The Kerala High Court recently ruled that Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act of 2008 does not give the State the power to levy a fee based on the extent/ plinth area of building constructed on converted land [Abad Builders Private Limited v State of Kerala & ors and connected cases]

Justice Mohammed Nias CP declared Note 1 to Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 as ultra vires the Paddy Act, 2008 to the extent it allowed imposition of a fee of ₹100 per sq. feet exceeding 3,000 sq. ft.

"Even if the government's objectives are commendable, without an enabling statutory provision, the fee cannot be collected. Consequently, the argument that the levy is ultra vires is to be upheld, as the Act's intent and the scope of rule-making authority under Section 30 do not permit such fees," the Court held.

The single-judge was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the levy of a fee for the construction of apartments after conversion of land under the Paddy Act.

It was argued that imposing a fee based on building area was inconsistent with legislative intent and unjustifiable.

However, the State in response said that Section 27A(3) of the Paddy Act doesn't restrict the government from levying fees based on the plinth area or area of the building.

The authority to levy fees is grounded in the legislative intent to regulate land conversion responsibly, ensuring compliance with ecological standards and safeguarding agricultural interests, the State said.

However, the Court found that after land conversion, construction or other activities on those lands are permissible, and the Paddy Act does not apply to them anymore.

The only fee contemplated for regularizing the records is one under Section 27A(3), which is based on the extent of the land and not on the construction or its size, the Court noted.

"Since the Act does not regulate building construction, such a levy cannot be justified," it added.

The Court rejected the government's argument that the fee serves as a mechanism to discourage large-scale developments and that it is intended to fund a "Paddy Cultivators Relief Fund."

It further held that the levy was hit by Article 265 of the Constitution of India which states no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.

"I hold that the levy is opposed to Article 265 of the Constitution of India as no statutory provision enabled the Government to collect a levy like the one impugned in the writ petition."

Hence, it declared the levy inconsistent with the provisions of the statute and directed the authorities to refund any amounts collected from the petitioners within four months.

"No demand for the above fee shall be made against the petitioners and their applications for building permits shall be considered without insisting on the payment referred above and subject to the provisions of the relevant Building Rules. The pending applications for building permits, if any, shall be considered within six weeks," the Court further ordered.

Senior Advocate BG Harindranath and advocates Amith Krishnan, PK Soyuz, KC Vincent, Jacob Sebastian, P Sathisan and Shanavas Khan appeared for the petitioners.

Special Government Pleader S Renjith represented the State.

[Read Judgment]

The Kerala High Court recently held that trial courts need not consider any material produced by the accused while considering pleas to discharge them from criminal cases. [Stephin Raj v. State of Kerala]

Justice A Badharudeen held that courts are required to consider only case records and documents that are submitted by the prosecution.

"It is held that, while considering the plea of discharge, the Special Court (trial court in this case) has to consider the records of the case and the documents submitted therewith by the prosecution. The scope and ambit of discharge shall not be available beyond the prosecution records and the court cannot look into any document other than the prosecution records, either presented by the accused or by any other means which do not form part of the prosecution records, while considering plea of discharge," the High Court said in its order.

The order was passed on petition moved by a man accused of repeatedly raping a woman under false promise of marriage. He was booked under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deal with rape.

He moved the High Court challenging the decision of the trial court to dismiss his plea to be discharged in the case.

It was argued that the sexual intercourse between him and the woman concerned, a distant relative of his, was purely consensual. He also took objection to the fact that the trial court had refused to take into account a complaint lodged by the woman before the Yuvajana Commission in which she had allegedly admitted that the relationship was consensual.

The High Court noted the trial court while considering the plea for discharge, had concluded that the statement given by the woman prima facie indicate that the sexual intercourse was on the basis of the promise of marriage. As such, any consent, if any given by the woman, is vitiated under Section 90 of the IPC as it would be considered consent given under misconception.

Concurring with the trial court, the High Court said that there is enough material to warrant charges being framed against the accused.

It also rejected the contention that the trial court ought to have considered the statement to the Yuvajana Commission that the accused produced.

The Court, therefore, refused to interfere with the Session Court's decision and dismissed the petition.

The petitioner was represented by advocates Dheeraj Krishnan Perot, Vineetha AA, Fidha Navas and Lakshmy E.

Public Prosecutor TS Jibu appeared for the State.

[Read Order]

The Supreme Court on Friday sought the response of the Bar Council of India (BCI) on petitions challenging two circulars issued by the bar body in September 2024 by which it introduced mandatory criminal background checks for law students, along with declarations on simultaneous academic pursuits, employment status and attendance compliance [Prakruthi Jain vs. Bar Council of India].

