation of their remission (early release from prison) [State of Gujarat v Bilkis Yakub Rasool and ors].

A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan also dismissed review petition filed by the State of Gujarat in this regard.

The State and the convicts had moved the Court challenging the January 8 judgment of the top court which had cancelled the remission granted by the State government to the eleven convicts in the case.

The State's challenge was limited to the adverse remarks made against it by the Court in the January 8 judgment.

"Having carefully gone through the review petitions, the order under challenge and the papers annexed therewith, we are satisfied that there is no error apparent on the face of the record or any merit in the review petitions, warranting reconsideration of the order impugned," the Court said while dismissing the review pleas.

The case concerns the early release of 11 convicts who had gang raped Bano and murdered her family members during the 2002 communal riots in the State.

The State had granted remission to convicts Jaswant Nai, Govind Nai, Shailesh Bhatt, Radhyesham Shah, Bipin Chandra Joshi, Kesarbhai Vohania, Pradeep Mordhiya, Bakabhai Vohania, Rajubhai Soni, Mitesh Bhatt and Ramesh Chandana.

The State granted remission of their sentence following a May 2022 judgment in which the top court held that an application of remission should be considered in line with the policy of the State where the crime was committed and not where the trial was held.

Pursuant to that judgment, the Gujarat government applied its remission policy to release the convicts though the trial in the case had taken place in Maharashtra.

Various petitioners including Bano challenged the same before the Supreme Court.

The Court on January 8 quashed the Gujarat government's decision to allow premature release of convicts. 

The Court said that the Gujarat government was not empowered to pass the remission order since appropriate government entitled to pass orders of remission was the government of the State where the trial had taken place, which in this case was Maharashtra and not Gujarat.

The Gujarat government in February filed its review petition before the Supreme Court against the top court's January 8 judgment.

The State's review petition sought deletion of the top court's observations that the State of Gujarat had “acted in tandem and was complicit with accused".

Later, convicts too filed review petitions against the judgment.

The Court today dismissed all the review petitions.

[Read order]

A United States court recently set aside an arbitral award which had held former Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Chairman M Damodaran liable to pay ₹25 million to American healthcare company UpHealth Holdings for contractual breaches.

While deciding UpHealth's plea for enforcement of the award, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois allowed Damodaran's motion to vacate, while upholding the award as regards other respondents.

"The Court grants Damodaran’s motion to vacate. But Damodaran’s case is not over. This Court makes no ruling on the veracity of his evidence. When an arbitration award is vacated, the “appropriate remedy is to remand the case for further arbitration proceedings"...It will therefore be up to the Tribunal to determine whether Damodaran violated his duties at the EGM after further proceedings."

The arbitral award stemmed from a Share Purchase Agreement between UpHealth, India-based healthcare company Glocal Healthcare Systems (of which Damodaran is a Mentor), certain shareholders and directors of Glocal, and Damodaran. In June 2021, UpHealth completed the cash purchase of shares from Damodaran and other shareholders of Glocal. By the end of 2021, UpHealth held 94.81% of Glocal shares.

Subsequently, UpHealth sought to appoint its proposed designees to the Glocal Board pursuant to the agreement. When the Glocal Board failed to appoint such nominees, UpHealth asked it to call an extraordinary general meeting (EGM).

Before the EGM, an UpHealth employee demanded a vote by poll on its appointments. Instead of following this demand, one of the Glocal directors called for a vote by show of hands of the shareholders in attendance. The shareholder vote favoured Glocal and prevented UpHealth from appointing its designees.

Pertinently, Damodaran contended before the Court that he was not present at the EGM and that he did not vote.

After Glocal shareholders voted against appointing UpHealth’s designees, the latter company initiated arbitration proceedings before a tribunal in Chicago. Damodaran and other directors and shareholders of Glocal did not participate in the proceedings, but wrote to the tribunal objecting to the proceedings. In March 2024, the tribunal held in favour of UpHealth, rejecting the objections made by Damodaran and others.

The tribunal awarded UpHealth damages of more than $110 million, including more than $25 million against Damodaran.

Attempts to challenge the award before Indian courts bore no fruit. Judge Coleman pointed to one particular finding of an Indian court which held, “having received the entire funds under the SPA, the respondents are now entangling the petitioners before every possible Police Station, Tribunal and Court while refusing to discharge their obligations under the SPA."

Challenging the award against him before the US court, Damodaran argued that the tribunal based its award on a “non-fact” or “clear mistake of historical fact.”

He contended that the only basis for his liability was that he voted to block UpHealth’s designees from being appointed to the Glocal Board. Damodaran said that the tribunal never made a specific finding that he did so, that no evidence in the record supported such a finding, and that he was not at the EGM and did not vote.

The Court found that Damodaran was not entirely blameless in the tribunal's error, as he had not participated in the arbitral proceedings.

"But unlike the other Respondents, Damodaran’s behavior is perhaps more understandable. As explained above, Damodaran represented himself in a complex foreign arbitration over claims in which he believed he had no stake. Damodaran objected and told UpHealth and the Tribunal that he had no power to appoint UpHealth’s designees; had no management power at UpHealth aside from his nominal shares; and had tendered his shares to UpHealth, which he believed ended his duties under the agreement," it held.

While granting Damodaran's motion to vacate, the Court remanded the matter back to the tribunal.

Damodaran was represented by US firm Jenner & Block LLP, which was advised by Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (SAM). The team from SAM comprised Managing Partner Pallavi Shroff, Partners Siddhartha Datta and Aditya Mukherjee, as well as Principal Associate Krishna Tangirala and Trisha Mukherjee, Senior Associate Aditya Thyagarajan and Associate Chetan Kabra.

[Read Order]