Connect with us

Legal News

Supreme Court To Hear Plea In Haridwar Hate Speech Case Today



Anushka Pathak, Mumbai Uncensored, 12th January 2022:

The alleged Haridwar ‘hate speech’ has taken a new turn. The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, will hear a petition seeking an independent inquiry into the alleged ‘hate speech’ by participants at the ‘Dharam Sansad’ in Haridwar.

The Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, along with a bench will hear the matter, as reported by ANI. 

On Monday, the Supreme Court had agreed to take up a PIL seeking probe into the alleged hate speech at separate events in Haridwar and Delhi on December 17 and 21.

The Chief Justice of India NV Ramana told Kapil Sibbal, who mentioned the plea filed by Delhi journalist Qurban Ali and Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash, that, “we will take up the matter and look into it.”

The said three-day ‘Dharam Sansad’ was held in Haridwar and saw a web of hate speeches targeting Muslims and called for violence and assassination. Speeches including open calls for Muslims to establish a Hindu Rashtra were allegedly made at the event. The speakers also mentioned former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse.

The man in question, Yati Narsinghanand, faced several FIRs in Uttar Pradesh as he called for a ‘war against Muslims’ and urged ‘Hindus to take up weapons’ to ensure ‘no Muslim becomes the Prime Minister in 2029′. 

The videos of the event then went viral and the Haridwar police filed an FIR against five of the speakers on charges of promoting enmity between groups and outraging religious sentiments. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was also formed by the state Director General of Police.

Meanwhile, the organisers of the event have announced to hold a ‘pratikar sabha’ or protest meeting on January 16 against the formation of an SIT and lodging of FIRs against them following a series of alleged hate speeches delivered at the event.

Legal News

“If lawyers circulate non-urgent matters, then heavy costs will be imposed or long date will be given”: Bombay HC



BHUVANA IYER – Mumbai Uncensored, 15 January 2022

A Division Bench of Bombay High Court has issued a notice on the administrative side warning advocates against circulating matters which do not require urgent hearing. 

A bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar noted that advocates are taking undue advantage of an earlier notice which permitted advocates to merely indicate the date of listing without mentioning for circulation.

Lawyers are circulating non-urgent matters due to which a large number of cases in which there is no urgency, are being listed, the notice said.

Recently, considering the rapid surge of COVID19 cases in Maharashtra, especially in Mumbai, the Principal Bench at Bombay and Bench at Nagpur to limit the functioning of courts for 3 hours a day only. The Court resolved to take up only urgent matters that too through virtual hearing only.

The Bombay High Court had also granted liberty to advocates and parties to give application for urgent listing of cases, in which there is extreme urgency, however, it came to the knowledge of the Court that a large number of matters were listed, in which there was no urgency.

The notice issued by the High Court stated that “It is found that taking undue advantage of the previous notice, by which parties’ advocates were permitted to indicate the date of listing without mentioning for circulation, a large number of matters in which there is no urgency, are being listed.” 

The High Court administration has stated that by listing non-urgent matters endlessly by lawyers and parties, there was an “increase in the pressure on the court staffers and court departments” in Covid times when the number of staff was reduced. It is because of this that advocates and parties have been put to notice by the high court administration. The notice clearly states that “if any such matters that are not immediately urgent are circulated, either heavy costs will be imposed or matters may be adjourned to a long date.”

Continue Reading

Legal News

Supreme Court Pulls Up Maharashtra Assembly over suspension of 12 BJP MLAs for a year, calls it “Dangerous, Unconstitutional”.



Shashwat Mishra, Mumbai Uncensored, 13th January 2022:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed its displeasure and criticized the resolution passed by the Maharashtra assembly for suspending 12 BJP MLAs, the court observed that since the suspension cannot operate beyond six months owing to the constitutional bar, the said resolution is prima facie unconstitutional. The name of the case is [Ashish Shelar vs Maharashtra Legislative Assembly]. 

