#SupremeCourt to hear a plea involving interpretation of section 43D of #UAPA. Court is considering whether the extension of time can only be granted by special or session court or does a Chief Judicial magistrate also has any competence (default bail under UAPA)
Petitioner states expression “Court” appearing in Section 43D of UAPA is to be seen in the light of definition of “Court” as in Section 2(1)(d) of #UAPA Act and as such, the Chief Judicial Magistrate who dealt with the instant matter was not competent to grant extension of time
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju has been requested by the court to assist. Matter to be taken up shortly #supremecourt#UAPA
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave submits that ASG SV Raju was not keeping well
Justice Lalit: we have received a convenience compilation. So we assume he is here
Justice Lalit: there are two things on which we need your assistance. These persons were arrested and produced before magistrate. Maximum detention period under 167(2) is over. Now extension was granted by CJM and not as envisaged under UAPA Act
Justice Lalit: now the period originally completed under 167(2) can be extended when passed by a "court". Do you mean to say it can be a CJM who is considering issues of remand? They rely on Bikramjit Singh judgment to say CJM has no power.
Justice Lalit: Now does it mean they have to be produced before a court and not CJM.
Justice Lalit: It will boil down to a fact that rather than CJM taking burden of remand, the person will be produced before special court and thereby burdening itself with mundane issues. Is this what is contemplated by law?
ASG Raju: prima facie the answer to this lies under 167 as modified by 43D of UAPA.
Justice Lalit: we will go ahead if you are ready. some compilation is not given to other side
Justice Lalit: we will list this matter on July 16, 2021
ASG Raju: 167 has been modified by 43D. This modification does not touch two things that is committing magistrate competent to try the case. Judgments have held even special judges are magistrates. Word "court" used doesnt refer to UAPA act and it is court as defined under crpc
Justice Lalit: then you are submitting contrary to Bikramjit Singh. if we accept your submission then this matter can be referred to a larger bench. Bikramjit was decided by 3 judges
[Covid 19] Allahabad High Court to hear the suo moto COVID 19 matter shortly.
Earlier, the court had directed the government to inform the court about the steps being taken to upgrade the primary and secondary health care centers.
Manish Goyal, AAG: We were directed to file the status report about future planning and steps to tackle the pandemic. We have filed an affidavit in this regard.
Delhi High Court to hear plea seeking direction to Twitter India to appoint Resident Grievance Officer under IT Rules, 2021. On last date of hearing, Court had asked the social media platform when it would appoint such an officer
#BombayHighCourt is hearing two petitions assailing the Information Technology (Guidelines for intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Hearing before Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni.
Sr Adv Darius Khambatta for one of the petitioners, which is a digital news portal, states there are amendments which are required to be carried out in that petition.
Supreme Court to shortly hear a plea challenging the provisions dealing with restitution of conjugal rights since "court-mandated restitution of conjugal rights amounts to a "coercive act" on part of the state." #supremecourt#conjugalrights
The plea states that such a direction for restitution of conjugal rights is an infringement of one's sexual & decisional autonomy, right to privacy & dignity, and thus a violation of the right to life under Article 21 #supremecourt
Plea seeks Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act to be struck down. Additionally, the enforcement of restitution of conjugal rights as provided for under Order XXI Rule 32 and 33 of the CPC is also sought to be struck down
Ghaziabad Video: Karnataka HC to shortly begin hearing a plea filed by Manish Maheshwari, an employee of Twitter Communications India Private Ltd challenging notice issued under Section 41A of CrPC.