2014: Supreme Court on Right To Education (RTE)

2014 : Supreme Court on Right To Education 

Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the Right to Education in case of all Private Schools except the minority schools (aided or unaided).

Personal Interpretation to the best of understanding:

1. Article 21A of the Constitution, provides that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine. 

2. Parliament has made the law contemplated by Article 21A by enacting the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short ‘the 2009 Act’). 

3. The constitutional validity of the 2009 Act was considered by a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr. [(2012) 6 SCC 1]. Two of the three Judges had held the 2009 Act to be constitutionally valid, but they have also held that the 2009 Act is not applicable to unaided minority schools protected under Article 30(1)

of the Constitution. In the aforesaid case, however, the three-Judge Bench did not go into the question whether clause (5) of Article 15 or Article 21A of the Constitution is valid and does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has now held that 2009 Act is not ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution for Private (non-minority schools)as it did not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of the non-minority private schools that Article 21A of the Constitution and the 2009 Act violate their right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

5. However, for minority schools aided or unaided, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "2009 Act in so far as it applies to minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution is ultra vires the Constitution".  If the 2009 Act is made applicable to minority schools, aided or unaided, the right of the minorities under Article 30(1) of the Constitution will be abrogated. Therefore, the 2009 Act in so far it is made applicable to minority schools referred in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution is ultra vires the Constitution

PS: Above are personal interpretations. We do not accept any liability arising out of use of above information. Users are advised to apply their own thoughts and experience in above case.

Case Number: 

Writ Petition (Civil) No.416 of 2012

Case Title:

Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors.

Bench:

Hon'ble CJI. R.M. Lodha

Hon'ble Justice A. K. Patnaik

Hon'ble Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya

Hon'ble Justice Dipak Misra

Hon'ble Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla

Date of Judgement: 
06th May 2014

Blog Link:

http://jeetendergupta.blogspot.in/2014/05/2014-supreme-court-on-right-to.html

Full judgement / Order Link:

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41505

Supreme Court Directions - Cheque Bouncing Cases

Supreme Court Directions - Cheque Bouncing Cases 

Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued direction to all the Criminal Courts in the country dealing with Section 138 cases to follow the below-mentioned procedures for speedy and expeditious disposal of cases falling under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Directions to Criminal Courts dealing Section 138 cases 

(1) Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate (MM/JM), on the day when the complaint under Section 138 of the Act is presented, shall scrutinize the complaint and, if the complaint is accompanied by the affidavit, and the affidavit and the documents, if any, are found to be in order, take cognizance and direct issuance of summons.

(2) MM/JM should adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach while issuing summons. Summons must be properly addressed and sent by post as well as by e-mail address got from the complainant. Court, in appropriate cases, may take the assistance of the police or the nearby Court to serve notice to the accused. For notice of appearance, a short date be fixed. If the summons is received back un-served, immediate follow up action be taken.

(3) Court may indicate in the summon that if the accused makes an application for compounding of offences at the first hearing of the case and, if such an application is made, Court may pass appropriate orders at the earliest.

(4) Court should direct the accused, when he appears to furnish a bail bond, to ensure his appearance during trial and ask him to take notice under Section 251Cr.P.C. to enable him to enter his plea of defence and fix the case for defence evidence, unless an application is made by the accused under Section 145(2) for re-calling a witness for cross-examination.

(5) The Court concerned must ensure that examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination of the complainant must be conducted within three months of assigning the case. The Court has option of accepting affidavits of the witnesses, instead of examining them in Court. Witnesses to the complaint and accused must be available for cross-examination as and when there is direction to this effect by the Court.

PS: We do not accept any liability arising out of use of above information. Users are advised to apply their own thoughts and experience in above case.

