0

Supreme Court puts an advertisement ban on Patanjali stating the brand is deceiving masses.

Articles , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ABSTRACT

This article talks about the recent supreme court ban on the advertisement published by Patanjali. The ban was due to the misleading nature of the advertisements contributing to the dissemination of false information in the healthcare industry. The healthcare industry is frequently prone to misleading advertisements by AYUSH companies making false claims to the public for profit. Several government enactments and regulatory bodies and their contributions to control false marketing have been listed. The article delves deeper into the legal technicalities involved, current legislation on the same and plausible solutions to combat the problem.

INTRODUCTION

What’s the news, why in news?

Patanjali is in the news again for all the bad reasons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has banned misleading advertisements published by Patanjali. The face of this brand is the widely known yoga guru Baba Ramdev. On 23rd August, 2023 the Supreme Court while hearing a writ petition filed by the Indian Medical Association condemned the misleading advertisements published in the electronic media by Patanjali. Such ads released by the company aims at making false claims about ‘curing’ diseases like diabetes, asthma etc. The claims are referred to as ‘false’ since there is no scientific backing to substantiate the same. The Chief Justice stated that Baba Ramdev can rightfully promote his practices of yoga and brand, but it is unnecessary for him to criticise other systems and practices in medicine. On 21st November, 2023 the Supreme Court had again issued a severe warning to Patanjali for its unabating misleading advertisements. Justice Amanullah also mentioned that the court will go to the extent of charging a fine of Rs. 1 crore on every product that claims to treat and ‘cure’ diseases. The court also mentioned that it has no intention of sparking a debate as to which system of medicine is better allopathy or ayurveda. The aim is to prevent the spreading of misinformation. The counsel for the brand guaranteed the court that no such advertisements will be made in any way including making statements in the media. The petition also addresses Baba Ramdev’s allegations blaming allopathy behind deaths during COVID-19. The court had also directed the Centre to take strict actions against the conduct of such companies under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (objectionable advertisements) Act, 1954. In its hearing on 27th February, the Hon’ble Court criticised the Centre for not taking any action. The court criticised the laidback attitude of the government as the petition was filed in 2022, and it has been two years since then. The Centre contended that under the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954 it is the responsibility of the state governments to ensure implementation but the court justly said that it is the duty of the centre to inform the state governments about the same and sought action. The IMA also informed the bench that Patanjali even after assuring the court to cease from producing misleading advertisement in its previous hearing has continued to do the same. The brand disregarded the orders given by the court which led the court to ban the advertisements of products related to diseases under the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954.

What inferences can be drawn from this news?

Yoga, an ancient practice, has crossed the boundaries of our country due to its innumerable health benefits. Baba Ramdev, a yoga guru, rose to fame as a teacher and promoter of the age-old practice. His popularity led him to start Patanjali Ayurved in collaboration with Balkrishna. The masses of the country have immense trust in Baba Ramdev and the products of his brand. Patanjali products like toothpaste, oils are widely used by the public. In light of these facts, when such a brand spreads misinformation, it influences the public at large. Making false claims of curing dangerous diseases can lead to severe consequences. It is important for people having serious health problems to consult professional doctors. The court proceedings are the testament of the negligent behaviour of the government and the concerned authorities in taking strict actions against such advertisements. The government continues to play the blame game instead of rising to action.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN PLACE

Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954[1]

This act aims to manage and regulate the promotion and advertisement of drugs in the context of claiming that such drugs have magical healing properties. Section 2©[2] of the act defines magic remedy which entails advertisement of drugs claimed to ‘cure’, mitigate, prevent or treat any kind of disease mentioned in schedule 1 of such act. Section 4 of the act clearly prohibits advertisements that aim to deceive the public and trick them into voluntary medication. Any violation of the provisions of this act shall amount to criminal offence and shall attract penalty amounting to imprisonment up to one year. The act aims to prevent self-medication by people as well as regulate the advertisement industry in this regard so as to prevent them from influencing the masses.

