Legal News Wrap November 1: Supreme Court Delhi court India court news latest court news: Know all key developments from Supreme Court, High Courts & more | India News

File photo of Supreme Court of India. (Photo credit: Supreme Court)

1. Defending the government’s Electoral Bond Scheme for funding of political parties in the Supreme Court, Solicitor General of India told the court that the scheme were brought in to combat the use of black or unclean money in politics. “Electoral Bond Scheme was brought in to ensure clean money coming into banking system and clean money coming into political party system and eradicate the menace of black money in elections. Moreover, this scheme is not a stand all measure taken by government to deal with black Money in elections”, said Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the government of India. Mehta on Wednesday impressed on the court that the malaise of black money in politics was so rampant prior to the scheme that donations to political parties was largely only through black money or unknown sources. Mehta also fended off the argument that electoral bond scheme only benefited the political party in power asserting that “More contributions going to ruling party is the norm and that has been the situation in the past also. People gave cash donations to political parties because of the fear of retribution or victimization.”

Also read: Electoral Bond Scheme combats black money in politics, Centre tells Supreme Court

2. The Delhi High Court on Wednesday emphasised that the residents of the national capital have the fundamental right to clean air to breathe and greenery goes a long way in doing that and raised its concern on poor air quality in the national capital and blamed the forest department for poor air quality and told it that it must take steps to ensure that the Air Quality Index (AQI) in the city improves. The Bombay High Court had also on Tuesday taken suo motu cognisance of air pollution in the financial capital of the court and it noted on Wednesday that authorities have not taken steps to create health advisories or awareness among citizens about the deleterious levels of AQI that is currently prevailing in the city. It had also issued notices to the Maharashtra government, the Union government, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and sought their response on measures taken by them to tackle the poor air quality problem.

Also read: Forest department responsible for poor air quality: Delhi High Court

3. Just a fortnight after a five judge bench of the Supreme Court refused to grant legal recognition to queer marriages in India, a review petition has been filed in the Supreme court asking it to revisit its judgment on the issue. The review petition has been filed by Udit Sood, who is one of the 52 petitioners who had sought legal recognition for queer marriages in India in 2022. On October 17, a five judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kholi and Justice PS Narshima had ruled against granting recognition to same-sex marriages. The court had decided the issue by a 3-2 majority. While all the five judges agreed on the issue that the constitution does not recognise right to marry as a fundamental right and hence, the argument by same-sex couples saying denying them right to marry was a violation of their fundamental rights cannot be granted. The 5 judges also concurred on the view that only parliament was a competent body to rant recognition to same-sex marriages as the state had a vested interest in regulating personal relationships.

Also read: Same-sex marriage: Review petition filed in Supreme Court seeks relook by judges

4. The Supreme Court on Wednesday made its earlier order granting protection from arrest to activist Teesta Setalvad in an alleged funds misappropriation case absolute and directed her and her husband to cooperate with the Gujarat Police in the misappropriation of funds case.
A bench comprising Justice SK Kaul, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice PK Mishra made its earlier order absolute while hearing a batch of pleas filed by Setalvad, her husband, the Gujarat Police and the Central Bureau of Investigation arising out of FIRs in connection with allegations of misappropriation of funds. The bench noted that no chragesheet has been filed in the case and significant time had passed and nothing left in the matter and she had been granted bail by courts in connecting matters. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who appeared for the Gujarat government, submitted that the couple were not cooperating in the investigation of the case. The Ahmedabad Crime Branch registered a case of alleged misappropriation of funds on a complaint that accused the activist and her husband of “fraudulently” securing grants of Rs 1.4 crore from the Centre through their NGO Sabrang Trust between 2008 and 2013.

Also read: Funds misappropriation case: SC makes its earlier order granting protection from arrest to Teesta Setalvad absolute

5. The Delhi High Court on Wednesday listed for hearing in January the bail pleas of student activist Sharjeel Imam, United Against Hate founder Khalid Saifi and several other accused persons in an anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case linked to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the Delhi riots 2020. The High Court was informed that the bail pleas of Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Abdul Khalid Saifi and several other accused persons in the Delhi riots 2020 conspiracy case will now have to be reheard by another bench in view of the elevation of Justice Siddharth Mridul, who has heading the bench hearing these cases, as the chief justice of the Manipur High Court. A bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur was informed by the counsel for the accused persons as well as the Delhi police that these will have to be heard afresh due to a change of the bench that was previously hearing these matters.

Also read: Delhi riots 2020: High Court to hear bail pleas of Sharjeel Imam, others afresh in January

6. The Delhi High Court has sentenced a litigant to six months of imprisonment for contempt of court for using derogatory language for a sitting judge, who had dismissed his plea. The contemnor, while levelling varios allegations against the single judge of the High Court, sought the punishment of death penalty for the judge compared the judge to the devil. Saying that it was highly shocked by the averments made by the litigant in his case pending before it, a bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur also imposed a fine on contemnor Naresh Sharma. The High Court said that the contemnor, as a responsible citizen, was expected to set forth his grievances in a civilised manner while maintaining the dignity of the court and judicial process of law. “We hereby hold the contemnor guilty of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and consequently, we sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.2,000,” the High Court said in its order dated October 31 while directing to take him in custody and hand over his custody to the Tihar Jail. Naresh Sharma, who hails from Pathankot in Punjab, had levelled unsubstantiated and whimsical allegations of criminal acts by the High Court single judge, compared the judge to the devil and sought the punishment of death penalty for the judge in a plea filed before the High Court after petition was dismissed by the single judge of the High Court.

Also read: Contempt of court: Delhi HC sentences 6 months jail to litigant who sought death penalty; compared judge to devil

7. The Allahabad High Court ruled that an application for a passport cannot be rejected merely on the ground that criminal case/cases are pending against the applicant. A division bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar ruled this while hearing a plea filed by one Akash Kumar, who challenged an order of the passport authorities rejecting his plea on the ground that his police verification report is not clear. The passport authorities submitted that an adverse police verification report is indicated against the petitioner and further said that a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner to submit his reply regarding the case, however, his response is yet to come on the same. The petitioner argued that neither he was convicted in any case till date nor he is having any criminal history except the said case and he cannot be denied a passport by authorities. He further submitted that it is settled law by the Supreme Court as well as the Allahabad High Court that the passport cannot be denied merely on the basis of criminal case.

Also read: Passport cannot be rejected merely on ground of pendency of criminal case: Allahabad High Court