Case Number: 

Writ Petition (Civil) No.18 of 2013

Case Title:
Indian Bank Association and others Versus Union of India and others 

Bench:

Hon'ble Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan

Hon'ble Justice Vikramajit Sen

Date of Judgement: 
21st April 2014

Blog Link:
http://www.jeetendergupta.blogspot.in/2014/05/supreme-court-directions-2014-cheque.html

Full judgement / Order Link:
http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41436

Supreme Court Judgement on Police FIR registration

Date of Judgement: 12 Nov 2013

Supreme Court Judgement on Registration of FIR by Police

Supreme Court of India has given a landmark judgement which should put an end to the obstacles being faced by citizens across India to get an FIR registered with Police atleast in case of serious offences like rape, kidnap, dowry death, murder, etc. In such cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not only made registration of FIR mandatory but also done away with the need for Preliminary Police Enquiry if the information discloses commission of such a crime.

Personal Interpretation to the best of understanding:

1.Registration of FIR mandatory if information discloses commission of a cognizable offence. (Cognizable offence stand for those offences where a police officer may arrest without warrant.)

2.If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates necessity for an enquiry, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed is not. 

3.Action against police officers who do not register FIR

4.Preliminary enquiry may be made in some category of cases like family disputes, commercial cases, medical negligence, corruption etc. 

5.Preliminary enquiry should be made time bound & must not exceed 7 days. 

6.Registration of FIR should not be confused with arrests. The two should be treated separate. Just because FIR is registered it does not mean that the accused person can be arrested immediately. 

PS: Above are personal interpretations. Extracts from Original text of judgement, reproduced below for reference & independent interpretations. Link to full judgement also provided.

Case Number: 

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008

Case Title: 
Lalita Kumari Versus Govt of UP & Ors

Bench: 
CJI P Sathasivam, 
J Dr. B S Chauhan, 
J. Ranjana Prakash Desai, 
J. Ranjan Gogoi, 
J. S.A. Bobde

Registration of FIR - Important Extracts from the Judgement :

(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted

only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do

89 not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes

(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases

(d) Corruption cases

(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.

(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.

FIR vs Arrest - Important Extracts from the Judgement :

The registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code 

and arrest of an accused person under Section 41 are two 

entirely different things. It is not correct to say that just 

because FIR is registered, the accused person can be 

arrested immediately. It is the imaginary fear that “merely 

because FIR has been registered, it would require arrest of

the accused and thereby leading to loss of his reputation”

and it should not be allowed by this Court to hold that 

registration of FIR is not mandatory to avoid such 

inconvenience to some persons. The remedy lies in strictly 

enforcing the safeguards available against arbitrary arrests 

made by the police and not in allowing the police to avoid 

mandatory registration of FIR when the information 

discloses commission of a cognizable offence.

Besides, the Code gives power to the police to close a matter both before and after investigation. A police officer can foreclose an FIR before an investigation under Section 157 of the Code, if it appears to him that there is no sufficient ground to investigate the same. The Section itself states that a police officer can start investigation when he has a ‘reason to suspect the commission of an offence’. Therefore, the requirements of launching an investigation under Section 157 of the Code are higher than the requirement under Section 154 of the Code. The police officer can also, in a given case, investigate the matter and then file a final report under Section 173 of the Code seeking closure of the matter. Therefore, the police is not liable to launch an investigation in every FIR which is mandatorily registered on receiving information relating to commission of a cognizable offence.

Important Links:

Full Judgement Link

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wr68.pdf

Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 

Various offences defined / redefined as cognizable include: Acid attacks (IPC 326A, 326B), Sexual Harassment of Women including Voyeurism & Stalking (IPC 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D),  Trafficking (IPC 370, 370A), Rape (IPC 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376E)

http://indiacode.nic.in/acts-in-pdf/132013.pdf

National Consumer Commission 2013 Judgment on Apartment Possession

FORUM: NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

CASE NUMBER: CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 242 OF 2011

TITLE: KARTAR SINGH KOCHHAR Vs VATIKA LIMITED

JUDGMENT DATE: 11.01.2013


PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS TO THE BEST OF UNDERSTANDING:

1. The consumer must first pay all due installments and registration charges to seek possession & must seek remedy (relief) only if he/she refused possession even after full payment. (Approach with clean hands)

2. No delay interest / compensation was granted as the price of flats have gone up leaps & bounds.

3. If the consumer does not pay the balance installments to get possession, the developer (builder) is at liberty to return the purchase price with 9% interest.

