Post

More from @LiveLawIndia

Live Law

@LiveLawIndia

Mar 26

#KeralaHighCourt today heard a public interest litigation seeking removal of all cigarette advertisements and for disclosing #nicotine and tar content on #cigarette packets

Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM considered the matter.

During the last hearing, the State had informed that there are no Central government Rules specifying the maximum permissible nicotine and tar contents in cigarettes. The DSGI was requested to assist the Court, noting that the absence of specification of the maximum permissible nicotine and tar contents in cigarettes and other tobacco products is likely to cause serious health issues.

Read 19 tweets

Live Law

@LiveLawIndia

Mar 25

Karnataka HC refuses to quash criminal proceedings against brewery where a teenager is alleged to have consumed alcohol and subsequently died

The court directs the brewery and similar establishments in Bengaluru to initiate rigorous age verification protocols.

The court dictates the order,
" ...Be it through the aadhar or other valid identification at the threshold of entry and further verification should follow when liquor / alcohol is ordered by persons appearing to be youthful..."

"...The breweries cannot be complacent. Age verification cannot be a perfunctory ritual. It must be a living practise by display of conspicuous warnings by insistence of documentary proof..."

Read 6 tweets

Live Law

@LiveLawIndia

Mar 25

#SupremeCourt continues hearing writ petition by NGO Vanashakti, in which last year it recalled its own order that prohibited granting retrospective environmental clearances.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi.

Counsel: I will show through the architecture of EIA notification how any kind of blanket regime for post facto clearance should not be permitted. For individual projects my lords may want to take steps under article 142 but it may not be a reason to dilute the principle.

Counsel: that is how human nature is. Project proponents will always feel that is easier to seek forgiveness than ask for permission.

Read 31 tweets

Live Law

@LiveLawIndia

Mar 25

#SupremeCourt hears the case of a 4-yr old #rape victim, where it was informed that the Magistrate recorded her statement in presence of the accused

Commissioner of Police, Gurugram and the Investigating Officer to appear before the Court

Comments were also sought earlier from the concerned Magistrate

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, J Joymalya Bagchi and J Vipul Pancholi

ASG Aishwarya Bhati: District Judge report has probably not been received. Commissioner, IOs are here.

Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi represents petitioner (victim/her parents)

J Bagchi: How did the offense get reduced from S. 6 to S.10?

ASG Bhati refers to CWC report

J Bagchi: CWC report prevails over statement of the child ? See the police officers and station. 2 Dep Commissioner of Police. If this is the quality of understanding sensitivity in case of a 4-yr old child, what do you expect of rule of law? You say it's not a case of rape but assault?

ASG: Investigation is going on. THey have gone on CWC report

J Bagchi: We are indicating what's distressing. Highest police officials taking that stance to bring down the offense to S.10! It's for courts to decide, not CWC

CJI: The way family and child have been harassed! Child went through more horrifying experience after what happened with her. Repeated victimization!

J Bagchi: Worst form of disrespect to a victim!

CJI: You're disbelieving a 4 yr child going on CCTV! Shame on them! If state has any respect for law, they will transfer them! The moment we take cognizance, you start arresting!

ASG: Max medical report - parents themselves were a little doubtful. State has tried to investigate.

CJI: Height of insensitivity exhibited in this case.

CJI:Who appointed these CWC members? Acted as if victim was a table or chair! They should have gone to her house

ASG: Commissioner only called the parents, not the child

CJI : Why can't police go to house of victim? Does he think of himself to be...?

Read 7 tweets

Live Law

@LiveLawIndia

Mar 25

#SupremeCourt hears Sameer Wankhede's plea challenging disciplinary proceedings in relation to the 2021 Cordelia cruise drug bust case.

Bench: Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe.

Last month, the Delhi High Court set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal order quashing the proceedings.

livelaw.in/high-court/del…

Senior Advocate PS Patwalia for Wankhede: there is something very very serious. First of all there is no charge made out in the charge sheet at all.

Read 15 tweets

Live Law

@LiveLawIndia

Mar 25

#SupremeCourt hear plea against a circular regarding singing of national song (#VandeMataram) in schools

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, J Joymalya Bagchi and J Vipul Pancholi

J Bagchi: It's an advisory

SG Tushar Mehta: I am not appearing in this, but do we need to be advised to respect the national song? This concept has started from American Constitution

Sr Adv Sanjay Hegde: We have respect for every religion in this country. If people can be compelled to sing along, irrespective of religion, atheists, who then feel compelled to participate in 'social demonstration of loyalty'

SG: Please see Art 51A

Hegde:There's difference between national anthem and national song! It does not speak of national song.

CJI: Your matter does not pertain to national anthem. On that, you are also clear. The word 'may' is used. There are no penal or adverse consequences. Nobody has asked that you do it in your academy

Hegde: Petitioner may be kept aside for a second. There are many who have our reasons. Patriotism cannot be compelled

CJI: It can't be compelled even for national anthem?

Hegde:If Constitution has to mean anything, it has to protect individual conscience. Our tradition teaches tolerance. If there's an advisory without sanctions, your lordships may take it, there's no way that that advisory is enforced

J Bagchi: Please come to us when you're discriminated on the basis of the advisory

Hegde:Being threatened to conform

J Bagchi: There's no threat conform. Is a mere advisory a breach? You have some vague apprehensions of discrimination.

CJI: Premature apprehension.

Hegde: National song taking precedence. National anthem becoming an epilogue. There are enough citizens who will feel the pressure to conform and who would give up

CJI: This is only a protocol for when it is played

Hegde: National flag was protected. No legal framework today for national song. Tomorrow, another govt may call for another song as national song.
#SupremeCourt

Read 5 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Live Law

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @LiveLawIndia

Live Law

Live Law

Live Law

Live Law

Live Law

Live Law

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!