0

This is a clear instance of day light custodial death- The High Court of Delhi expresses disappointment over negligence of police.”

Blog , , , ,

Case Title: Setara Bibi v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 

Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 1224/2024 

Dated: April 23, 2024 

Quorum: Justice Jyoti Singh 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:  

The case’s facts revolve around In pursuance of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, the petitioner has filed this writ suit on their behalf, requesting the following reliefs.  

a Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of any other appropriate Writ was in effect, directing the Respondent to file a First Information Report (FIR) in accordance with Sections 166, 302, 325, 331, 352, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Chief Investigating Officer, the SHO, and the other negligent police officers of Police Station Subhash Place.  

In brief, the case’s facts state that the husband of Setara Bibis died while in the custody of the respondents as a result of their simple carelessness. The petitioner is the deceased person’s 22-year-old widow, who has been circling the courts in the hopes of getting justice. The FIR has not yet been filed, and the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is still pending.  

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER: 

According to directions, Ms. Rebecca John, the Petitioner’s experienced Senior Counsel, limits the relief to requests. It is argued that the current case is related to the tragic passing of late Sheikh Sahadat on July 23, 2023, while he was purportedly in the custody of Subhash Place Police Station officers.  

Additionally, it is argued that the petitioner is a 22-year-old widow of the deceased who has been circling the legal system in an attempt to obtain justice. It is requested that the magistrate’s investigation into the death of the petitioner’s husband while in custody be opened on July 23, 2023, and that it remain open to this day, almost nine months later, with no indication of when it will be concluded. However, the application made in accordance with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is still waiting, and the FIR has not yet been filed.  

Furthermore, the petitioner is alleged to be a 22-year-old widow of the dead who has been recurrently involved in the court system in an effort to seek justice. It is requested that the inquiry into the petitioner’s husband’s death while in police custody be launched by the magistrate on July 23, 2023, and that it continue to be open now, nearly nine months later, without providing a timeline for completion. 

According to an order annexed to the petition and dated December 22, 2023, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the North West District of the Rohini Courts stated that a FIR is not being filed until the Magisterial inquiry’s conclusion and the FSL report is received.  

The learned Senior Counsel states that this demonstrates the State’s total insensitivity to a grave situation in which a 32-year-old man was discovered dead while allegedly under police custody, with black and blue bruise marks covering his back and chest and swellings on his hands and legs. The family of the deceased captured this on camera when they visited the mortuary where the body was being held.  

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS: 

  • Section 482 Cr.P.C- Saving of inherent power of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be construed as restricting or affecting the High Court’s inherent authority to issue orders as may be required to carry out any directive made pursuant to this Code, to stop misuse of the legal system, or to further further the goals of justice. 
  • Section 166 of IPC- Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person. Any public servant who willfully disobeys legal instructions regarding how they should conduct themselves in that capacity with the intent to cause harm to others or knowing that it is likely that they will, will be punished with either simple imprisonment, a fine, or both. This punishment can last up to a year.  
  • Section 302 of IPC- Punishment for murder. Anyone found guilty of murder faces a mandatory life sentence in prison or the death penalty, in addition to a fine.  
  • Section352 of IPC- Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation. Anyone found to have attacked or used unlawful force against another person without that person’s serious and unexpected provocation faces a maximum sentence of three months in prison of any kind, a maximum fine of five hundred rupees, or both. 

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

That court held that the following is directed that the Magisterial inquiry into the death of late Sh. Sheikh Sahadat be completed as soon as possible and no later than three months from today, taking into account the case’s facts and circumstances, the fact that the inquiry began on July 23, 2023, and is still pending, and the fact that the learned CMM is not moving forward with the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. because of the pendency of the inquiry. 

Additionally, it was held that the learned CMM was instructed to move quickly with the matter, including giving the Director of FSL a directive to provide the report right away, in the case of a pending application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was requested of the Director, FSL to investigate the situation and make sure the FSL report is delivered to the relevant Court as soon as possible.  

This Court expressed optimism and hopes that the concerned magistrate handling the investigation and the knowledgeable CMM handling the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. will investigate the matters with the necessary seriousness, empathy, and diligence and will act quickly.  

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

 

Click to view judgment.

 

 

0

“Stridhan Gifted to Woman Is Her Absolute Property; Husband Has No Control Over It: Supreme Court”

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , , , , ,

Case title: Maya Gopinathan v. Anoop S.B. & Anr.