4. Even after receipt of the entire consideration and registration charges, the developer (builder) would put the consumer in possession of the apartment, within a week failing which, he would pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- per day.

5. The limitation will continue till the consumer gets possession

6. Even though the compensation demanded was Rs.20 lakhs, however, after considering the total amount already invested over and above the compensation demanded, the court ruled no issue with jurisdiction. (PS: For National Commission jurisdiction is 1 crore). As a matter of fact, if option of refund by developer (builder) is to be exercised / ordered, the total sum would exceed 1 crore, thereby justifying the jurisdiction.

PS: Above are personal interpretations. Extracts from Original text of judgment, reproduced below for reference & independent interpretations. Link to full judgment also provided.

RELEVANT EXTRACTS:

FAILURE TO PAY INSTALLMENTS

"The complainant himself waddled out of his commitments. He wants to have the benefit of both the worlds. He wants the delivery of possession without paying the entire amount. He has made a vain attempt to make bricks without straw. He has failed to pay the installment despite service of notice. His intention is to delay the recovery of possession on one pretext or the other. It is well said, “Time was when philosophers said that the rights and duties of the citizens were actually two-sides of same coin and you cannot demand your rights without performing your duty”. The complainant should have paid the last installment and registration charges instead of coming to this Commission. The necessity of this case being filed would have arisen when after full payment the opposite party had refused to hand over the possession."

NO INTEREST OR COMPENSATION

"Under the circumstances, no interest or compensation can be granted to the complainant because the prices of flats have gone up by leaps and bounds. He has not been asked to pay the escalation charges." 

LIBERTY TO RETURN PURCHASE PRICE WITH INTEREST 

"It is therefore ordered that the petitioner will deposit the last installment and registration charges within 90 days from today failing which the respondent will be at liberty to return the purchase price alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of that deposit till their realization and as has been agreed by the counsel for the Opposite party. After receipt of the entire consideration and registration charges, the opposite party would put the complainant in possession of the apartment, within a week failing which, he would pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- per day."

LIMITATION

"The complaint is not barred by time because the period of limitation will continue till the petitioner gets the possession."

JURISIDICTION

"Moreover, it cannot be said that this court has got no jurisdiction. The complainant has already incurred a sum of Rs.1,24,71,624/-. and has further demanded compensation in the sum of Rs.20 lakhs. The total amount comes to more than Rs.1.50 crore approximately. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case."

FULL JUDGEMENT LINK

http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00130220123419276CC24211.htm

Supreme Court India : Negative Voting (NOTA) Judgment

PERSONAL INTERPRETATION to the best of understanding:

1. Election Commission has been directed to provide for a NONE OF THE ABOVE (NOTA) button / option on EVMs as well as ballot papers.

2. Need of negative voting has been recognised and this might compel political parties to nominate sound candidates.

3. This would also protect elector's identity & maintain secrecy as to who casts vote & who does not case vote. In present system one can easily make out who has not voted.

4. This NOTA option is similar to the ABSTAIN option that the legislators get while voting in Parliament

5. This might also minimise giving chances to unscrupulous elements who impersonate those who dont turn up vote (dissatisfied voters) and cast a vote. 

6. IS IT REALLY RIGHT TO REJECT OR RIGHT TO RECALL? 

7. IT NOWHERE MENTIONS OR SUGGESTS FRESH ELECTION EVEN IN CASE OF NOTA BEING MAJORITY. IT ONLY TALKS ABOUT SYSTEMIC CHANGES SENDING SIGNALS TO PARTIES TO FIELD SOUND CANDIDATES

PS: Above are personal interpretations. Extracts from Original text of judgment, reproduced below for reference & independent interpretations. Link to full judgment also provided.

______________________________________________________________

CASE NO.: 
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 161 OF 2004

CASE TITLE: 
People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. VERSUS Union of India & Anr. 