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the BCI on the petitions filed by Prakruthi Jain, final-year law students of NALSAR University of Law at Hyderabad and Keyur Akkiraju, a final year law student at Symbiosis Law School.

In September 2024, the BCI had issued a notification mandating strict measures for all Centers of Legal Education (CLEs) nationwide.

The notification, which was addressed to universities, law colleges and students, introduced a system for conducting criminal background checks on law students and required declarations about simultaneous academic pursuits, employment status, and attendance compliance.

Universities and law colleges were directed to comply with these requirements immediately.

Under the notification, law students had to submit detailed declarations about ongoing or past criminal cases, simultaneous degree programs, and employment status during their LL.B. course, before they could receive their final marksheets and degrees.

The petitioners argued that the circulars violated Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that these measures were excessive and lacked any rational basis, resulting in a chilling effect on the autonomy of legal education institutions and their stakeholders.

“The Impugned Circulars issued by the Respondent Bar Council of India, under the garb of upholding the ethical standards of the legal profession, have been passed without jurisdiction and seek to infringe upon the right to freedom of speech and expression, right to freedom of profession, and right to privacy guaranteed under the Constitution of India,” the petition stated.

The petitioners further contended that the directives were not referable to any provisions of the Advocates Act of 1961 or the rules made under the said Act. They argued that the circulars exceeded the regulatory authority of the BCI and intruded into areas beyond its legal mandate, making them ultra vires.

The petition further highlighted the chilling effect of surveillance on academic freedom and freedom of speech, particularly in university spaces. The mandatory installation of CCTV cameras in classrooms was argued to stifle open discussions and critical debates, which are integral to academic and political spaces.

“The mandate to install CCTV cameras in classrooms and other key areas of the institution and preserve these recordings for a period of one (1) year compels students and lecturers to engage in self-censorship in face of uncertain consequences… there are no adequate safeguards to ensure that the CCTV recordings will not be used as a tool to whittle freedom of speech in the form of prosecutions, sanctions, and such other measures,” the petition read.

The petitioners appeared in person.

[Read Order]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has a refuted the allegation that Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait removed a Hanuman Temple situated within the compound of his official residence.

Registrar General Dharmindra Singh issued a press note categorically refuting all such claims.

"These reports are entirely false, misleading, and baseless. I wish to categorically clarify and refute these claims," the press release said.

The allegations started after a lawyer, one Ravindra Nath Tripathi, wrote to the President, the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Union Law Minister seeking action against Chief Justice Kait for removing a temple situated within the compound of his official bungalow.

As per Tripathi's letter, the temple had remained in the compound for a long time - even when the said bungalow was occupied by a Muslim Chief Justice - before Justice Kait got it demolished.

Close on the heels of the said letter, the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association also jumped into the fray and wrote to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna seeking an inquiry into the issue and action against those responsible.

As per the letter by the bar body to CJI, the temple located in the bungalow of the Chief Justice was a historical one and many former Chief Justices of the High Court used to pay their respects and worship there including Justices SA Bobde, AM Khanwilkar and Hemant Gupta all of whom later got elevated to the Supreme Court.

The employees working at the residence of the Chief Justice used to perform puja at the temple.

Hence, the same could not have been demolished without the permission of the government or without passing any statutory order.

Such an act is an insult to the believers of sanatana dharma, it was stated by the bar association in its letter.

All these allegations have now been denied by the High Court administration.

As per the press note issued by Registrar General, the Public Works Department (PWD) has also clarified the matter and confirmed that no temple was ever present at the Chief Justice's residence.

The allegations being circulated in some sections of the media are fabricated and appear to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the public and malign the integrity of the judicial system, the press not underlined.

The Registrar General strongly asserted that these demolition of mandir reports are entirely untrue and urged media organizations and the public to avoid spreading defamatory and unverified information

It further stated that the publication of such unfounded news constitutes a direct interference in the administration of justice and may be regarded as contemptuous in nature.

Attempts to create false narratives about the judiciary not only undermine the rule of law but also pose a serious threat to the sanctity of judicial independence, it was added.

Complaints made to the authorities on social media cannot be seen as lacking in gravity as opposed to formal written complaints, the Telangana High Court observed recently.

Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya added that customer feedback on social media is an accepted mode of complaint.

The judge made the observations while dismissing a catering stall operator’s plea against termination of his contract by South Central Railway.

“Complaints/customer feedback on social media is an accepted mode of registering complaints against a service provider and the petitioner cannot adopt an ostrich policy in today’s time on the pretext that social media complaints do not deserve to be treated with seriousness,” the Court said.

The operator’s contract had been terminated following a complaint made to the Railways on social media platform X. Various other complaints had also been made against the tea stall at Secunderabad Railway Station over poor quality of food.