Case no.: Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No.13398/2022

Dated on: 24th April 2024

Quorum: Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta

FACTS OF THE CASE

In a recent appeal before the High Court of Kerala, the matter at hand delved into the intricate issues surrounding matrimonial disputes, specifically focusing on allegations of misappropriation of jewellery. The case, arising from the dissolution of a marriage between the appellant and the first respondent, unfolded a series of events that led to legal proceedings and subsequent appeals. The final judgment, however, left much to be debated.

The marriage between the appellant and the first respondent, both previously married individuals, took place in 2003. Allegations arose concerning the misappropriation of the appellant’s gold jewellery by the respondents, which she claimed were entrusted to them for safekeeping. The appellant filed a petition before the Family Court, seeking the recovery of the value of her jewellery and a sum of money paid by her father to the first respondent. The Family Court ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the respondents to compensate her for the jewellery and the sum of money. Dissatisfied with this decision, the respondents appealed to the High Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellant contended that the jewellery entrusted to the respondents was misappropriated to discharge their financial liabilities, supported by the testimony of witnesses and circumstantial evidence.

  1. Misappropriation of Gold Jewellery: The appellant claims that on the first night of marriage, the first respondent took custody of all her jewellery and entrusted it to the second respondent under the guise of safekeeping. She alleges that the jewellery was misappropriated by the respondents to discharge their pre-existing financial liabilities.
  2. Payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-: The appellant contends that during pre-marriage negotiations, it was agreed that Rs. 2,00,000/- would be paid to the first respondent by P.W.2. She asserts that this payment was made after marriage.
  3. Possession of Jewellery: The appellant argues that she did not retain possession of her jewellery throughout the marriage and presents her narrative of events, corroborated by P.W.2, to support her claim.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The respondents denied the allegations, claiming that the jewellery was in the appellant’s possession throughout, and they had no knowledge of any misappropriation. They argued that the appellant failed to provide concrete evidence of the acquisition of the jewellery or the existence of financial liabilities.

  1. Denial of Dowry Demand: The respondents deny any demand for dowry, stating that it was a second marriage for both parties. They admit to being informed about the pre-existing 50 sovereigns of gold that the appellant had and the promise of supplementation by P.W.2.
  2. Custody of Jewellery: The respondents counter the appellant’s claim regarding the custody of jewellery, stating that the appellant kept the jewellery locked in an almirah on the first night of marriage and later took it to her paternal home.
  3. Utilization of Jewellery: The respondents deny misappropriating the jewellery, asserting that the appellant wore her jewellery at subsequent events, indicating her continued possession.

Both parties present their versions of events, supported by testimonies and evidence, to establish their claims and refute those of the opposing party. The appellant seeks to establish misappropriation of jewellery and the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-, while the respondents aim to rebut these claims and assert the appellant’s continued possession of her jewellery.

REFERENCE BY COURT –

Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada [a decision by a bench of three Hon’ble Judges on a reference made by a bench of two Hon’ble Judges, who considered it necessary that a fresh look at the view expressed in a previous decision of three Hon’ble Judges in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar be had], after scrutiny of several treatises and precedents had that the properties gifted to a woman before marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of bidding of farewell or thereafter are her stridhan properties. It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure. The husband has no control over her stridhan property. He may use it during the time of his distress but nonetheless he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to his wife. Therefore, stridhan property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband and the husband has no title or independent dominion over the property as owner thereof. It was also observed that to make out an offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, what was required to be proved was entrustment of stridhan property with dominion over such property to the husband or to any member of his family as well as dishonest misappropriation of or conversion to his own use the said property by the husband or such other member of his family. Admittedly, we are not concerned with any criminal offence and, therefore, proof on balance of probabilities would be sufficient.

ISSUE –

The central issues revolved around whether the appellant could establish the misappropriation of her jewellery and whether the High Court erred in setting aside the relief granted by the Family Court.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Family Court, after an exhaustive examination of evidence, concluded in favor of the appellant, citing discrepancies in the respondents’ testimony and supporting the appellant’s version of events. However, the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, arrived at a contradictory conclusion, questioning the credibility of the appellant’s claims and disregarding significant evidence.

