Parents unable to afford medical treatment of child seeks her mercy killing from Court

A couple moved the District Sessions Court in Chittoor, seeking permission for mercy killing for their one-year-old daughter Suhana as they are unable to afford her treatment costs.

The child has breathing disorders, down syndrome and is on life support since birth.

According to sources, the couple Bawajan and Shabhir — both daily wagers — have filed a petition at the family court in Madanpalle town.

The couple sold off their land and spent around Rs 12 lakh for her treatment. However, with no improvement in her health, the couple decided to file the plea.

Hurt caused due to teeth bite does not fall under Section 324 IPC

Delhi High Court has prima facie opined that hurt caused due to teeth bite does not fall within the ambit of Section 324 IPC.

A bench of Justice Bakhru has passed the order in the case titled as NEETU BHANDARI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE on 25.09.2019.

FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint of one landlord against the tenant wherein the prime allegation was that the tennant was not vacating the premises and threatening to implicate the landlord in false cases and one day, his wife bite his hand. The police registered an FIR for offences punishable under Section 323/3234/34 IPC. The accused challenged the FIR before the High Court.

The High Court has made following observation:

“The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed v. State: (2004) 10 SCC 103.

A plain reading of the said decision indicates that in the facts of the present case, an offence under Section 324 IPC is not made out.

Mr Mahajan, learned ASC appearing for the State seeks time to examine this decision”.

Thereafter the High Court adjourned the matter.

Pertinently, the Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed v. State: (2004) 10 SCC 103 has made following observation:

“The appellant stands convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Injuries, no doubt, are grievous as the phalanx of the index finger has been snipped off.

But the allegation is that the assailant had bitten the index finger and caused the said injury. Teeth of human being cannot be considered as deadly weapon as per the description of deadly weapon enumerated under Section 326 of the IPC.

Hence the offence cannot escalate to Section 326. It can best remain only at Section 325 of the IPC. We, therefore, alter the conviction to Section 325 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC”.

Once liberty is given to accused to move bail after a fixed period of time, he should not be granted permanent bail at any earlier moment

Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to an accused who was earlier given liberty to move bail application after 6 months but HC given him permanent bail prior to that period.

A bench of Justice Gupta and Justice Kant has passed the order in the case titled as TARA DEVI vs BHIKAR RAI @ BHIKARI RAI on 04.10.2019.

Supreme Court observed “The first bail application of the respondent no.1 was rejected on 17.02.2018 and liberty was given to the appellant to make a prayer for renewal, if the trial is not concluded within six months. This six months were to end on 07.08.2018. However, prior to that the respondent no.1 filed a bail application before the High Court on the ground that though this period of six months has not elapsed, he is seeking provisional bail for treatment of his wife, who had been referred to AIIMS, New Delhi for some neuro problem. Considering the prayer, the bail was granted. But unfortunately High Court did not grant provisional bail as prayed for a limited period but granted permanent bail”.

It further observed “The record produced before us also shows that the respondent no.1, who got bail sometime in June 18, 2018 did not appear in the Court for more than a year. It was only after notice was issued in the present petition that the respondent no.1 appeared before the Trial Court. It is now urged that the appellant was not served with summons. We are unable to understand or appreciate this argument. In a matter where a person against whom a criminal case is pending, obtains and furnishes bail, he cannot be permitted to urge that he is not aware of the dates in the criminal case against him”.

Supreme Court then cancelled the bail saying “The respondent no.1 is also involved in various other criminal cases and all those facts were not taken into consideration by the High Court and only in view of the alleged illness of his wife he was granted interim bail. It is apparent that the respondent no.1 has misused the liberty granted to him. Therefore, we cancel the bail of the appellant. Appellant is directed to surrender forthwith to the concerned jail authorities”.

SC reiterates: Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation.

In the judgment of the case – Rajasthan state Road Transport Corporation v. Danish Khan, Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta, at the Supreme Court, have held that as the respondent has received the compensation under the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment under the RSRTC Compassionate appointment Regulations, 2010.

