Stepping aside from the usual practice of pronouncing judgments in the English, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court on Thursday pronounced an order in a matter in Kannada [Nanjavudootha Swamiji v. S Linganna].

A Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and CM Joshi pronounced its order on a matter pertaining to granting probate of a will.

The judges authored the same judgment in two languages - Kannada and English.

Before pronouncing the order, Justice Dixit said,

“We in fact, want to set a new trend...If Kannada is not to die out, then Kannada should be recognised.”

Justice Joshi too chipped in and said,

“We give all our judgments in English. If we do this, how will the common people understand? In England, court proceedings were conducted in Latin until 1730. Thereafter, a law was made that the orders and judgments of the English court should be given in the local language. Therefore, since 1730, proceedings in England have been conducted in English.”

He pointed out that all judgments of the Supreme Court and the high Courts were written and pronounced in English. While the Supreme Court had consistently encouraged the translation of such judgments in regional languages, they were authored only in English, the judge said.

“This was done with the intention that everyone should understand. However, we ourselves do not know the Kesavananda Bharati judgment in Kannada. You (the lawyers) can know. We should know the operative part at least in Kannada. Then the litigants will understand the judgment,” he said.

The Court also said that while Article 348(1)(a) of the Constitution mandated that all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court, shall be in English language, it did not say that they should be in “English only.”

The Bench also revealed that it had written the same order twice, once in English and then in Kannada.

“This is not a translation. We have written it in Kannada. Just like how poet Rabindranath Tagore used to write poems in Bengali and English,” the Bench said.

With the consent of the Governor and the Chief Justice, regional languages too can be used in High Courts, the judges said.

At the end of the pronouncement, Justice Joshi read out the operative part of the judgment in English.

The advocates present in the Court lauded the judges’ initiative and said that even the common man will be able to understand its judgments. They expressed the hope that other judges of the High Court will be inspired to do the same.

Justice Dixit then said,

“We do not know about that, but we have done our part.”

Back in 2008, Justice Arali Nagaraj had pronounced a verdict in Kannada.

In 2010, then Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa had made a special mention in a public speech and commended Justice Nagaraj for delivering the verdict in the regional language.

Delhi riots accused Sharjeel Imam told the Delhi High Court on Thursday that he never called for violence in any of the speeches delivered by him as part of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

Imam’s counsel today concluded his arguments in his bail plea before the division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur.

“In none of my speeches, none of my material there is remotely anything which could say that I at any point intended to incite any kind of violence,” Imam submitted. 

It was claimed that the only overt acts attributable to him were the speeches delivered by him at Jamia Milia Islamia and in few other cities. 

His counsel said that in the speeches, he had impressed upon the audience that the protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has to be non-violent and peaceful.

It was further submitted several months after his speeches at Aligarh and Delhi, the Delhi Police and other States started registering first information reports (FIRs) against him on charges of sedition and unlawful assembly under Indian Penal Code and under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

On January 28 2020, he was arrested from his hometown in Jehanabad, Bihar in connection with the Delhi FIR. 

“Almost 5 years have passed in custody now,” Imam submitted before Court. 

Imam further argued that the Delhi Police has charged him for criminal conspiracy with co-accused persons, but there had been no interaction among them.

“I am the only one who has no connection with anyone at all. The prosecution made out conspiracy where there was none,” Imam submitted. 

Further, it was submitted that Imam had distanced himself from Shaheen Bagh protests by a post on Facebook in which he had stated that there is a serious apprehension of violence by political parties and requested to stop protests for the time being. 

It was also argued that the prosecution has only relied upon his WhatsApp chats to implicate him for criminal conspiracy though there was no chat or call with any of the co-conspirators or co-accused.

He further submitted that none of his chats with anyone would even remotely suggest that he intended to incite violence. 

Further, Imam made reference to court findings in his bail orders in other cases against him, stating that he had not called for violence.

He submitted that the Allahabad High Court had granted him bail in the case pertaining to his Aligarh speech, in which it was observed that “neither the applicant called anyone to bear arms nor was anyone incited.”