The constitutionality of this act was challenged in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India[3] on the grounds that it is violative of Article 19(1)(f) & (g)[4]. The court held that it is true that advertisement is a part of the freedom of speech, but the true essence and purpose of advertisement is to promote goods and services. And when this is done, it comes under the purview of trade and commerce since it is no longer the expression of ideas.

 The Drugs and Magic Remedies Objectionable Advertisement Rules, 1955

Rule 3 authorises the concerned persons to launch an investigation on advertisements that prima facie promotes drugs on false pretences. It also empowers the concerned authorities to cease the manufacturing and production of the same.

The Cable Television Network Act[5] and The Cable Television Network Rules[6]

The aforementioned act and rules have established a code for the publication of advertisements which is to be followed by all the concerned persons. Any violation will amount to imprisonment for a year or imposition of fine of Rs. 2000 or both as the case may be. An amendment to the rules in 2006 provides that the advertisement should not violate the code of conduct set out by the Advertisement Standards Council of India.[7]

Consumer Protection Act, 2019

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was repealed and replaced by this act to upkeep with latest technological developments. The primary objective of the act is to safeguard consumer interests from the harsh practices adopted by sellers and to establish relevant authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes.

Advertisement defined in section 2(1)[8] of the act includes publishing in electronic media.

Section 9[9] of the act states the rights of the consumers which includes the right to be protected against the marketing of goods, products or services which are hazardous to life and property; the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, products or services, as the case may be, so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices and the right to consumer awareness.

Section 2(28) defines misleading information as an act of publicising and spreading false information and guarantee about the nature, substance, outcome etc of the product. It basically states all the ways in which sellers fool the consumers[10]. The consumer must also act in a reasonable manner.

Section 2(47)[11] of the act gives a comprehensive definition of unfair trade practices which includes advertisements made on any platform spreading misinformation about the product being sold by the company.

Section 10[12] of the act talks about the establishment of the Central Consumer Protection Authority. The act entails the strength, process of appointment, powers and procedures od the CCPA.

Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI)

ASCI is a not-for-profit self-regulatory body established for the regulation of advertisements under the companies act, 1956 to preserve consumer interests. It hasn’t been established under any legislation or government hence it does not constitute laws for the public or the related industries. People in the advertisement industry and the representative of aggrieved individuals formulate and abide by the principles formulated and laid down by the voluntary body. The principles of this body are Honesty, Decency, Non-harmfulness, and Fair play in a competition.

National Advertising Monitoring System (NAMS)

This regulatory body has been established by ASCI in 2012 in collaboration with TAMS Media to trace deceptive advertisements. They have been tasked to keep a track of newspapers as well TV channels in regional languages. It overlooks advertisements published in a plethora of sectors including banking, finance, health, medicine etc.

Uniform Code of Pharmaceuticals Marketing Practices (“UCPMP Code”)[13]

UCMP is another such regulatory body instituted under the Department of Pharmaceuticals in 2014 to restrict unethical and immoral practices used by companies. Any publicity of drug promotion must be approved by the respected authority and such information must be confirmed by the concerned bodies as well.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Advertisements are important in disseminating vital information to the public as they can help create awareness about a certain cause and help in the disclosure of such information in a quick span of time. In current times, companies misuse advertisements to get consumers to purchase their products. They make extravagant claims to sell their products for profit maximisation. They have frayed from the object of social responsibility to just tricking people. Such a spread of misinformation, especially in the medical industry, can prove to be fatal. The claims made by Patanjali to cure diseases such as diabetes that require special attention and care by medical professionals are not only misleading but outrageous. There is no scientific backing to this claim made by the brand.

Big companies by means of visual aid persuade the consumers further escalating the problem of misinformation. The target audience of these companies are easily susceptible to the methods used by them and are blindsided. Celebrities are made the ambassadors of such brands to reach a wide variety of audiences. Multiple channels of communication such as newspaper, internet are utilised to target different age groups. Even though the consumer protection act promises to protect the customers from evil practices adopted by the companies, hardly any action has been taken against such conduct. Misleading advertisements violate a plethora of consumer rights that have been guaranteed under the Consumer Protection Act. It violates the right of the consumers to information. Consumers have the right to know about every detail of the product being used by them including the side effects. It violates the consumer’s right to safety from the utilisation of products. Companies claiming instant lightening of the skin, rapid weight loss etc can cause long lasting problems to the health of the consumer. Another instance in which the brand Patanjali promoted products on its website aimed at improving the sexual performance of men and women. Such advertisements are strictly prohibited under the drugs and magic remedies act. In the case of K.C. Abraham v. The State of Kerala Peethaambaran Kunnathoor, Chennai[14] the court held that the promotion of the ayurvedic drug ‘Musli Power Xtra’ is in violation of section 7 of the drugs and remedies act. The efficiency of the product was questioned, and the company had to pay a penalty of Rs. 50,000.

The government has turned a blind eye to the manipulative tactics. Ultimately, it is the consumers who become the victim of such scams. Disregard to allopathy by AYUSH companies is a crisis that needs urgent attention of the authorities. According to WHO, spreading fake information is the major cause of hesitancy in taking vaccines and medicines provided by the government. Due to the overload in misleading advertisements people have formed a lot of misconceptions about the healthcare industry. It has become difficult for the government to convince people to take government-provided medicines. As it is said, ayurveda is the science of life. It is a way of living rather than a science that seeks to cure ailments. Certain diseases that have high risk require immediate attention and relief. That’s when allopathy tides in. Making bold statements like allopathy is the reason behind COVID-19 undermines people’s trust in medical science especially in tough times makes people lose hope in the system of medicine. The DMRA Amendment Bill dated 3rd February, 2020 has sought to increase the penalty, addition of more diseases and establishing an Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Drugs Advisory Board. All the current enactments only aim at curbing the advertisements rather than focusing on increasing consumer awareness.[15]

CONCLUSION

Given the widespread misuse of advertisement especially in the healthcare industry posing threats to the public at large, the government needs to come to the rescue of the citizens. Stringent actions need to be taken to set precedent for all such companies to cease from making false claims. Heavy penalties must be imposed on industries making extravagant claims. Policies need to be formulated and steps have to be undertaken to supervise advertisements by government authorities. There must be a government supervised and controlled platform accessible by the public wherein information regarding healthcare must be published to combat the problem of false claims made by big companies. Information must be provided in regional languages to ensure easy access and readability by all the sections of the society. Common health related myths must be busted in the same platform. Education also plays a vital role in this regard. Consumers must be made aware of prevalent health diseases and steps to be taken to prevent them. Healthline numbers must be provided in such a platform as well as location of nearby hospitals and the facilities provided therein. Online medical counselling as well as guidance must be provided by the government helping people in remote areas right from admission of the patient in the hospital to finances in case of medical emergencies. If the implementation is done diligently, then it will make a significant impact in the healthcare industry. The DMRA act is outdated calling for the need of new codified legislation.

REFERENCES

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8297168/

https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/01-09-2022-infodemics-and-misinformation-negatively-affect-people-s-health-behaviours–new-who-review-finds

https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/248322022133848538order21-nov-2023-506018.pdf

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/baba-ramdev-should-not-abuse-medicine-systems-ayurveda-allopathy-supreme-court-ima-plea-207231

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-patanjali-baba-ramdev-misleading-advertisements-indian-medical-association-242694

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-issues-contempt-notice-to-patanjali-ayurved-its-md-for-misleading-ads-on-medicinal-cures-250636

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/entire-country-taken-for-a-ride-you-shut-eyes-for-2-years-supreme-court-pulls-up-union-for-inaction-on-patanjali-ayurved-ads-250686

[1] Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1973(India).

[2] Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, § 2(c), 1954, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1973(India).