The Court found that the contractor had been given multiple opportunities to rectify the lapses, but failed to do so.

“The impugned letter also mentions the petitioner’s involvement in acts of violence and lists five penalties imposed on the petitioner from 05.02.2024 till 09.10.2024 together with a warning letter on the complaints made by the customers on Twitter. The impugned letter makes it clear, on the face of it, that the Railway gave several opportunities to the petitioner to mend its ways before issuing the notice of termination on 07.11.2024.”

It thus concluded that the action was taken only after the contractor failed to stop continued deficiency in service. 

"The complaints are indeed serious in nature since they not only relate to poor quality of food but also food below the recommended weight and in excess of the prescribed rate," the Court said.

Advocate Aadesh Varma represented the petitioner.

Deputy Solicitor General Gadi Praveen Kumar and Advocate NVR Rajya Lakshmi represented the respondents.

[Read Judgment]

The Bombay High Court recently awarded a compensation of ₹8 lakh to the parents of a young commuter who tragically fell from a crowded Mumbai local train in 2010 [Shri Basir alias Mohd. Ahmed Khan v UOI].

Single-judge Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla overturned a ruling by the Railway Claims Tribunal which had rejected the plea by the parents on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger since no valid ticket was found on him.

In its order of January 8, the High Court stated that there was sufficient evidence to show that the deceased accidentally fell from the train, making it an 'untoward incident' eligible for compensation under the Railways Act.

The Court also noted the evidence that included police reports, medical certificates and affidavits supported the claim that the death was an untoward incident under the Railways Act.

"In my view, all this evidence, taken together, clearly shows that the deceased son of the Appellants had died due to accidentally falling down from a train at Sandhurst Road," the Court said.

The fatal accident took place on May 8, 2010 when Nasir Ahmed Khan, a daily commuter, fell from a local train while traveling from Wadala to Chinchpokli.

The young man, who was holding a valid monthly pass, was severely injured in the fall and later died at a hospital.

His parents filed a claim for compensation but their case was initially dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, which cited a lack of sufficient evidence to establish that the incident constituted an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.

The tribunal said that the deceased's bonafide passenger status was not established since no ticket or pass was found on him.

It further raised doubts regarding the absence of a panchanama at the incident site and the lack of direct involvement by the railway officials. The tribunal concluded that the incident could not be categorized as an untoward accident without corroborative evidence from the railway station.

However, the Court took a different view after reviewing the available evidence. It referred to the inquest panchanama and injury report both of which confirmed that the deceased had fallen from the train and sustained injuries consistent with such an accident.

"The injury report, the cause of death certificate and the post mortem report, all showed injuries to the head and the body which were clearly consistent with accidentally falling down from the train of the deceased son of the Appellant," the single-judge observed.

The Court also rejecting the tribunal's findings that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger status.

It emphasised that the absence of the ticket was not sufficient to disprove the passenger’s legitimate status.

"The appellants had clearly discharged the initial burden to show that the deceased was carrying a valid monthly pass and was a bonafide passenger. The burden then shifted on to the Respondent-Railways to show that the deceased was not carrying any such pass," the Court said.

Hence, it directed the Union of India to pay both parents a compensation of ₹4 lakh each.

The Court also stipulated that the amount be paid within eight weeks with interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum if the payment is delayed beyond the specified period of eight weeks.

Advocates Kunal Bhanage, Akshay Pawar and Priyanka Acharya appeared for the parents.

Advocates TJ Pandian, Noorjahan Khan and Gautam Modanwalm appeared for Union of India.

[Read Order]

A special court in Pune on Friday granted bail to Congress leader and MP Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case filed against him by Satyaki Savarkar, the grand-nephew of Hindutva icon Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

The MP/MLA court presided by Judge Amol Shinde allowed Gandhi's bail plea on a surety bond of ₹25,000 after he appeared for hearing via video conferencing. Gandhi's counsel Milind Pawar said.

Senior Congress leader Mohan Joshi stood as surety for Gandhi according to Pawar. The Court also granted permanent exemption to Gandhi from appearing in future hearings, Pawar added.

The defamation case stems from a comment Gandhi made during a speech in London in March 2023. In his statement, Gandhi allegedly referred to Savarkar’s writings about an incident where he and others had assaulted a Muslim man, a situation Savarkar reportedly found “pleasurable.”

Satyaki Savarkar, a relative of the ideologue, filed the defamation complaint, refuting Gandhi’s claim and asserting that no such incident is mentioned in Savarkar’s works.

Savarkar has sought the maximum penalty for Gandhi under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal defamation, along with the highest compensation under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).