The counsel also referred to the bail order of a Delhi Court stating that the court had found that the prosecution evidence was “scanty and sketchy.”

Imam was arrested by the Delhi Police in 2020 under the stringent provisions of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

The prosecution has named him as the main conspirator behind the North-east Delhi riots of February 2020.

Imam had earlier moved the High Court for early hearing of his bail plea stating that it has been pending since April 2022.

The petition was listed for hearing more than 60 times before seven different benches. However, the High Court rejected his plea.

He then approached the Supreme Court seeking bail. In the alternative, he sought directions to the High Court to expedite his bail hearing.

The Supreme Court in October dismissed his petition.

A Bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma said that it was not inclined to entertain the petition since it has been filed directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking bail.

However, it asked the Delhi High Court to consider Imam's request to expeditiously decide his bail plea pending before the High Court.

The High Court has now expedited hearing of bail pleas of accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.

The matter will be heard next on December 20.

Following the recent suicide of Bengaluru techie Atul Subhash due to alleged harassment by his estranged wife and in-laws, the media has shifted its focus towards matrimonial laws, reporting how they may be tilted in favour of women.

News reports state that the Supreme Court recently laid down eight factors for deciding alimony in divorce cases.

However, a reading of the judgment dated December 10 reveals that the top court has only summarised what has been held before.

Bar & Bench takes a closer look.

What was the case before the top court?

The case related to a maintenance case of an estranged couple living separately since 2004. The husband moved the family court for divorce on the ground of cruelty. A few months later, the wife moved for maintenance, which was increased from time to time. 

Before the top court, the husband challenged a recent Delhi High Court order dismissing his plea against a 2018 family court order asking him to pay ₹1,15,000 interim maintenance to his former wife. The High Court also enhanced the maintenance from ₹1,15,000 to ₹1,45,000 from the date of the enhancement application in 2009 till the withdrawal of the divorce petition in 2016.

However, before the top court, the couple agreed to settle their dispute amicably instead of delaying the proceedings.

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna Varale then proceeded to dissolve their marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, considering that they have been staying separately for almost over two decades now. 

What did the Court say on the question of maintenance?

The Court noted that since the marriage was dissolved, only the question of permanent alimony remained. In this regard, the Court delved into the position of law with regard to determination of permanent alimony.

It went through previous judgments laying down the factors to be considered for “a just, fair and reasonable” amount of permanent alimony.

“There cannot be strict guidelines or a fixed formula for fixing the amount of permanent maintenance. The quantum of maintenance is subjective to each case and is dependent on various circumstances and factors. The Court needs to look into factors such as income of both the parties; conduct during the subsistence of marriage; their individual social and financial status; personal expenses of each of the parties; their individual capacities and duties to maintain their dependents; the quality of life enjoyed by the wife during the subsistence of the marriage; and such other similar factors,” it said.

In particular, the Bench looked at the 2020 landmark ruling in the case of Rajnesh v Neha. In that judgment, the apex court had laid down guidelines for determining the payment of interim compensation and permanent alimony.

It also made it mandatory for the couple to file affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings.

While issuing the guidelines, the top court in the 2020 ruling took note of the following guidelines issued by the Delhi High Court in 2007:

Further, the Court said that additional factors would be relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance payable. These factors include:

(a) Age and employment of parties.

(b) Right to residence.

(c) Where the wife is earning some income.

(d) Maintenance of minor children.

(e) Serious disability or ill health.

The factors were then reiterated and summarised by the top court in its July 2024 decision in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel.

This summarisation of the factors was only reproduced - with slight changes - by the top court in its December 10 judgment.

This proves that the media reports are only partially correct, ignoring the fact that these guidelines have been in place for quite some time now.

The judgment dated December 10 itself makes it clear that the guidelines are only a reiteration.

Further, the Court made it clear that these are only guidelines, and that a straitjacket formula cannot be followed for grant of permanent alimony.

The Court noted in this case that the wife is unemployed, while the husband is an accomplished banker. 

