By: S Devika 19 Aug 2019 5:56 AM GMT Judicial restraint is to be exercised to ensure that all statements made by a judge are backed by evidence and are germane to the issue being considered. While dismissing a petition filed by a faculty member to quash a show cause notice issued by an educational institution against him following sexual harassment complaints by 34 students, a single bench of the Madras High Court made few observations. "Certain laws, which are in existence for easy access to women , lend itself to easy misuse that women will find it hard to resist the temptation to 'teach a lesson' to male members and will file frivolous and false cases" and " this is the right time for the government to think of suitable amendments in those laws in order to prevent its misuse, so as to safeguard the interest of the innocent masculinity too" observed Justice S.Vaidyanathan of the Madras High Court in the order. The judge referred to alleged instances of misuse of the … [Read more...] about Can Judges Use Court As A Platform To Voice Personal Views?
Illustration 34 view
In a landmark Judgment [State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Rajmangal Ram ] the Supreme Court yesterday re-iterated that the high Courts have no power to interdict a criminal proceeding midcourse on the basis of the legitimacy or otherwise of the order of sanction to prosecute. The Supreme Court was considering two appeals by the State of Bihar against separate orders passed by the High Court of Patna, the effect of which is that the criminal proceedings instituted against the respondents under different provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been interdicted on the ground that sanction for prosecution of the respondents in both the cases has been granted by the Law Department of the State and not by the parent department to which the respondents belong. The Supreme Court order was based on the bar contained under S.19(3)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . It is to be noted that Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of … [Read more...] about How to bye-pass a Statutory Prohibition and a Supreme Court Veto; An illustrative Case
“The dress worn by the Advocate clearly induces the seriousness of purpose and a sense of decorum which are highly necessary and conducive for the dispensation of justice”- Justice A.M. ShaffiqueThe High Court of Kerala has dismissed a writ petition challenging the present dress code of advocates prescribed by the Bar Council of India under Section 49 of the Advocates Act holding that the right to practise as an Advocate being a statutory as well as a fundamental right, reasonable restrictions can be imposed thereon. Justice AM. Shaffique of the Kerala High Court held : “Providing a dress code for those practising in various Courts can only be termed as a reasonable restriction and cannot be termed as either arbitrary or unreasonable.”The petitioner, a practising lawyer, had challenged the dress code prescribed by the Bar Council of India on the ground that it caused severe hardship and inconvenience to lawyers in Kerala on account of profusely sweating … [Read more...] about Stipulating Dress Code for Advocates cannot be termed as either Arbitrary or Unreasonable: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]
A 17 judge bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) on Wednesday by majority of 11 against 6 upheld the 21st amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan providing for the establishment of military courts in Pakistan. The Court by a comprehensive majority of 14 against 3 also dismissed petitions challenging the 18th amendment to the Constitution. The 17-judge bench was presided over by the Chief Justice of Pakistan Nasirul Mulk.Pakistan’s Parliament had passed the 21st Amendment extending the jurisdiction of the Military Courts to try certain class of civilians after Taliban gunmen massacred 134 children at the Army Public School in Peshawar, last year.Parliament’s move to create special courts had sparked concern amongst human rights activists and in April a group of lawyers had approached Pakistan’s Supreme Court challenging the said 21st constitutional amendment.The 18th Amendment to the Constitution provided for the establishment of a judicial commission and … [Read more...] about Pak SC upholds setting up of military courts to try civilians; says vires of constitutional amendment can be examined
The meaning of the above maxim is that the father is he who is married to the mother. The above maxim is well accepted in India through section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1882 (the Act). The section 112 of the Act says as follows:-“112. Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy.-The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten.”As per this section, it is abundantly made clear that the child born, either during the existence of a valid marriage between the mother of that child and her husband or born within two hundred and eighty days of the dissolution of such marriage when the mother remains to be unmarried, is … [Read more...] about To redefine the maxim “Pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant”