The bench observed that the civil suit had been filed for publicity as the link of hearing had been circulated on social media. The bench also directed issuance of contempt show-cause notice against the individuals who barged into the hearing and sang the actor’s movie songs.

In the instant case, the plaintiffs had filed a case against the roll of 5G telecommunication services in the country and sought for restraining orders against the steps which would be undertaken by the government in order to establish 5G network.

The plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the steps like spectrum allocation and licensing would result in short term and long term harm on the human beings, plants, animals and would’ve a detrimental effect on the environment. The counsel clarified that the plaintiffs are not against the 5G policy but the measures which would be undertaken to implement it.

The counsel concluded that the public money is being used to conduct studies on 5G services and the same has not yet completed, but the government has started with its implementation.

The bench noted in the order that the plaintiffs have misused and abused the process of law and this could be understood from the evidence wherein the plaintiff 1 i.e. Juhi Chawla had circulated the link of hearing. Further, the bench expressed its displeasure due to the multiple disruptions during the hearing.

The bench directed the plaintiffs to deposit cost of Rs. 20 lakhs. The counsel prayed before the bench for a stay on costs but the same was rejected by the bench on the ground that the matter had been over and the parties should’ve known the limits.

The bench went on to note that the plaintiffs had failed to make out a case and sue in representative capacity and therefore, the held the plaint to be defective and not maintainable.

The post Delhi HC dismissed civil suit filed against 5G on grounds of being defective and vexatious appeared first on LexForti .

In the instant case, Google LLC preferred an appeal against the order of a single judge bench which had directed it to globally remove a content which was addressed as objectionable and offensive by the female petitioner. According to her, the content had been taken from her social media accounts (Facebook and Instagram) without her consent and posted on pornographic website.

The petitioner alleged that despite her privacy settings being activated, her photos had been taken from her accounts. Such an offence was violative of her privacy and was punishable under Section 67 of the IT Act.

The appellant had submitted that it had no issues against the directions of court in case of the petitioner, rather was aggrieved by the blanket template directions delivered by the bench under the shade of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Ethics Code) Rules 2021.

According to the appeal, Google had been classified as a social media intermediary under the new IT Rules and was directed to remove a particular post and ones flagged like it globally within 24 hours.

The counsel submitted that the appellant sought for a protection against any coercive action upon its failure to take down particular posts as it is not an SMI. The counsel contended that being a search engine, it would not be covered under the definition of SMI under the IT Rules.

In furtherance to this, the counsel submitted that though the content may be offensive under the Indian Law, it might not be offensive in countries outside India, thus blanket order to remove the post could not be issued.

Lastly, the counsel submitted that due to such template directions, a bad precedent might be set. Had the petitioner approached the appellant, they would’ve dealt with the matter.

Based upon such blanket directions, the appellant had filed an appeal and sought for interim protection.

The post Our search engine is not a social media intermediary- Google before Delhi HC while seeking protection against IT Rules 2021 appeared first on LexForti .

The bench came to the aid of Air India pilots who were affected by the company’s termination order in the month of August, 2020. The bench gave this order orally and stated that the written order would be out the next day.

In the instant case, 48 pilots, who were employed in flying the Airbus 320 fleet, were sacked by the Air India. These employees had given their resignation but withdrew it within six months of notice period. The withdrawal of resignation was accepted earlier by the carrier but later was revoked, and their services were terminated with immediate effect.

Aggrieved by this, all 48 pilots had filed petitions and had sought relief from the court.

According to the company, due to the financial constraints and impact of COVID-19, the commercial functioning of the company was affected after which this decision had been taken.

The petitions submitted that the problem of operations was only a small fraction of pre-COVID level and the current situation of pandemic was unlikely to change in the near future. They stated that the reason behind termination were the huge losses due to which company was not in a position to pay them.

The bench quashed the order of Air India. The bench, however, held that the extension of contract in near future would be at the discretion of company, depending upon the performance of contractual pilots.

The post Reinstate the pilots along with back wages- Delhi HC to Air India’s order of terminating pilots appeared first on LexForti .

The affidavit had been filed by the Union Secretary, G.K. Pillai, belonging to Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, wherein they defended Jyoti CNC, manufacturer of defective ventilator machines and claimed that the doctors and other paramedics were not properly trained to handle the machine.

In the instant case, the bench was hearing its suo moto criminal PIL, wherein at least 113 of 150 ventilators, supplied to Marathwada, were found defective. It was also brought before the court that ventilators were rejected when one of the patients became of hypoxic.

During the hearing, the Central Government submitted that 150 ventilators were supplied through Make-in-India and not PM CARES fund.

The bench did not appreciate any of the Centre’s submissions as it focused more on blame game rather than a sensitive behaviour towards the health of citizens, which is one of the main objects of a welfare state.

The bench asked the ministry to refrain from questioning the reports submitted by medical experts, which alleged that the ventilators were defective, and concentrate upon rectifying the machines in order to provide relief to the patients.

The bench time and again asked the central government to put in efforts for making the machines in a working condition and not blame the training skills of hospital staff and paramedics.

The bench asked the Assistant Solicitor General of India to take up further instructions on a fresh report submitted by the dean of Government Medical College. The said report lists out various reasons after which it came to a conclusion that the ventilators were unsafe for patient’s use and that they’ve decided not to conduct further tests of these machines.

The Assistant Solicitor General submitted that Union of India would take up remedial measures to ensure that ventilators operate adequately and any defect, if found, would be removed. The matter has been listed for further directions on June 2, 2021.

The post Bombay HC lashes out at Centre for defending faulty PM CARES ventilators appeared first on LexForti .

The petition has sought for immediate constitution of a Special Investigative Team (SIT) to investigate the issue and submit its report to the High Court.

In the instant case, a number of bloated and decomposed dead bodies had been found at the shore of river Ganges and the discovery of same has created a chaos amongst the residents of Buxar and has made them vulnerable.

The plea averred that the said issue has triggered fear in the people residing on the banks of river Ganges as it has been reported by the officials that the said dead bodies are likely to be of the patients who have passed away due to the COVID.

The plea also stated that the people are in fear because they rely heavily on river Ganges for drinking water. They also pointed out that the stray dogs and birds have been found feeding on such bodies and wandering around the places situated near river Ganges.

The petitioner has mentioned in the plea that Ministry of Health and Family Welfare anticipated that even the dead body of corona patient is expected to bear the coronavirus and when the same is fed upon by the dogs and birds, it makes the residents even more vulnerable to the virus.

This has also affected the sale of fishes which have been caught from the river Ganges, averred petitioner in his plea.

The petitioner also brought before the issue of unavailability of wood for the cremation purpose and submitted that since there is no official to keep a check on the crematoriums and graveyards, the kins of dead corona patients are being charged exorbitantly for performing the last rites.

The petitioner has sought for strict actions against the respective officials; immediate vaccination of people residing on the banks of river Ganges; door-to-door testing; availability of clean drinking water; and directions to clean the contaminated river body, along with constitution of SIT.

The post PIL before Patna HC sought for SIT probe on issue of dead bodies found at shore of Ganges appeared first on LexForti .

The bench has also added that if the answer to the issue is in negative, under what circumstances court would be expected to deny the protection.

In the instant case, the petitioners had approach the court and sought for appropriate directions for granting them protection from the respondents. The petitioner no. 1 had been married and due to the strained relations with his wife, he ran away with petitioner no. 2 but the same is not accepted by the private respondents. It is stated that the petitioner no. 1 had not obtain a divorce.

The reason behind referring the matter to a larger bench was that various benches of court, of co-ordinate strength, have delivered different opinions on the matter, which could not be easily reconciled.

It is to be noted that the bench, while framing the said questions, had used the expression “persons” and not “adults.” The reason behind this had been the number of instances wherein the court had granted protection to both the petitioners who were not adults.

Looking back at the precedents set by Punjab and Haryana High Court, there have been occasions, depending upon the facts of cases, where the court had denied protection to the petitioners. Interesting, there have been instances where a contrary view had been taken by the court.

The court has been lenient towards the rights of live-in partners and has acknowledged such relationships, though the society still shows its reluctance. The court has held their rights in view of right to life and liberty of each individual; each individual has a right to make a choice.

The bench has referred the two questions to a larger bench so as to come up with a uniform opinion for such relationships.

The post P&H HC refers a question of granting protection to two persons without examining their marital status to a larger bench appeared first on LexForti .

The bench took up the responsibility of addressing this matter upon seeing the online darshan facility which had been facilitated by the state government for the devotees who wish to be a part of the Char Dham yatra.

The bench made critical observations for allowing Kumbh Mela in the middle of pandemic where over 10 million devotees congregated for several weeks.

The bench stated that the state government failed to ensure compliance of COVID protocols in the temples and religious festivals. The bench highlighted that the concerned priests were not maintaining social distance while worshipping in the temple.

The bench inquired the government as to who had been appointed to monitor the compliance of COVID protocol at temples as almost 23 priests were seen entering the same temple premises for worshipping the deity.

The Chief Justice of Uttarakhand HC remarked that such videos caused an embarrassment to the state. The bench also slammed the government for not providing an information about the steps to implement the SOPs for Char Dham.

The bench also stated that first the government allowed Kumbh Mela and now gave permission for conducting Char Dham without following the COVID protocols, when the whole country is trying to combat second wave of COVID.