It proceeded to order a one-time settlement of ₹5 crore to be paid to the wife towards her pending claims, while also taking note of the fact that the husband has already paid ₹72 lakh in arrears of maintenance.

It further ordered payment of a ₹1 crore towards maintenance and care of the couple's son for his higher education.

[Read Judgment]

The Kerala High Court recently issued guidelines to ensure that juveniles or minors are not mistakenly treated as adults in criminal cases, merely because the authorities fail to cross check their age while arresting them [Mahesh & anr v State of Kerala].

The order was passed after the Court came across a case where two persons (petitioners) who were arrested as minors underwent over a decade of imprisonment after the authorities failed to verify their juvenile status at the time of their arrest and trial.

A Bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and G Girish observed that the petitioners unnecessarily suffered incarceration for over 14 years due to this lapse.

The Court pointed out that if the petitioners' juvenile status had been properly verified, they would have been sent to an observation home, with a maximum detention period of three years.

"It is most unfortunate that the petitioners had to undergo incarceration in prison for a period of about 14 years due to the failure of the authorities concerned to take note of the fact that they were juveniles at the time of commission of the crime. If their juvenility was disclosed to the Magistrate, who conducted the enquiry, or the Additional Sessions Judge, who conducted the trial, the maximum period of detention they would have to undergo in some observation homes would have been three years," the Court said.

The Court also urged the legislature to consider addressing gaps in the law to prevent such cases from recurring.

"We also expect the Legislature to consider the inadequacy in the relevant laws on the issue highlighted in this Order, and take appropriate remedial measures," the Court said.

The case concerned Mahesh and Rajesh who, along with their parents, were arrested in 2004 and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2010 for the murder of a relative.

At the time of arrest, the petitioners' ages were recorded as 20 and 19 years, respectively, based on their physical appearance and family declarations. The police failed to cross-check this aspect. Further, this was not challenged by their counsel during trial, and went unnoticed by judges during their trial and subsequent appeals.

However, it later came to light that they were around 17 years old when they were arrested.

Their juvenile status was only revealed in 2024 when the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) directed authorities to identify prisoners who were minors when they committed their offences. School records confirmed this, and an inquiry was also conducted by an additional sessions judge to verify the same.

The petitioners then approached the High Court seeking the recall of a 2016 judgment by which their appeal challenging their conviction was dismissed.

The Court took a serious view of the failure to verify the age of the petitioners. It referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh v State of UP (2013) to reiterate that courts too have a responsibility to protect the rights of juvenile accused.

"It could be seen from the observations of the Apex Court in the above decision that the responsibility to protect the rights and interests of juveniles, and to ensure that they are not left out to mingle and mix up with other prisoners, is more up on the judiciary, rather than the Investigating Agencies," it noted.

However, the Court also noted that there was no clear provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act), or other relevant laws which require authorities to verify the age of offenders.

The Court, therefore, issued comprehensive guidelines to prevent the wrongful trial of juveniles as adults. 

According to these guidelines, the arresting officer is required to verify the age of the accused by checking authentic documents such as a matriculation certificate, birth certificate, Aadhaar card, or electoral identity card. This verification must be documented in the remand report, and other relevant documents should be attached.

If the arresting officer cannot produce such records, the reasons for concluding that the person is not a juvenile must be stated in the remand report, followed by an immediate inquiry into the age of the accused, the Court added. This process must be completed before the accused is produced before a Magistrate or Judge.

The guidelines also place a responsibility on the magistrate or judge to verify the age of the accused based on the documents presented by the investigating agency.

If the magistrate or judge is not satisfied with the documents or the inquiry conducted by the arresting officer, they must refrain from remanding the accused to prison, the High Court added. The Court emphasised that in such cases, appropriate orders regarding the accused person's custody must be issued.

If there is a possibility that the accused may be a juvenile, then further inquiry by the judiciary must be in line with Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, the Court further said.

The petitioners/ applicants were represented by Advocates Jijo Joseph and Ramesh P.

Director General of Prosecution PN Narayanan and Senior Government Pleader Sajju S appeared for the State.  