BENCH:
CJI. (P. SATHASIVAM) 
J. (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI) 
J. (RANJAN GOGOI)


IMPORTANT EXTRACTS FROM JUDGMENT:

"Democracy being the basic feature of our constitutional set up, there can be no two opinions that free and fair elections would alone guarantee the growth of a healthy democracy in the country. The ‘Fair’ denotes equal opportunity to all people. Universal adult suffrage conferred on the citizens of India by the Constitution has made it possible for these millions of individual voters to go to the polls and thus participate in the governance of our country. For democracy to survive, it is essential that the best available men should be chosen as people’s representatives for proper governance of the country. This can be best achieved through men of high moral and ethical values, who win the elections on a positive vote. Thus in a vibrant democracy, the voter must be given an opportunity to choose none of the above (NOTA) button, which will indeed compel the political parties to nominate a sound candidate. This situation palpably tells us the dire need of negative voting"

"No doubt, the right to vote is a statutory right but it is equally vital to recollect that this statutory right is the essence of democracy. Without this, democracy will fail to thrive. Therefore, even if the right to vote is statutory, the significance attached with the right is massive. Thus, it is necessary to keep in mind these facets while deciding the issue at hand."

"Democracy is all about choice. This choice can be better expressed by giving the voters an opportunity to verbalize themselves unreservedly and by imposing least restrictions on their ability to make such a choice. By providing NOTA button in the EVMs, it will accelerate the effective political participation in the present state of democratic system and the voters in fact will be empowered. We are of the considered view that in bringing out this right to cast negative vote at a time when electioneering is in full swing, it will foster the purity of the electoral process and also fulfill one of its objective, namely, wide participation of people."

"Free and fair election is a basic structure of the Constitution and necessarily includes within its ambit the right of an elector to cast his vote without fear of reprisal, duress or coercion. Protection of elector’s identity and affording secrecy is therefore integral to free and fair elections and an arbitrary distinction between the voter who casts his vote and the voter who does not cast his vote is violative of Article 14. Thus, secrecy is required to be maintained for both categories of persons."

"...The voting machines in the Parliament have three buttons, namely, AYES, NOES, and ABSTAIN. Therefore, it can be seen that an option has been given to the members to press the ABSTAIN button. Similarly, the NOTA button being sought for by the petitioners is exactly similar to the ABSTAIN button since by pressing the NOTA button the voter is in effect saying that he is abstaining from voting since he does not find any of the candidates to be worthy of his vote."

"The mechanism of negative voting, thus, serves a very fundamental and essential part of a vibrant democracy...."

"...Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O of the Rules are ultra vires Section 128 of the RP Act and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution to the extent they violate secrecy of voting...."

"Giving right to a voter not to vote for any candidate while protecting his right of secrecy is extremely important in a democracy. Such an option gives the voter the right to express his disapproval with the kind of candidates that are being put up by the political parties. When the political parties will realize that a large number of people are expressing their disapproval with the candidates being put up by them, gradually there will be a systemic change and the political parties will be forced to accept the will of the people and field candidates who are known for their integrity."

"The direction can also be supported by the fact that in the existing system a dissatisfied voter ordinarily does not turn up for voting which in turn provides a chance to unscrupulous elements to impersonate the dissatisfied voter and cast a vote, be it a negative one. Furthermore, a provision of negative voting would be in the interest of promoting democracy as it would send clear signals to political parties and their candidates as to what the electorate think about them."

"We direct the Election Commission to provide necessary provision in the ballot papers/EVMs and another button called “None of the Above” (NOTA) may be provided in EVMs so that the voters, who come to the polling booth and decide not to vote for any of the candidates in the fray, are able to exercise their right not to vote while maintaining their right of secrecy. In as much as the Election Commission itself is in favour of the provision for NOTA in EVMs, we direct the Election Commission to implement the same either in a phased manner or at a time with the assistance of the Government of India. We also direct the Government of India to provide necessary help for implementation of the above direction. Besides, we also direct the Election Commission to undertake awareness programmes to educate the masses."