[3] Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, 1959 SCC Online SC 38

[4] Constitution of India, art. 19(1)(f) & Constitution of India, art. 19(1)(g)

[5] Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1955

[6] Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, GSR 729(E)

[7] Misleading Drug Advertisements: Busting the Myth and Protecting Consumers, 1.4 JCLJ (2021) 592

[8] Consumer Protection Act, 2019, S. 2(1)

[9] Consumer Protection Act, 2019, S. 9

[10] Consumer Protection Act, 2019, s. 2(28)

[11] Consumer Protection Act, 2019, S. 2(47)

[12] Consumer Protection Act, 2019, S. 10

[13] Uniform Code of Pharmaceuticals Marketing Practices 2014

[14] KC Abraham v. State of Kerala Peethaambaran Kunnathoor, Chennai WP (C) No. 11410 of 2011

[15] Direct Marketing and Advertisement of Certain Medical Devices to Patients in India – A Dilemma, 6.1 RSRR (2020) 158

Article written by- Rashi Hora

0

RAPE OF A MINOR GIRL SENTENCED TO 20 YEARS IMPRISONMENT RATHER THAN NATURAL LIFE IMPRISONMENT: SUPREME COURT

Blog ,

The case Is FR.EDWIN PIGAREZ VERSUS STATE OF KERALA , JJ.Crl.Appeal Nos.1321 of 2016 and 160 of 2017.

The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2017 is the first accused and the appellant in Criminal appeal No.1321 of 2016 is the second accused on the files of Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The first appellant was convicted under many offences which are punishable under many sections Section 375 (a) of IPC and Section 3 (a) , Section 3 (b)  under POCSO Act. And the second appellant convicted for the offence under section 212 of IPC.

The accused are brothers .First accused was a vicar in during that period. She used to attend morning prayer with her mother. After the prayer the victim goes missing .The first was accused was with the victim. So her mother questioned him  and went suspicious. Later on questioning she has revealed that she was sexually assaulted by the first accuse. After mother informed to authorities of the church and went to police station to file a case.

During  cross examination they if there was any consensual relationship between them or  the suggestion during this was first accused refused her love proposal. So the victim was giving false statement against him.

First accused was sentenced to undergo twenty  years imprisonment  and second accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment. The victim was went to medical examination before and after registration of the case. The relatives of the first accused met them to settle the case amicably and it is informed to them as it was not possible.

 Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 and many more cases ,the apex court held that determination of date of birth of a person before a court of law, whether in a civil or criminal proceedings, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

The birth Certificate was not challenged to accuse  the Victim is 21.09.2000 and that she was a child in terms of provisions contained in the POCSO Act during 2014 and 2015.  The sterling witnesses is the one that appears to be natural and consistent in the case.  In the medical examination she found evidence of sexual intercourse.

The second accused allegation was against him that he had harboured  the first accused from legal punishment. Special court found guilty that the second accused has done the offence under section 212 of IPC. There was no satisfactory evidence to prove that the victim was a child under POCSO Act during that period.

 In another case Jamali Singh v. State of Harayana, (2013) 7 SCC  263, it said that the age of the victim in this case will be given according to the provision contained in Section 94 of Juvenile Justice ( Careand Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Police officer collected the birth certificate of the victim and produced same before the court .Rape is crime it effects upon women in the society. First accused for the offence of rape he was punished rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years instead of natural life remainder .

“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 Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

Click to view the judgement

0

DISPLAY OF NAME AND NATURE OF BUSINESS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ADVERTISEMENT: SUPREME COURT

Uncategorized , , , , , , , ,

In precedence of the case Bharti Airtel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh the High Court of Madhya Pradesh declared the demand notices sent to the appellant for the payment of advertisement tax to be valid. This was challenged in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The appellant is a dealer of Hyundai passenger cars in Indore. He had a sign board outside the premise of the showroom displaying the business name and address of the place. Respondent number 2 issued a notice demanding Rs. 2,03,850 as advertisement tax under Section 189-A of the Municipal Act, 1965. The appellant contested that a sign board merely displaying the name of the business does not amount to “advertisement”. The objective behind putting up the sign board was only to inform the public about the business and what it deals in. The appellant filed a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India but the High Court referred to the verdict given in the Bharti Airtel case and dismissed the petition. The appellant received notices to pay advertisement tax not only for the shop located within the jurisdiction of the Indore municipal corporation but also for the one located outside its jurisdiction.