The bench reminded the government about various variants of COVID, like Black Fungus, and stated that the decision-makers had been careless and were accountable to the general public, along with the judiciary.

The bench asked the government to make sure proper and qualified medical staff is appointed and that the SOPs are strictly followed.

The post Govt careless about COVID-19 protocol- Uttarakhand HC over Char Dham appeared first on LexForti .

In the Narada Scam, a case had been registered against the TMC leaders under Prevention of Corruption Act allegedly for accepting illegal gratifications from a sting operator. They had been arrested and produced before Special CBI court where the followers of arrested people gheraoed the CBI office and did not allow officers to reach their office.

The bench was hearing the CBI’s case against the bail granted to four TMC leaders involved in the Narada Scam case. In the instant case, the CBI sought for transfer of bail applications from the Special CBI Court to the High Court due to the unprecedented mob pressure exerted by West Bengal Chief Minister and Law Minister.

The Chief Justice of Calcutta HC highlighted the public protests which were being conducted against the matter which had been taken up by the court. The bench questioned whether the protests were an acceptable way to respond.

The bench also stated that the political leaders are supposed to explain and not incite their followers against a matter which is being dealt by the court.

The counsel appearing for the TMC leaders contended that the protests were peaceful in nature and were a form of expressing the unlawful arrests which had been conducted by the law enforcing agencies. The counsel also brought before the bench that the protests did not intend to impede the CBI or courtroom proceedings.

The counsel also submitted that just because a matter is being considered by the court, it would not act as a bar to democratic dissent.

The counsel appearing for CBI urged the bench to retain the custody of respondents so as to prevent the witnesses from being influenced. The counsel contended that the respondents hold influential positions which might affect the investigation or the witnesses.

Currently, the matter has been listed on another day.

The post Calcutta HC questioned public protests in Narada case against TMC leaders appeared first on LexForti .

The bench turned down the request of interim protection put forward by the counsel and granted time to opposition to file a reply.

In the instant case, the Delhi Police had registered a case under Sections 420, 188, 120(B) and 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodity Act, 1955 against Navneet Kalra for alleged recovery of 500 oxygen concentrators from few restaurants in Delhi.

The counsel contended that an individual could not be punished before fixing the price of an essential commodity. The counsel submitted that unless an order is passed under Section 3(1) of Essential Commodities Act, an individual could not be punished.

The counsel also brought before the court that the act of monitoring the price of a commodity could be initiated before fixing the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the commodity.

The opposition contended that the alleged accused had imported oxygen concentrator machines. To this, the applicant argued that the same were sold off to police officers and donated to COVID care centres.

The applicant counsel also denied the allegation of black marketing and hoarding and submitted before the bench that the said machines had been purchased by an importer and all the related transactions were conducted through legal channels.

The bench, upon hearing the submissions of counsels, asked the applicant to prove that under what capacity he was holding 105 oxygen concentrators. The bench inquired that under what authority an individual without bearing a license could hold oxygen concentrators.

The bench has denied the sought interim protection and adjourned the hearing.

The post No interim protection from arrest to Navneet Kalra- Delhi HC in oxygen concentrator hoarding case appeared first on LexForti .

The bench was hearing a bail case registered under Sections 376, 506 and 174A of Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, the prosecuterix had lodged a complaint in the year 2019 that in 2016 she went to Mohali, Chandigarh, where allegedly the petitioner forced her to join coaching classes.

Once she joined the classes, she allegedly started missing the classes and instead went to malls and PVR cinemas with the petitioner. It was alleged by the prosecuterix that during this time, the petitioner had recorded an obscene video of her and blackmailed her to make physical relations with him.

Later in 2018, according to the prosecuterix, the petitioner went to her home in Delhi, and on pretext of deleting the video, raped her. In the year 2019, he sent her the video on Facebook Messenger after which she lodged this complaint with the police.

During the hearing, the prosecuterix submitted that the petitioner fired a gun on her leg and for this two FIRs had been lodged under Arms Act and IPC.

The bench observed that at the time of incident, the woman was of 23 years aged and was at a better position to decide what is right and wrong for her. The bench further observed that during her stay in Mohali, neither she filed an FIR nor thought about returning back to Delhi from 2016 to 2017.

The bench also noted that why didn’t the prosecuterix complained about the alleged threats to petitioner’s mother and just informed about the incident to petitioner’s sister. The bench also relied upon the FSL report which did not recover any incriminating evidence from the petitioner’s mobile.

The bench observed that due to the absence of any technical evidence against the petitioner, the prosecuterix case has no stand and therefore, granted bail to the petitioner.

The post A 23 year old woman capable enough to distinguish between right and wrong- Delhi HC appeared first on LexForti .