COMPLETE JUDGMENT AT :

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wp(c)No.161of2004.pdf

Supreme Court Judgement on Aadhar Card

September 23, Supreme Court, New Delhi.


Supreme Court Order / Judgement on Aadhar (Adhaar) 

There was a lot of media buzz over an order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on "Aadhar - UID". Various section of media & political parties even raised feasibility of the whole "Aadhar" program with reference to the order.  But have they actually gone through the judgement?

Headnote from the order:

"no person should suffer for  not  getting the Adhaar card inspite of the fact that some authority had  issued a circular making it mandatory and when any person applies  to  get the Adhaar Card voluntarily, it may be checked whether that person is entitled for it under the law and it should not be given to  any illegal immigrant."

Personal interpretation to the best of understanding:

1. Aadhar / Adhaar Card should be considered voluntary & not mandatory

2. None should suffer or be denied of a service for not getting Aadhar / Adhaar card.

3. Aadhar / Adhaar Card should be given only to those who are legally entitled & not to any illegal immigrant.

4. The order does not make any direct / indirect reference to DBT (Direct Benefit Transfer) Scheme.

PS: Above are personal interpretations. Please see the original text of judgement, reproduced below for reference & for your independent interpretation.

___________________________________________________________________

ITEM NO.5+56               Court No.5             SECTION PIL


            S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A
                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
                    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 494 OF 2012


JUSTICE K.S.PUTTASWAMY(RETD)& ANR                 Petitioner(s)


                 VERSUS


UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                             Respondent(s)


(With appln(s) for stay)


WITH T.P.(C) NO. 47-48 of 2013
(With appln(s) for stay and office report)
(Appln. for deletion of the name of petitioner no. 1)


T.P.(C) NO. 476 of 2013
(With appln(s) for stay and office report)


W.P.(C) No. 829 of 2013
(With appln(s) for interim relief and office report)


Date: 23/09/2013  These Petitions were called on for hearing today.


CORAM :
        HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE


For Petitioner(s)        Mr. Anil B. Divan, Sr. Adv.
                         Mr. Ankit Goel, Adv.
                         Mr. Ranvir Singh, Adv.
                         Mr. Sanjay Yadav, Adv.
                         Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta,Adv.
                         Ms. Deepshikha Bharati, Adv.
                         Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv.
                         Mr. Rajeev Kr. Singh, Adv.
                         Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv.


                         Mr. P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, Adv.
                         Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, Adv.


                         Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
                         Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv.
                         Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Adv.
                         Mr. Varun Singh, Adv.
                         Mr. Gaurav Nair, Adv.
                 for     M/s. K.J. John & Co.


For Respondent(s)        Mr. Mohan Parasaran, SG
                         Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, ASG
                         Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, Adv.
                         Mr. Alok Mishra, Adv.
                         Mr. D.S. Mahra ,Adv








                                 -2-


           UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                               O R D E R




                Issue notice in W.P.(C) No. 829/2013.


                Application for deletion of the name of petitioner no. 1 in T.P.(C) Nos. 47 of 2013 is allowed.


                T.P.(C)nos. 47-48 of 2013 and T.P.(C) No. 476 of  2013  are allowed in terms of the signed order.


                All the matters require to  be  heard  finally.   List  all matters for final hearing after the Constitution Bench is over.


                In the meanwhile, no person should suffer for  not  getting the Adhaar card inspite of the fact that some authority had issued a circular making it mandatory and when any person applies  to get the Adhaar Card voluntarily, it may be checked whether that  person is entitled for it under the law and it should not be given to any illegal immigrant.






        |   (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI)             |(M.S. NEGI)                  |
|  Court Master                     |      Court Master           |


                 (Signed order is placed on the file)





                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

              TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 47-48 OF 2013

THE GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.            ....Petitioner(s)

                 VERSUS

S. RAJU & ANR. ETC.                               ....Respondent(s)

                                 WITH

              TRANSFER PETITION(CIVIL) NO(s). 476 OF 2013


                                 O R D E R


                 Heard learned counsel for the parties.