The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the High Court’s judgment highlighted several flaws, including the imposition of an undue burden of proof on the appellant and the misinterpretation of photographic evidence. The Court emphasized that in civil cases, the standard of proof is based on a preponderance of probabilities and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt. It criticized the High Court for its failure to draw the right inferences from established facts and for its contradictory findings.

The court acknowledges that such a significant amount of jewellery would naturally be entrusted to a newly-wed husband, especially by a bride entering a new home. The Family Court found that the jewelry was indeed entrusted to the husband, and any disposal or non-return of it would constitute misappropriation.

Witness testimonies support the appellant’s claim that the jewellery was not permanently gifted or transferred to the husband but was only handed over for safekeeping. Despite doubts raised about the weight of the jewellery and its accurate measurement, the court finds evidence supporting the appellant’s claim, including testimony regarding her ownership of 50 sovereigns of gold from her previous marriage.

The court rejects the High Court’s reasoning that possession of a bank locker before marriage implies ownership of jewelry. It finds the assumption conjectural and notes that the appellant’s possession of gold jewelry, as evidenced by photographs, is consistent with her claim. The court also criticizes the High Court for not appreciating the counterclaim filed by the husband, which sought the return of gifts given to the wife at the time of marriage, further supporting her ownership claim.

While acknowledging that the case could be remanded for further proceedings, the court considers the prolonged duration of the legal process and decides to provide relief to the appellant without further delay. Considering the passage of time, inflation, and the appellant’s age, the court exercises its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to award financial compensation of Rs 25,00,000 to the appellant. This compensation is intended to provide comfort and security for her future life.

The court orders the respondent to pay the compensation within six months, failing which he will be liable to pay interest. The appellant is granted the liberty to initiate proceedings for the realization of the awarded amount in accordance with the law.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click here to View full Judgement

0

“Disclosure of Criminal Cases is mandatory only when charges have been framed or cognizance has been taken: Karnataka High Court”

Blog , , , , ,

Case title: Sri. B G Uday v. Sri. H G Prashanth

Case no.: CRL.RP.NO.1157 OF 2023 (397-ER)

Dated on: 24th April 2024

Quorum: Justice Krishna S Dixit

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, Sri B G Uday, sought the revision of the judgment dated 11th September 2023 passed by the LXXXI Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge. The judgment confirmed the petitioner’s conviction and sentence under section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (R.P. Act), for failure to disclose pending criminal cases in his nomination papers during elections. The petitioner was sentenced to two months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000.

The petitioner, Sri B G Uday, was convicted for an electoral offence under section 125A of the R.P. Act, 1951, for failing to disclose pending criminal cases in his nomination papers during elections. He was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment and fined Rs. 10,000. The petitioner appealed the conviction, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

Sr. Advocate Mr. Uday Holla appearing for the petitioner briefly submitted that the penal provision enacted in section 125A of the 1951 Act needs to be construed strictly and if that is done, no offence can be alleged against his client; the legal requirement to disclose pendency of criminal case arises only when such a case has attained a particular stage and not otherwise; this aspect having been wrongly approached by the courts below, the impugned orders are liable to be voided, notwithstanding that the findings therein are concurrent. In support of his submission, he pressed into service certain Rulings of the Apex Court.

In Prabhat Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P., (2024) 3 SCC 665: This case is cited to support the argument for quashing criminal proceedings when the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value, do not constitute any offense against the accused.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

Sri. Manjunath H., representing the respondent, opposed the petition, asserting that the courts below correctly upheld Uday’s conviction. He argued that the duty to disclose pending criminal cases applies regardless of the stage of the case and that Uday’s failure to disclose amounted to a violation of electoral laws.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 125A of Representation of the People Act, 1951: Penalty for filing false affidavit, etc-

A candidate who himself or through his proposer, with intent to be elected in an election,-

  • fails to furnish information relating to subsection (1) of section 33A; or
  • gives false information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false; or
  • conceals any information, in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of section 33 or in his affidavit which is required to be delivered under sub-section (2) of section 33A, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”

Sec. 33A of Representation of the People Act, 1951: Right to information –

(1) A candidate shall, apart from any information which he is required to furnish, under this Act or the rules made thereunder, in his nomination paper delivered under subsection (1) of section 33, also furnish the information as to whether— (i) he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by the court of competent jurisdiction; (ii) he has been convicted of an offence other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), or covered in sub-section (3), of section 8 and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more.