The counsel for appellant contends that the facts in the Bharati Airtel case are not analogous to this case. This case deals with the issue whether a third party or a tax agency collect advertisement tax. Whereas in the present case, the issue is whether displaying the name and nature of the business amounts to advertisement. The counsel for appellant further contends that if tax is levied for the same it would be violative of article 19(1)(A) and 19(1)(G) of the Constitution.

The Indore municipal authority under sec 132(6)(1) of the municipal corporation act contends that it has rightfully demanded the advertisement tax from the appellant. The particular section states that the corporation can levy any tax contingent upon any special or general order taken by the state government, namely, ‘a tax on advertisement other than advertisements published in newspapers’ (Sub-clause (l)).

The court referred to the case of ICICI Bank and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (2005) 6 SCC 404 which held that ‘advertisement’ must have a commercial aspect to it. It must attract the attention of the people in order to persuade them to engage in the activity of buying. Advertisement aims at providing information and is of a good or service. However, only displaying the name of the company does not amount to advertising unless it is a trade mark or trade name.

The hon’ble supreme court states that the sign board entailed the name of the business which itself is indicative of the kind of product the appellant deals with. Solely displaying the name of the enterprise or the business would not amount to advertising unless the enterprise in question in some way persuades the customer to purchase. Display boards and name boards are essential for the purposes of identification. If they are counted as advertisements, it would be impossible for customers to even identify such businesses. The context and circumstances must be taken into account.

In this case, the legislative provisions do not permit the municipal corporation to levy tax on sign boards. The objective of sign board is just to convey information about the kind of products dealt with by a business enterprise. The name of the business enterprise of the appellant shows what car he deals in and nothing more. It does not cause the public to purchase the products.

The Hon’ble court further stated that both the parties had objections to the demands made and they hastily rushed to the High Court under its extra ordinary jurisdiction. However, the court does not support the dismissal of the petition by the High Court. The outcome of the case remains unchanged and the first respondent was asked to review the objections filed by the appellant within eight weeks. In case, they decide against the appellant they cannot enforce the demands for another eight weeks. The appellants have the liberty to challenge any decision given by the Commissioner.

“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 Analysis written by- Rashi Hora.

Click here to view judgement.

0

NON-ADHERENCE TO PROCEDURAL LAWS IS THE PRIMARY REASON BEHIND PENDENCY OF CASES AND JUDICIAL DELAY: SUPREME COURT.

Blog, blog , , , , , , ,

In the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court deals with the selection of the legal representative of the deceased Mrs. Urmila Devi. In 1982, a sale deed carried out by Shri Mangal Singh was challenged in court by late Urmila Devi praying to declare the same null and void by asserting ownership of the properties; and an order to possess the property in question with costs. The case was still at its primal stage when Mrs. Urmila Devi died. Hence, Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain filed an application to be the legal heir.

Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain presented a duly registered will before the court executed by Mrs. Urmila Devi and witnessed by the current appellant Mr. Yashpal Jain. He prayed before the court to be substituted as the legal representative of Mrs. Urmila Devi. He also claimed to be her legatee according to the will. The defendants by way of presenting a registered adoption deed stated that Mr. Yashpal is adopted. The trial court ruled in favour of Mr. Manoj Jain. The order was challenged by the legal heirs of Mangal Singh by means of a civil revision petition before the district judge. In the course of the revisional proceedings, Mr. Manoj mentioned that he does not wish to proceed with application filed by him to be the legal representative of Mrs. Urmila Devi. On the basis of the proceedings, the judgement given by the trial court was overruled. The district judge directed the trial court to accept the application of condonation of delay and impleadment of a legal representative by Mr. Yashpal. Mr. Yashpal filed an application for the same as well as to dismiss the abatement of suit. The trial court allowed the same and hence ruled in favour of Mr. Yashpal Jain being the legal representative of the plaintiff. 