[Read Order]

The Kerala High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on the plea seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the death of late Additional District Magistrate (ADM) Naveen Babu [Manjusha v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.].

The plea has been moved by Babu's wife. The criminal case registered following Babu's death involves allegations against former Kannur District Panchayat President PP Divya, who is accused of having driven the ADM to die by suicide after she publicly accused him of corruption during a speech.

Babu's family had moved the High Court seeking a CBI probe on apprehensions that the State may not conduct a fair investigation against Divya, since she was part of the ruling political party.

Justice Kauser Edappagath today reserved judgment in the matter.

During the hearing today, advocate John S Ralph, representing Babu's widow, submitted that despite the ongoing investigation against Divya, she continued to wield significant political clout and enjoys the support of the ruling Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)).

To drive his point home, Ralph pointed out that when Divya was released on bail, the wife of the party's State Secretary received her outside jail in the presence of media. He added that the State Secretary himself later gave interviews to news channels where he said that Divya will be protected.

Pertinently, Ralph informed the Court that although Divya resigned from her Panchayat post after the case was registered against her, on December 7, she was appointed as a permanent member of the District Panchayat Finance Standing Committee.

"In my opinion that shows her political power and the decision of the State to protect her by giving her a post in the government when a poor SI is conducting the investigation. Fair trial should start from investigation ... To satisfy conscience of society and family, it is the duty of the State to ensure fair investigation. This shouldn't even require the intervention of the Court. But they have done all this to show that they will protect their comrade making investigation by an impartial agency necessary," Ralph submitted.

The State, represented by Director General of Prosecution, Senior Advocate TA Shaji, countered that the petition was filed on the basis of mere assumptions. He added that the investigation is being conducted by a Special Investigation Team which is more than qualified and impartial.

Babu was found dead in his official quarters on October 15 after a farewell ceremony organised for him on account of his transfer to another district.

At this farewell event, former Kannur District Panchayat President and CPI (M) leader PP Divya made some public allegations of corruption against Babu.

Divya was subsequently charged with abetting his suicide and after a short period of judicial custody, she was granted anticipatory bail by a Sessions Court on November 8.

The petition moved by Babu's widow highlighted a series of events that suggested that there have been attempts to shield Divya from any legal consequences.

It added that the SIT has failed to conduct an impartial or comprehensive investigation. In this regard, the petitioner stated that she had filed a request before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court in Kannur to preserve crucial evidence related to the case.

This includes CCTV footage from the District Collectorate premises, phone call logs, location data, and recordings involving the District Collector and Prashanth, a government official alleged to be connected to the events leading to Babu’s death.

According to the petition, witnesses are afraid to testify against Divya as she is a powerful person with significant political connections. It was also submitted that the inquest following ADM Babu's death was conducted in a rushed manner, even before Babu's family could arrive at the scene.

In this regard, Ralph today pointed out several aspects of the body analysis that allegedly do not indicate a suicide.

After hearing both sides, the Court reserved its verdict in the matter.

Advocates John S Ralph, Vishnu Chandran, Ralph R John, Giridhar Krishna Kumar, Geethu TA, Mary Greeshma, Liz Johny and Krishnapriya Sreekumar appeared for the petitioner.

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed Delhi government and other National Capital Region (NCR) States - Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan - to take a final call on prohibiting the use of firecrackers throughout the year.

A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih asked the states to place their decisions on record before the top court

"The issue regarding ban on use of firecrackers in NCR states is yet to be addressed. We direct the concerned state governments to place their decisions on regard regarding complete ban on use of firecrackers throughout the year," the Bench said.

The ban is required not only to curb the air pollution but noise pollution as well, it added.

"We will consider issuing necessary directions to the state governments on the issue of ban on use of firecrackers. When we refer to ban on use of firecrackers, it will also include ban on manufacture, storage, sale and distribution on firecrackers," the Court said further.

The Bench was hearing the case concerning the Delhi air pollution crisis. The Court has been monitoring action taken by authorities in the adjoining States to curb stubble-burning incidents, among other things.

In November, the Court, while questioning the authorities for their failure to implement the ban on firecrackers in Delhi during Diwali, had remarked that no religion encourages any activity which creates pollution.