ISSUE –

  • Whether the duty to disclose pending criminal cases in nomination papers arises before the framing of charges?
  • Whether the petitioner’s failure to disclose pending cases constitutes an electoral offence under section 125A of the R.P. Act?

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble High Court, in its analysis, delved into the provisions of Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, to interpret the duty of candidates to disclose pending criminal cases during elections. The court emphasized the importance of providing voters with transparent information about candidates’ criminal antecedents to enable informed decision-making.

The court highlighted that Section 125A of the Act mandates disclosure of pending cases only when charges have been framed or cognizance of the offenses has been taken. It noted that the requirement to disclose pending criminal cases should be construed in conjunction with Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, which specifies the format of the affidavit to be filed by candidates.

The judgment underscored that the duty to disclose arises only when charges have been framed or cognizance has been taken, as per the provisions of Section 33A of the Act. The court rejected the argument that candidates must disclose pending cases at any stage, emphasizing that such an interpretation would go beyond the legislative intent.

Furthermore, the court observed that the proceedings against the petitioner amounted to an abuse of process, as no offense was disclosed against him. Quoting precedent, the court reiterated that criminal proceedings should not be initiated unless the allegations prima facie constitute an offense.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the lower courts’ orders and acquitting the petitioner. It directed the refund of any fines paid by the petitioner. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of strict adherence to electoral laws while balancing the rights of candidates and voters.

The case of Sri. B G Uday vs. Sri. H G Prashanth serves as a significant precedent regarding the interpretation of electoral laws, particularly the duty of candidates to disclose pending criminal cases. The judgment clarifies that such disclosure is mandatory only when charges have been framed or cognizance has been taken, aligning with the legislative intent to ensure transparency in the electoral process. This decision underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law and safeguarding democratic principles in electoral matters.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click here to View full Judgement

0

Karnataka HC upholds that accidental fall from train entitles to receive compensation from the railway tribunals even if that falls within the ambit of “self-infliction”‘.

Blog , , , , ,

Case title: Rojamani (since deceased represented by LRs) and Union Bank of India.

Case no: M.F.A. NO.3651/2016 (RCT)

Dated on: 19thApril, 2024

Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

Facts of the case:

On 22.02.14 the deceased Jayamma along with her sister went to Channapatna railway station and purchased the railway ticket to go to Ashokapuram Mysore. Both the of them had to board the Tuticorin express and realised that the said train would not go to Ashokapuram they alighted from the train while alighting the deceased lost her balance and sustained injuries resulting in her death. The respondent railway disputed the claim and denied their liability by stating that the death was not due to accidental fall, within the Section 123 of the railway Act alighting from train which amounts to self-inflicted injuries by virtue of provision of sect124 of railway act. The railway tribunal while affirming that deceased was a bona-fide passenger but denied the compensation on the grounds that the fall of deceased was due to her own voluntary act.

Contentions of the appellant:

Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased was an aged person and not a daily commuter. So, when she realized that she boarded the wrong train she alighted suddenly and lost her balance resulting to fatal injuries. In Jameela V. UOI, the counsel for the appellant held that the act amount to mere negligence and not criminal negligence. The counsel relied on the judgement of the SC of Rina Devi V. UOI , reported in 2018 AIR (SC) 2362 that death or injury in course of boarding or deboarding the train will be an untoward incident. Victim will be entitled to compensation and wont fall under section124A merely on plea of negligence as contributory factor. In, Anuradha V. UOI held that “Even the deceased boarded in a wrong train having a valid journey ticket and died while alighting the train that does not mean that he was not a bona fide passenger and on that ground claim cannot be rejected”.

Contentions of the respondent:

The counsel of respondents contended that it’s a clear case of attempt to deboard from running train when it was noticed that they boarded the wrong train for which they relied on Kerala court decision on Joseph P.T. V. UOI AIR 2014, Kerala. Held that passenger moving from a boarded train off side is amounting to carelessness and would be self-inflicting and cannot claim compensation.

Legal provisions:

Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987- A person seeking any relief in respect of the matters referred to in sub-section (1) 8 [or sub-section (1A)] of section 13 may make an application to the Claims Tribunal.

Section 124A of Indian Railway Act, 1989- Section 124A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 pertains to compensation for untoward incidents.

Issue:

Whether the fall amounts to accidental fall within the purview of section of 123 of the Indian Railways Act?