The legal representatives of the aggrieved party filed a civil revision application before the district judge. The judge upheld the verdict of the trial court and dismissed the petition. The defendants moved to the high court challenging the orders passed by both, the trial court and the revisional court. The high court overruled the impugned orders and rejected the application by the current appellant, relying on the initial order passed by the trial court which substituted Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain as the legal representative on the strength of the registered will and directed the courts to conclude the proceedings within 9 months. The appellants were aggrieved by the orders of the high court filed the present appeal.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the high court has made a mistake by overruling the orders of the trial court and revisional court taken after careful consideration. The lower courts have also taken diligence of the fact that Mr. Yashpal Jain is the sole living representative of Mrs. Urmila Jain and the stressed on the aforementioned fact that the defendants had pleaded to substitute the appellant in the suit pertaining to the sale deed of property by Mangal Singh. In the instance case the defendants can be seen contradicting their own stance.

The defendants contend that the appellants had not filed a counter-affidavit. On the basis of the doctrine of non-traversal this would amount to admission. The defendants mention two instances wherein the current appellant had supported Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain and his will. The appellant cannot plead ignorance for the delay.

In response to issue one the court has contended that the application filed by the defendants in regard to the writ proceedings is the very reason that the trial court and revisional court substituted Mr. Yashpal as the legal representative. The defendants cannot contend that the appellant had filed two affidavits admitting and confirming Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain as the legal representative. The affidavits were mere proof of the appellant being a signatory to the will. It did not intend to substantiate or prove any other fact to any effect.

On non-traversal of writ petition claims, the records state that Mr. Manoj himself filed an application along with an affidavit expressing his disinterest in continuing the application of being the legal representative. If the orders of the high court to not implead Yashpal Jain as the legal representative were to be sustained then the then this implies that the estate of the deceased would not be represented and the case would eventually be closed. Hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the order of the high court and upheld the verdict given by the trial court and revisional court.

The hon’ble supreme court took cognizance of the fact that the case is ancient and long standing. In addition to the property suit, the death of Mrs Urmila devi brought in a plethora of suits to determine her legal representative. The current stage of the property suit is unknown but it is said to have been moving at a “snail’s pace” since her death. There are numerous causes for the delay. The hon’ble court mentioned that it is due this very reason that the general public becomes cynical of the justice delivery system. The court delves deeper into the numerous reasons for delay in delivering justice. Inconsistencies in the law, hefty paperwork, leniency in granting adjournments for no justifiable reason, misuse of the provisions of the CPC and CrPC are some of the reasons. The government has taken steps, formulated policies and amended laws to clear the backlog but it has only resulted in poor results. The amendments of the statutory laws have been unsatisfactory.  The court stresses on the fact that it is the responsibility of all the stakeholders to restrict the practices that delays the justice delivery process. The courts must introspect and come up with solutions to serve the public with an effective justice delivery system. The growth of a nation, in all aspects, depends on the strength of the judicial system. The Hon’ble court revisited the findings of various law commissions instituted over the years to find out the cause and remedies to the perpetual problem of huge pendency of cases and inefficient judicial administration. The various reports by law commissions talk about setting a time limit for both civil and criminal cases to be strictly followed by each of the courts and a plea to increase the manpower and immediate replacement in when there’s vacancy. In furtherance to the 77th report by the law commission, the 79th report provides an all- comprehensive guide for managerial judging, time bound trial procedures by trial courts, high courts and other appellate courts.

The court also mentions delays arising due to non-adherence of procedural laws majorly in civil trials. The courts have been frivolous with the grants of adjournment without ay justifiable reason. This is the primary contributory issue that leads to delays and ultimately losing confidence of the public in the justice delivery system. The court relied upon the case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal & Another AIR (1977) 4 SCC 467 which held that the answer to an irresponsible suit or litigation would be a vigilant judge. The court acknowledges the importance of maintaining cordial relationship with judges and gives a stark remark to the lawyers to refrain from frequent adjournment requests especially while dealing with cases that have been pending since decades. Under order viii rule 1(a) of CPC a defendant must submit and present the written statement within 30 or 90 days and if he fails to do so without any genuine reason then costs must be awarded to the opposite party payable by the defendant. This rule is seldom followed.