                 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of  the  case,we are satisfied that this is a fit case where the prayer for transfer is to be allowed.


                 On the facts of the case, we allow these Transfer Petitions and direct that W.P(C) No. 439 of 2012 titled S.  Raju  Vs.  Govt.  of India and Others  pending  before  the  D.B.  of  the  High  Court  of Judicature at Madras and PIL No. 10 of 2012 titled Vickram Crishna and Others  Vs.  UIDAI  and  Others  pending  before  the  High  Court  of Judicature at Bombay be transferred to this Court.   The  Registry  of the High Court of Madras and Registry of the High Court of Bombay  are requested  to  transmit   the   original   records   to   this   Court expeditiously.


                 These Transfer Petitions are accordingly allowed.

                                                      ....................J.
                                                

(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)




                                                      ....................J.
                                                                (S.A. BOBDE)

      NEW DELHI;
      SEPTEMBER 23, 2013.

National Anthem Honor: Big Boss Case 2012

CASE NO: W.P.(C) 6611/2012

TITLE: JEETENDER GUPTA vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.


JUDGEMENT:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 6611/2012


JEETENDER GUPTA ..... Petitioner

Through: In-person


versus


UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with

Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, Adv. for UOI

Mr. Vibhu Bhakru, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ameet Naik, Mr. Harshvardhan Jha,
Advocates for Respondent No.3



CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW



O R D E R


17.10.2012

1. This petition, as pro bono publico, seeks for a direction to the Union of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Press Council of India to take action against M/s Colors TV and M/s PVR Limited, respondents No.3 and 4 respectively, for violation of provisions of The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 and The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. It is submitted by the petitioner that his representation dated 8th October, 2012 to the respondents No.1 and 2 has not been acted upon. By that representation, the petitioner has alleged that Colors TV channel for promotion of its TV programme Big Boss is displaying an advertisement in movie theatres wherein a visual is displayed showing logo of TV programme Big Boss along with an audio demanding Big Boss Chahte Hai Ki Aap Rashtriya Gaan Ke Liye Khade Ho (Big Boss wants you to stand for National Anthem). The petitioner alleged that the above mentioned advertisement as promotion of TV programme allegedly constitutes misuse of National Anthem. Similarly the above advertisement was observed in multiple theatres known as PVR cinemas, the respondent No.4 herein, and in fact it was played before movies of different languages including English movies. With various similar grievances, the petitioner had requested the respondents No.1 and 2 to take action.

2. The Additional Solicitor General who is present in Court has submitted that the competent Ministry to take action would be the Ministry of Home Affairs. In the absence of any representation to the said Ministry, the petition cannot be heard as the representation was made only to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

3. We have also heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. In our opinion, the representation dated 8th October, 2012, though has been made to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, should be looked into by the concerned Ministry, i.e. Ministry of Home Affairs in the wake of the serious allegations brought to the misuse of National anthem. For that reason, we direct the writ petition to be considered as a representation made to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the grievance made in the writ petition, particularly in the representation dated 8th October, 2012, shall be looked into and necessary action shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of the two Acts which have been referred to by the petitioner. Such a decision shall be taken within a period of one week from today.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of.

Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master to counsel for the parties.


CHIEF JUSTICE


RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J


OCTOBER 17, 2012



REFERENCE LINKS:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/national-anthem-used-to-promote-big-boss-6-show-centre-asked-to-act/1018054/

http://www.business-standard.com/article/beyond-business/bigg-boss-in-legal-trouble-for-exploiting-national-anthem-112101900120_1.html

http://movies.ndtv.com/television/court-frowns-on-tv-channel-for-using-national-anthem-to-promote-bigg-boss-6-281112

http://m.oneindia.in/news/2012/10/18/bigg-boss-to-go-off-air-for-disrespecting-national-anth-1086107.html

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/bigg-boss-action-against-colors-for-using-the-national-anthem-for-promotion/300996-44.html

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Television/BIGG-BOSS-in-national-anthem-row/Article1-946184.aspx

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/plea-against-use-of-national-anthem-in-bigg-boss-6/article4011457.ece