Some guidelines have been issued by the Supreme Court (SC) in speeding up cheque cases, in a judgement delivered on 5th March 2020 in Makwana Mangaldas Tulsidas v State of Gujarat and Ors.
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 replaced the three decade old Consumer Protection Act of 1986.
The new act brings in some substantial changes beneficial to the consumer by adding more remedial measures and expanding the operation of the act in areas like online selling as well. The transactions through electronic means or by tele-shopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing have come under the purview of this act. The act has come into effect on 20th July 2020.
The seminal question whether a beneficiary of an insurance policy, who has not paid any premium to the insurance firm but uses the services under the insurance with the policy holder’s due approval, comes under the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is made clear by the Supreme Court (SC) early in 2020.
In Canara Bank v United India Insurance Co & others delivered on 6th February 2020, the SC declared that the beneficiary of insurance policy would come within the definition of consumer under the Act, if the insurance service is used by the beneficiary with due approval of the policy holder. This has been made clear by interpreting Section 2(1) (d) of the Act.
Concept of contempt of court
The concept of contempt of court came into existence in India with the enactment of the Constitution of India. By including the concept the Constitution puts some restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression, and the personal liberty it otherwise guarantees.
The Article 129 of the Constitution confers on the Supreme Court (SC) the power to punish when there is an instance of contempt of itself. The Article 215 confers a corresponding power on the High Court as well.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, gives statutory backing to the measures to address contempt of court. The act is intended to safeguard the status and dignity of the courts in the interest of justice dispensation.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HAS), in its original form did not give the daughter of a coparcener equal right to the ancestral property as that of a son. Therefore the act was amended in 2005 to counter balance the gender. After the amendment, the daughter of the coparcener in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) has got equal rights, liabilities, and duties as her brothers. Hence any ancestral property has to be shared equally among all coparcenary members including women since 2005. The amendment came into effect on 9th September 2005. The marital status of the daughter also does not make any difference in their right over their undivided family property.
However the 2005 amendment of the act left some confusion and the courts started issuing conflicting judgments in regard to the woman’s right. Among those judgments the Prakash v Phulavati judgment in 2015 and the Danamma v. Amar judgment in 2018 are the most crucial ones.
What is meant by defamation?
Defamation essentially is making or publishing any Imputation to harm the reputation of a person or body. It is a dishonest false statement to discredit or put disrepute a person or body.
In examining the issue of defamation, a person’s character is considered quite different from his reputation. Character is what a man is, but reputation is what he is supposed to be in the eyes of the people or what people say he is. The former depends on the actual attributes he possesses but the latter rests on the attributes which others believe him to be in possession of. In short, a man’s opinion of himself cannot be called his reputation.
Defamation, according to IPC, is making or publishing any imputation concerning any person to harm the reputation of such [person. It can be in written, oral, sign, or graphical form. It must be made knowingly and believing that it will harm the reputation of the person against whom it is made.
What is an anticipatory bail?
Anticipatory bail is a kind of bail that a person accused of committing a non bailable offence and apprehending arrest can apply for under the Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). It is issued by the High Court or the Court of Sessions.
Anticipatory bail is a pre-arrest bail. In the order of bail, the court gives a direction that the accused person should be released on bail in the event of his arrest by the police. No anticipatory bail can be issued after the arrest of the person.
Anticipatory bail is an extra ordinary privilege. It should be granted in exceptional cases only.
Evidence: What it means
The term evidence is a bit ambiguous one. It refers to what is adduced by a party in a court in order to establish a fact or its truth.
Evidence essentially refers to those things that make the truth of a disputed matter quite evident or convincing to a court.
No other reform is as important as establishing an All India Judicial Service (AIJS) in revitalising Indian judiciary. But the proposal for setting up an AIJS, in the lines of Indian Civil Service, is hanging fire for more than five decades despite there were several proposals and decisions including that of the apex court, in its favour. It is quite curious that a key judicial reform of such a magnitude remains wholly neglected at a time when more than 5000 judicial posts are lying vacant and as many as 2.3 crore cases are pending in the country. There is widespread hope that AIJS can deal with great many ills Indian judiciary face right now and revitalize it into a far more vibrant constituent of Indian governance and democracy.
Bail is the rule but not its refusal
Bail is the rule and refusal of bail is the exception. When the bail is refused the personal liberty of the citizen is deprived. Such deprivation can be done only by following the principles and procedures known to law. That means refusal of bail must be done by following due process of law. Bail can be granted at any stage of the trial.