Adjournments should be given only when the request is honest and with a bonafide intention expressed by way of affidavit. Frequent grants of adjournments defeat the purpose of the legislation. It is pertinent for all the presiding officers to strictly adhere to the time schedule provided under sub-rule 1 of rule 1 of order viii. It is the responsibility of the stakeholders to ensure the same. In the case of M. Mahalingam vs. Shashikala the intention behind the legislation was duly stated. The legislation has curbed the power of the courts to grant frequent adjournments because when a case has begun the evidence must be recorded on a daily basis and only, if necessary, adjournments should be given to the following day. This ensures that only bonfide reasons should be entertained by the court and it should be strict in it dispense of adjournments.

Innumerable legislations can be enacted to ensure speedy disposal of cases but it would be of no use until it is strictly implemented by the courts and constantly monitored by committees established for the very reason. The fundamental duties mentioned in article 51 A of the constitution must be given utmost importance in light of any problems faced by the stakeholders. The citizens must always strive towards excellency for the growth of the nation. It is important for the judiciary to regain the confidence of the public in litigation a be a ‘beacon of hope”. The Hon’ble supreme court thus directs all the lower courts to strictly adhere to the rules laid down in the procedural laws ensuring the proceedings take place as scheduled. Some courts shall be controlled by Principal District Judges who, after compiling all the statistics, shall present it before the constituted committee of the high court.

“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 Analysis written by- Rashi Hora.

Click here to view judgement.

0

Granting of Permanent Commission (PC) to the Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCO’s) in the Indian Navy must be executed without any prejudices: Supreme Court

Blog , , , , , ,

The issue in this case was regarding the grant of Permanent Commission (PC) to Short Service Commission Officers (SSCO’s) in the Indian Navy. The conflict arose when the Policy Letters dated 26 September 2008 was issued, which stipulated that only women from certain branches (JAG, Education and Naval Architecture), would be considered for grant of PC with a prospective application.

The case of Cdr. Seema Chaudhary versus Union of India and Others evolved as an aftermath of the Union of India vs Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja case. In the case of Annie Nagaraja, the Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja along with other officers challenged the above Policy Letter as being discriminatory and based on unreasonable grounds. The Court noted that the statutory bar on the enrolment of women in the Indian Navy was lifted by the notifications issued in the year 1991 and 1998. Moreover, this Court held that the policy decision of the Union Government dated 25 February 1999 would govern the conditions of service of SSCOs including women officers in regard to the grant of PCs. The Court held that the impugned PL being prospective and restricting it to specified cadres was invalid. Consequently, directed that all SSCOs in the Education, Law and Logistic Cadres who were “presently in service”, shall be considered for the grant of PC.

In the instant case, the petitioner Cdr. Seema Chaudhary is a JAG Branch officer recruited on Short Service Commission in 2007. Even after many years of service, she was denied PC due to lack of vacancies. The petitioner approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which issued directions, considering the petitioner along with the Law Cadre officers from previous batches.

The petitioner aggrieved by the directions issued by AFT,  filed a civil appeal before the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that considering her candidature alongside the officers of previous batches was prejudice to her appointment.

The respondents contended that such a consideration with subsequent batches was made in order to ensure that a fair opportunity was granted to all concerned officers and to widen the field of consideration.

The Supreme Court hearing the contentions of both the parties analyzed the directions issued by AFT. The court noted that by considering the candidature of the petitioner for the grant of PC along with the batches of 2011 and 2014, the AFT has deviated from the judgement passed by this court. Further, stated that to do so would amount to introducing a condition to the Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja case. The court held that any directions which de-hors the judgment of the Court could not be issued.

The Court also clarified that the increase in the vacancies which is created to accommodate the petitioner shall not create any precedence for the future. The court, thus, exercised its powers under Article 142 to ensure principles of Natural Justice and Equality.

“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 – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

1 … 15 16 17 18 19 … 22