Supreme Court Collegium recommends new Chief Justices for seven High Courts
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Chief Justices for seven High Courts - those of Kerala, Orissa, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, Telangana and Gujarat.
The Collegium headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sanjeev Khanna passed the resolutions, which were uploaded on the official website late on Wednesday night.
Justice Sunita Agarwal, judge of the Allahabad High Court, has been recommended for appointment as Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court.
Justice Ashish J Desai, Acting Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, has been recommended for appointment as Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court.
Justice Subhasis Talapatra, judge of the Orissa High Court, has been recommended for appointment as Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court.
Justice Siddharth Mridul, judge of the Delhi High Court, has been recommended for appointment as Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court.
Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, judge of the Bombay High Court, has been recommended for appointment as Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, judge of the Allahabad High Court, has been recommended for appointment as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.
Justice Alok Aradhe, judge of the Karnataka High Court, has been recommended for appointment as Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court.
If Collegium recommendation goes through, Justice Sunita Agarwal will be the only woman Chief Justice of a High Court
The Supreme Court Collegium uploaded a slew of resolutions late Wednesday night, recommending new Chief Justices for seven different High Courts.
Among these is the recommendation to elevate Allahabad High Court judge Justice Sunita Agarwal as Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court.
If the Central government green signals the recommendation, Justice Agarwal will currently the be only woman Chief Justice of a High Court. While disclosing the reasons behind recommending Justice Agarwal's name, the resolution states,
"On the appointment of Ms Justice Sunita Agarwal, the Allahabad High Court would have a second Chief Justice among the Chief Justices of the High Courts. Besides, while considering the name of Ms Justice Sunita Agarwal, the Collegium has taken into consideration the fact that she would be the only woman Chief Justice of a High Court as presently there is no woman among the Chief Justices of the High Courts."
The last Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court was also a woman; Justice Sonia Gokani had a short tenure before her retirement in February this year. Subsequently, Justice Ashish Desai took over as Acting Chief Justice. Justice Desai has now been recommended for elevation as Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court.
Justice Agarwal graduated from Awadh University in the year 1989 and enrolled as an advocate on December 16, 1990. She was elevated as an additional judge of the Allahabad High Court on November 21, 2011 and took oath as a permanent judge on August 6, 2013.
Bank cannot curtail travel of a citizen on ground of loan default: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court recently reiterated that a Look Out Circular (LOC) cannot be misused by banks to violate a citizen's right to travel on account of a loan default. [Farooq Ali Khan v. Bureau of Immigration & Ors].
The Court was dealing with a plea by the suspended director (petitioner) of a company that had defaulted on certain bank loans. The petitioner had moved the Court for relief after a LOC issued against him hindered him from travelling abroad for business purposes.
Considering that petitioner was not an accused in any crime, nor was he sought to be made one, and in light of the argument that he was only a loan guarantor, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed,
“The petitioner, even if it is construed to be that he is the director of the company, for setting the record straight, the travel of a citizen cannot be curtailed by the Bank on the ground that he is in default of loan amount.”
The judge also referred to the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Leena Rakesh v. Bureau of Immigration, wherein it was held that, "issuance of Look Out Circular or preventing a person from travelling abroad cannot be a mode of recovery of dues to the Bank."
He proceeded to observe that this ruling is also applicable to the present case.
By way of background, the defaulter-company had taken a loan from a consortium of banks. In 2016, a dispute arose between the promoters of the company and they suffered an immense loss. As a result, the company defaulted in the repayment of bank loans.
Consequently, the banks initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFEASI Act) against the company to discharge in full its outstanding liability in a sum of ₹2277.68 crores, including interest.
Insolvency proceedings were also initiated against the company and personal guarantors, including the petitioner, resulting in the issuance of LOCs that restricted their ability to travel abroad.
This situation ultimately obstructed the petitioner and others from conducting business activities overseas.
This led the petitioner to the filing of the present plea before the High Court.
The Court examined whether the bank could have curtailed the fundamental right of the petitioner to travel except in accordance with the law when the company is the borrower from the bank, while the petitioner claimed to be a non-functional director.
The issuance of LOC has serious repercussions, including that the petitioner would not be able to move out of the shores of the nation even if no such embargo is placed by any court of law, the Court observed.
The Court also referred to Delhi High Court's judgment in the Rana Ayyub case where the LOC against her was cancelled after observing that the personal liberty to travel cannot be taken away, except in accordance with the law.
While referring to the Madras High Court judgment in Karti P Chidambaram v Bureau of Immigration, the single judge further noted that the issue of whether a LOC can be issued against the director of a company against whom no proceedings were initiated or pending before any court of law has been settled.
"Taking recourse of Look Out Circular against a person like the petitioner, on alleged role of the petitioner in default of payment of loan by the company cannot become an impediment leading to curtailment of fundamental right of the petitioner," the Court observed.
The Court also noted that the petitioner was seeking permission to travel to Italy and Germany for business purposes, after which he submitted he would return to India.
Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner permission to travel, on the condition that he submit an affidavit confirming his return to the country after his work abroad and within 12 weeks of his departure.
The petitioner was represented by advocates CK Nandakumar and Sivaramakrishnan MS.
Advocates MN Kumar and Nagaraj Damodar represented the respondents.
Delhi High Court rejects plea challenging mandatory uniform, badges for auto and taxi drivers
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging the provisions of the Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules and permit conditions which make it mandatory for the drivers of taxis and auto rickshaws to wear uniforms and badges [Chaalak Shakti & Ors v Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that specific powers have been given to the Central and State governments to lay down conditions subject to which permits can be given.
The bench made it clear that the argument that the power of prescribing uniform for drivers of auto rickshaws and taxis is per se arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution cannot be accepted.
