Bombay High Court dismissed PIL objecting to use of word ‘Satyamev Jayate’


Bombay High Court dismissed PIL objecting to use of word ‘Satyamev Jayate’

The Bombay High Court had  dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition that took objection to the use of the words ‘Satyamev Jayate’ in Aamir Khan’s show alleging that use of ‘Satyamev Jayate’ being violative of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition and Improper Use) Act and State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules. The Court has however dismissed the PIL on grounds that prohibition was only for the use of the emblem as a whole and not the motto ‘Satyamev Jayate.’

Court ordered Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to compensate builder for constructing public road on private land not covered under acquisition proceedings

“Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had constructed a public road on a private land not covered under acquisition proceedings,” whereof court asked them to pay compensation/damages of Rs. 2 lakh to the proprietor.

Madras High Court ruled that Petitioner (Father) cannot file a petition in his name seeking community certificates for his sons

The Madras High Court Bench here has refused permission to the father of children to file a writ petition in his name seeking issuance of community certificates to his sons and argue the case on his own as a party-in-person.

The Court said petitioner, couldnot file the case in his name when the applications for community certificates has been filed by his sons. Court further said that Petitioner could not appear and sue in his name on their behalf, as the petitioner should be the one who had applied for Community Certificate in his name in order to maintain the petition in his name.

Court observed that “If we permit the petitioner to appear as party-in-person and plead on behalf of his children, it would amount to practicing the profession of law. Only an authorised practitioner of law can appear and plead on behalf of some other individual. Hence, we are of the opinion that this petition is not maintainable,”

Madras High Court ruling on age determination of juvenile under juvenile justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015

The Madras High Court has held that lower court should record oral and documentary evidences before determining the age of those seeking the benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 instead of deciding the issue solely on the basis of radiologist’s report despite availability of evidence such as school transfer certificate.

Madras High Court made amendments to rules whereby lawyers can be debarred upon spreading unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations against judicial officers

The lawyers describes such move as violation of their rights. The Lawyers said that it will have serious implications for the profession. The amendment empowers the High Court as well as the court of Principal District Judge (PDJ) in every district to debar advocates indulging in misconduct.

“The newly added Rules say that an advocate found to have sent or spread unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations/petitions against a Judicial Officer or a Judge to the Superior Court would have to face debar. Allegations against judges may not have sufficient proof to substantiate and the advocates could only take the complaint against Judges to the Chief Justice.