A full bench comprising Justices, AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and CT Ravikumar presiding over the matter also expressed their disagreement over the argument from the Maharashtra Assembly that the house has absolute powers to frame its own rules and has the power to depart from it. Senior Advocate C. Aryama Sundaram representing the state assembly argued that the state assembly has the absolute power of making rules, to this Justice Maheshwari, remarked, 

“Saying, you can do what you want means what? A seat can remain vacant for 60 days, and at the most 6 months, as an outer limit. Here we are talking about a constituency being represented in a parliamentary form of democracy? Is this not hitting the basic structure of the constitution when the 12 constituencies are unrepresented?”. While justice Khanwilkar said, “Now it is 12. Tomorrow it will be 120. It is a dangerous argument. Absolute power does not mean unbridled. This is a serious issue,” 

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appearing for one of the suspended legislators submitted that the apex court “has to safeguard the sanctity of these proceedings.” He further argued, “Streams of justice has to be ensured and this cannot happen unfairly, otherwise, every majority of members will rub against the minority. Else why have a rule book in the assembly?”

The bench further observed, “We will say that the decision is unconstitutional. House has authority to suspend you but not beyond 59 days. House is also governed by a constitution and fundamental rights. This is not punishing the member but punishing the constituency as a whole. In the facts of the present matter, we will say enough is enough in two pages,” As per the constitution the maximum limit for which an MLA can be absent from his seat is 60 days, after which the seat is deemed to be vacated. 

The matter is scheduled to be heard next on January 18, 2022. 

Continue Reading

Legal News

Wife Refuses To Go To Matrimonial Home For 10 Yrs Awaiting ‘Shubh Muhurat’: Chhattisgarh HC Calls It ‘Desertion’, Grants Husband Divorce



Bhuvana Iyer, Mumbai Uncensored, 11th January 2022 :

Chhattisgarh High Court grants divorce to the husband after the wife refuses to return to the matrimonial home under the guise of Shubh Muhurat (auspicious time) and continues to stay at her maternal home, calling it a case of ‘Desertation’. 

Importantly, the Bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Rajani Dubey ruled that in the facts of the case, the Husband was entitled to get a decree of divorce under Section 13 (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 

It may be noted that Section 13(ib) of the HM Act lays out ‘Desertation’ as a ground of Divorce as it essentially speaks about the dissolution of marriage on the ground that a spouse has been deserted by wife/husband for a continuous period of not less than two years. 

Background of the case:-

The appellant (Husband) and respondent (Wife) got married on July 8, 2010, and they lived together until July 19, 2010, for about 11 days. Subsequently, the wife’s family members came and took her away on the grounds of some important work. 

Thereafter, she did not return and when the husband tried to get her back on two occasions in 2010, she did not come back on the ground that an Shubh Muhurat (auspicious time) was not there and thereafter, the respondent/ wife did not volunteer to join her husband back at any point of time. 

Subsequently, the appellant/husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, which was decreed ex-parte.The wife claimed that the notice to the application for restitution of conjugal rights was received by the respondent/wife but she could not appear before the Court, as she was stuck in the discharge of the Govt. official duties.

Thereafter, the Husband moved to the Family court seeking a divorce decree, however, the petition was dismissed as the Court noted that husband has failed to prove the ground of desertion.The Court also observed that even after getting a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, since it was not put to execution; therefore, the intention of the husband was not to resume and restore the family. Challenging the same, the Husband moved to the High Court.

The wife contended that she was ready and willing to join the company of the husband but he did not turn back to get her back when auspicious time started, which according to their custom was a necessity. 


The Court observed that it was clear from the statement of both the husband and the wife, that on the issue of the joining the company of the husband for want of an auspicious time, the wife and the husband did not join the company of each other. Further, the Court was also of the view that simply sitting dormant despite knowing of the fact the effort made by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, showed the intention of the wife not to join back the company of the husband. 

The Court came to the conclusion that despite the effort taken by the husband to restore his matrimonial home, the wife was not cooperative and under the guise of auspicious time to return back, she continued at her maternal home.

“It is further observed that the wife after knowing the fact that the restitution of conjugal rights before the court could have joined the company of the husband, which would have otherwise solved the entire issue,” the Court added is it allowed husband plea and ordered the dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce.

Continue Reading