"The use of firecrackers also affects the fundamental right to health of the citizens apart from creating noise pollution," it said then.

Earlier, it has also asked Delhi government to consider implementing a perpetual firecracker ban in the national capital.

On the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) currently in place in Delhi, the top court today ordered that directions issued by it earlier will continue until further orders.

It also directed the Commission for Air Quality Management (CQAM) to proceed with implementation of the modified measures to improve air quality in Delhi.

With regard to the compensation paid to the construction workers affected by the GRAP-IV measures which were previously in operation, the Court said it will continue to monitor the issue and ensure that everyone is paid.

"The concerned state governments will ensure that every affected worker is paid subsistence allowance. There is an issue about number of registered workers... whether it is the Delhi government or other governments, the emphasis should be not only on registration but on ascertaining actual number of workers deprived of income during this period," it added.

The governments was directed to file comprehensive affidavit on this aspect by January 03, 2025.

The Court today also directed that the appointment of lawyers as court commissioners will continue. It further ordered the NCR States to appoint nodal officers to facilitate the court commissioners' visit to various places where GRAP measures are applicable.

While deliberating on the issue of air pollution in Delhi, the Court today suggested that government departments should start using electric vehicles.

"If all government vehicles are EVs ... that we will have to consider. If it comes Commission (CQAM), we will also make that an order of the court but it must come from the Commission. You (CQAM) can also get the data on number of government cars on road. In Delhi, there are vehicles of Corporation, DDA, PSUs, armed forces. That is one aspect that can be considered," Justice Oka remarked.

The Supreme Court recently observed that the right to maintenance is commensurate with the right to sustenance, which is an integral part of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. [Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal v. Dolly & Others]

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that the right to maintenance holds precedence over the statutory rights of financial creditors, secured creditors, operational creditors and others under laws like the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

“In a way, the right to maintenance being equivalent to a fundamental right will be superior to and have overriding effect than the statutory rights afforded to Financial Creditors, Secured Creditors, Operational Creditors or any other such claimants encompassed within the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or similar such laws,” the apex court stated. 

The Court made the observations while hearing an appeal against a Gujarat High Court order granting ₹1,00,000 per month as maintenance to a woman and ₹50,000 per month to each of the two children. The High Court had overturned a family court order which had previously awarded ₹6,000 per month to the wife and ₹3,000 per month to each child.

Dissatisfied with the High Court’s order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that income tax returns and other evidence disproved the wife’s claims about his income. He also claimed that the wife, being self-employed, did not require maintenance.

In its July 2023 order, the Supreme Court had stayed the High Court's enhanced maintenance, conditional upon the appellant paying interim maintenance of ₹50,000 to the wife and ₹25,000 each to the children, along with 25% of the arrears.

The Court noted that the appellant was not in a position to pay maintenance at the rate awarded by the High Court, owing to certain setbacks suffered in business.

It held that the maintenance it had ordered in July 2023 was fair and just. It partially allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court’s judgment, and directed the appellant to clear arrears within three months.

“Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that the tentative maintenance, as granted by us vide order dated 07.11.2022, will be just and fair, as of now, for the sustenance of the respondents."

The Bench added that if the appellant fails to pay the arrears of maintenance to the respondents, the family court may take coercive action, including auctioning immovable assets, to recover the arrears.

However, the Court clarified that this order did not imply that the High Court’s enhanced maintenance order was entirely erroneous. It also allowed the respondent-wife and children to approach the Court under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for a modification of the maintenance order if they could present new evidence about the appellant’s income.

The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, along with Advocates Krishnagopal Abhay, Chandratanay Chaube, Pari Bharadwaj and Anita Kanung.

Advocates-on-Record Samar Vijay Singh and Swati Ghildiyal, along with Advocates Sabarni Som, Keshav Mittal, Fateh Singh, Sukhdev Sharma, Abhishek Kumar Suman, Nepal Singh, Rajat Nair, Devyani Bhatt and Sneha Menon appeared for the respondents.

[Read Judgment]