“The purpose of prescribing a uniform is for identification. The fact that there are different shades available in the same colour and, therefore, this leads to vagueness and is manifestly arbitrary also cannot be accepted,” the Court said.
The Bench was dealing with a plea filed by an organisation of drivers, Chaalak Shakti challenging Rule 7 of DMV Rules, 1993 as well as permit conditions as notified in SO 415(E) issued on June 8, 1989 under section 88(11)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Rule 7 of the DMV Rules prescribes that while on duty, driver of a public service vehicle, other than State Transports Undertaking, shall wear khaki uniforms with a name plate in Hindi affixed on it.
The permit conditions notified in 1989 stated that drivers of tourist vehicles shall wear white uniform in summers and blue or grey in winters.
It was argued that there was lack of clarity about the colour of the uniform, fabric, details of trimming and accessories and whether the uniform should be pant-shirts, safari suits or kurta-pajamas.
The petitioners also contended that forcing the drivers of autos and taxis to wear uniform amounted to an affront to the constitutional freedom under Article 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom to carry on trade or profession) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.
After considering the case, the Bench said that “the competence of Central governments to issue notifications under Section 88 of the MV Act for tourist vehicles and the competence of State government to lay down rules for uniform to be worn by drivers of transport vehicles in Delhi by exercising its powers under Section 28 of the DMV Rules cannot be questioned”.
The Court concluded that there is no reason to strike down the Rule or the permit condition and therefore, the petition was dismissed.
"The colour and the description of the uniform for the drivers of vehicles running within the State is prescribed under Rule 7 of the DMV Rules (Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules) and the colour and the uniform as specified in SO No 415 E dated 08.06.1989 which has been issued under Section 88(11) (ii) of the MV Act (Motor Vehicle Act) are specific and there is no ambiguity."
Advocates Aman Agarwal and Madhav Bhatia appeared for the petitioners.
Delhi government was represented by its Standing Counsel, Santosh Kumar Tripathi and advocates Arun Panwar, Pradyumn Rao, Mehak Rankawat and Karthik Sharma.
Senior Central Government Counsel TP Singh appeared for the Union of India
Manipur Internet Ban: Petitioners before Supreme Court withdraw plea to move High Court instead
Petitioners before the Supreme Court challenging the internet shutdown currently in force in Manipur withdrew their plea on Thursday while agreeing to intervene in High Court proceedings on the same issue.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra recorded the submission while taking note of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pending before the High Court.
"At this stage, since a case is pending before the High Court...Mr Farasat seeks permission to withdraw and intervene in High Court proceedings or file an independent plea. We allow withdrawal and keep all contentions open including the submission made above."
The Supreme Court had last month declined to urgently list the petition filed by two advocates challenging the internet shutdown currently in force in the State of Manipur.
A vacation bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Rajesh Bindal said that the Manipur High Court was already hearing the matter and thus, there is no need to duplicate the proceedings.
An indefinite internet ban is in force in Manipur since May 3 after violence broke out in the State.
The clashes began after the Manipur High Court had ordered the State government to consider inclusion of the Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe list. Tribal and non-tribal communities subsequently faced off, leading to the loss of multiple lives.
The petitioners before the apex court, lawyer Chongtham Victor Singh and businessman Mayengbam James, pointed out that despite 'a clear and admitted de-escalation' of the situation, 'grossly-disproportionate' State-wide internet shutdown orders have repeatedly been issued by the Manipur government.
The blocking orders cite law and order and anti-social elements rather than public order, and the latest extensions did not go through the oversight of review committee as prescribed by law, the petition stated.
Further, it was submitted that the orders are grossly disproportionate as they prevent residents from exercising their fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom to carry on trade and occupation.
The internet ban does not serve a legitimate goal, and does not have a direct nexus with the purpose of law and order given the ground situation at present, the plea further said.
Supreme Court upholds dismissal of judicial officer who accepted international hotel bookings from unknown person
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with an order dismissing a judicial officer from service for accepting hotel bookings by an unknown person for a trip abroad. [Naveen Arora v. High Court of Delhi and Anr]
A Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal found no reason to interfere with the Delhi High Court judgment calling for the dismissal of the judge.
Justices Manmohan and Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court had found that acceptance of payment from a stranger was unbecoming of a judicial officer, as the post was coveted and had responsibilities attached to it.
“A Judicial Officer is expected to be unceremonious and not take things in an easy manner. A Judicial Officer is expected to be more prudent. At the end of the day “A Judge is a Judge who is always open to be judged,” read the judgment.
The judicial officer not reasonably explaining why or how he accepted the bookings, as per the Court, was sufficient for him to be held guilty.
Before the High Court, the judicial officer claimed that there was no malafide on his part, as he did not withhold any information about the payments. He also stated that he owed money to a friend and client of his younger brother for the hotel bookings.
He submitted that he had offered money to the client in exchange for the hotel bookings before leaving for the trip. The person had assured him that he would accept the money only upon their return, but later refused to accept it.
Furthermore, it was contended that the petitioner had not accepted any favours in exchange for the discharge of his duties, and it was not a case of quid pro quo. Additionally, the person in question was residing in Singapore, and there was no situation in which the petitioner could have obliged him.
The issue arose when the judicial officer traveled abroad with his family. Upon his return, discrepancies were discovered in the documents he submitted to the High Court regarding hotel bookings.
It was found that a person named Shyam Sunder Bajaj had made payments for the officer's bookings.
As a result, an inquiry officer was appointed and proceedings were initiated against the judge. An inquiry report was filed, followed by an order from the Full Court dismissing the judicial officer from service.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Vinay Garg, Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Arjun Singh Bhati and Advocates Vivek Singh, Apurv Parashari and Vineet Budhiraja.
Click the Button Below to next page.