Court analysis and judgement:

Its clear that from section 124 of the act has no compensation if passenger dies or suffers from injuries due to suicide, self- inflicted harm or due to insanity. The court considered that principles laid down in Jameela V UOI, that the deceased dead is not criminal and railway cannot claim compensation. The court has relied on apex court on UOI V. Prabhakaran held that strict liability can hold railways for compensation due to his own fault. The court goes ahead and states that strict liability is also to be considered. Principles laid down in Rine devi and Anuradha’s case is also applicable to the present case. In view of the aforesaid appeal the miscellaneous appeal was allowed and the order of railway tribunal is set aside by compensating an amount of 4,00,000 with 7% interest from date of filing. The tribunal committed in envoking section 124 of Indian Railways Act by concluding that it’s a self -inflicted injury and reasoning of tribunal is erroreneous and judgements referred above by appellants comes to their aid. The court says that if the compensation is less than 8,00,000 it will be compensated compeletly.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V

Click here to read the judgement

 

0

Karnataka HC upholds that signing Jaya Bharata Jananiya Tanujate the State anthem in a particular tune will not infringe the fundamental right guaranteed under Art.19(1)(a) and (1)(g)

Blog , , , , , , ,

Case title: Kikkeri Krishna Murthy and the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case no: Writ petition No. 19801 of 2022

Dated on: 24th April, 2024

Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna S Dixit

Facts of the case:    petitioner is a well- known singer who has filed a complaint before the court by filing a writ petition against the State Govt of Karnataka order dated on 25.09.2022 whereby the State Government had directed the rendition of the State anthem ‘Jaya Bharata Jananiya Tanujate’ in a specific tune or raaga that was composed by Shri. Mysore Ananthaswamy .

Contentions of the appellant:

The impugned order constitutes an unreasonable restriction onto right to expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution, asking citizens to sing a song in a particular tune or raaga is constitutionally impermissible unless it is authorized by law. There is no restrictions for citizens prescribed to sing any particular tune or raaga. Just because, a committee had recommended a particular tune or raaga in which the Naadageethe needs to be sung the impugned order does not get validated.

Contentions of the respondent:

Petitioner has not mentioned as to which right of his has been infringed by the impugned order. After, taking the unanimous report of the committee into consideration the State has prescribed a particular tune or raaga for rendering the naadageethe. In schools, Naadageethe has to be sung in a certain manner in order to maintain uniformity amongst the students; Similarly, in offices or Governmental bodies it’s made compulsory to sing in official occasions only. It is always open to citizens the said song in any tune or raaga of their choice. Under, the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The Govt has power to issue the impugned order which otherwise also has executive power that is vested under Article162 of the Indian Constitution.

Legal provisions:

Section 3(1) of Karnataka Education Act, 1983- generates general education, professional education, medical education, technical education at all levels in accordance with provisions of the act.

Article 19(1) (a) and 19 (1) (g)- guarantees its citizens the freedom of speech and expression. Also, grants its citizens the freedom to practice any profession or trade or business of his/her choice.

Article 162- extent of executive power of the state.

Issue:

Whether the action of the State Govt in prescribing a particular raaga or tune for the State anthem is arbitrary and unreasonable?

Court analysis and judgement:

The impugned order does not come in his way of singing the naadageethe in his tune or raaga . Despite the vehement submissions the petitioner isn’t in a position to demonstrate his right to sing in qualified spaces like schools, governmental bodies that is composed by other stalwarts in the variance once specified. Since, the impugned order does not infringe any right of the petitioner to sing naadageethe in any raaga anywhere anytime except in certain qualified places; he is not an “aggrieved person”. No school has come forward to challenge the order and the petitioner is not supporting cause of any school and hence the impugned order does not give a proper cause of action in maintaining the petition. Permission of singing the national anthem in any specified raaga is permissible under Article 162 of the constitution. In, Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur V. State of Punjab (1955) 2 SCR 225 it was observed that when there is an residue of government function that remains after legislative and judicial function are taken away that is when the executive powers come into actions, and if such action effects rights of citizen the authority of law would be required. The contention of petitioner that his right to speech and expression under Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) has been infringed by imposing unreasonable restrictions does not merit acceptance. The question of adjudging reasonable restrictions arises when the substantive right and curtailment is demonstrated. However, such demonstration lacks in the case. As, the petition is devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.

Click here to read the judgement

1 2 3 … 1,672