Apex Court held that Limitation period with respect to contempt proceedings is applicable even if it is a suo motu contempt proceedings
The Apex Court has held that period of one year limitation as provided under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is also applicable for Suo motu initiation of contempt proceedings by Apex Court or the High Court. In, 2015, the Allahabad High Court initiated a Suo Motu contempt proceedings against author of an article which appeared in 2008. The High Court challenged said order in 2015 which is beyond the prescribed period of one year and is barred by period of limitation. Apex Court has held that impugned article, having been published in 2008 and the High Court having initiated the suo motu action only oin 2015, which is hit by the limitation of one year prescribed under the Act.”
Apex Court held it mandatory to comply with provisions relating to sanction even when additional Accused is added under Section 319 f the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Apex Court has held that protection of ‘sanction’under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not available to police officers accused of illegal detention and offences committed during the period before the formal-arrest is recorded. Reiterating the settled law that Courts cannot take cognizance of the complaints against the public servants, without sanction by the appropriate authority the Apex Court bench comprising of Justices Jagdish Singh Khehar and C. Nagappan also held that such sanction from appropriate authority is mandatory prerequisite even when the cognizance is taken under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Apex Court ordered compensation of Rs. 1 Crore to Railways for roof travel deaths
The Apex Court has held that Railways have to compensate for the death or injury sustained on account of travelling on the roof of a train even if the act of the person was illegal. The Apex Court made it clear while ordering the Central government to pay compensation while travelling on the roof of an express train five years ago. Observed the Bench: “In our view, it must be expected of the persons concerned to be aware of the inherent danger in allowing the train to run with such speed having large number of persons travelling on roof top. Though the people who travelled on roof top also contributed to the mishap, the Railway Administration, in our view, was not free from blame. Concluding so, we direct that the next of kin of those who died in the incident and those who sustained injuries must be duly compensated by the Railway Administration. Those who died were obviously very young in age for they had come to compete for the jobs. Taking all these factors in consideration we direct Railway Administration to pay: (a) Compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the next of kin in case of every death (b) Compensation of Rs.1.5 lakhs in every case of permanent disability suffered by anyone in the incident (c) Compensation of Rs.75,000/- in case of any grievous injury suffered by anyone; and (d) Compensation of Rs.25,000/- in case of simple injury suffered by anyone. The court further ordered:”All Central Police Organisations must issue guidelines or Standing Order akin to Standing Orders Nos. 1 of 2011 and 5 of 2013 of ITBP ensuring that only 600 candidates or such number of candidates as could easily be managed or taken care of be called in one cycle on a particular day. For compliance in that behalf, a copy of this Order be sent by the Registry to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs”.
Apex Court observed that there is an urgent need to review regulatory mechanism pertaining to the legal profession
The Apex Court observed that there is an urgent need to review the provisions of the Advocates Act dealing with regulatory mechanism for the legal profession. The Bench has requested the Law commission and Government of India to take appropriate steps in this regard. The Court also held that, what is permissible for this Court by virtue of statutory appellate power under Section 38 of the Advocates Act is also permissible to a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in appropriate cases on failure of the Bar Council to take action after its attention is invited to the misconduct.
The High Courts (Alteration of Names) Bill, 2016 for enabling changing the names of High Courts of Bombay and Madras approved by the Cabinet
The Union Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has given its approval to introduce ‘The High Courts (Alteration of Names) Bill, 2016’ in Parliament. The High Courts (Alteration of Names) Bill, 2016 will facilitate the changing of the names of ‘Bombay High Court as Mumbai High Court’ and ‘Madras High Court as Chennai High Court’ respectively. This Legislation is to address this requirement. It will fulfill the wishes of the State Government and the people.