The Apex-Court has pointed out that it is well-settled that though Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation.

The Court has noted that the dependents of a deceased employee, who claim compensation from the Corporation under the Act and compassionate appointment from the Appellant- Corporation form a separate class.  When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group; and the second test is that differential in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. (see State of Mysore & Another v. P. Narasing Rao- 1968 SCR(1) 407).

According to the Supreme Court, after holding that the classification of two categories of dependents of deceased employees reasonable, it remains to be examined that whether there is a rationale nexus of the classification with the objective sought to be achieved by the Regulation 4(3).

The intention with which Regulation 4(3) is made is to obviate the liability of the Corporation in payment of compensation under the Act and to provide compassionate appointment to the same person. The Court’s finding is that that there is a rationale nexus between the basis of classification and the object sought to be achieved by the Regulation.

The Supreme Court has referred its own decision in the case – National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rekhaben & Others – (2017) 1 SCC 547. The question which arose for consideration in that case related to the deduction of salary which was earned by the claimant therein after being appointed on compassionate grounds while calculating the compensation payable to her under the Act for the death of her husband.

It was held that the salary earned by compassionate appointee cannot be deducted from the compensation which the claimant is entitled to under the Act. However, it was made clear that the salary which flowed from the compassionate appointment that was provided by the tortfeasor was liable to be deducted if the employer was the owner of the offending vehicle and thus liable to pay compensation under the Act.

In other words, the employer who has provided compassionate appointment can claim deduction of the salary of the dependent while calculating it if he is liable to pay compensation under the Act, being the owner of the offending vehicle.

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation had filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court’s Jaipur Bench by which Regulation 4(3) of the RSRTC Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010, has been declared as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The respondent’s father Mohammad Shahid, who was working as a helper in the appellant-Corporation died in a motor accident. He was travelling in a bus of the appellant, which collided with another bus. A claim was made by the respondent before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Tonk under sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. An amount of Rs 1,35,50,000/-  was claimed, but the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs 22,95,775/- .

The respondent made a representation to the Chief Manager of the appellant seeking compassionate appointment. This request was rejected on the ground that the respondent was not entitled in light of Regulation 4(3) of the Regulations.

Dissatisfied with the rejection of the request for compassionate appointment, the respondent filed a writ petition in the HC challenging the constitutionality of Regulation 4 (3). The HC allowed the writ petition on August 29, 2016 on the ground that Regulation 4(3) of the Regulations of 2010 is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The HC held that the object of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship of the family members of the bread-winner and for that reason compassionate appointment should be provided to the family in distress.

According to the Regulation 4(3) of the Regulations, claim for both compassionate appointment and compensation under the Act cannot be made against the Corporation in case of death of an employee while travelling in the  vehicle of the appellant-Corporation. Regulation 4(3) was held discriminatory because compassionate appointment can be provided to an employee who dies in an accident while travelling in a vehicle not belonging to the Corporation though he had claimed compensation either  from the owner of the vehicle or the insurance company under the Act.

The HC was of the opinion that the dependents of the employees of the Corporation who died due to an accident while travelling in a vehicle of the Corporation cannot be treated differently from dependents of the employees who died in an accident while travelling in a vehicle not belonging to the Corporation.

The purpose of the appellant-Corporation in carving out two classes of dependents of the deceased employees in respect of claims for compassionate appointment is to avoid extra burden on the appellant.

The dependents in these two categories are not similarly situated in respect of their claims against the Corporation. They cannot be treated as equals. Therefore, Regulation 4(3) cannot be said to be discriminatory. In this view of the facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court has said that it does not agree with the judgment of the HC that Regulation 4(3) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. As the respondent has received the compensation under the Act, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment under the Regulations. In result, the SC has set aside the impugned judgment of the HC and  allowed the appeal.

Notice to SEBI, MCA and Enforcement Directorate in NSE co-location case : Madras HC

 The Madras High Court has admitted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Chennai Financial Markets and Accountability (CFMA) in the National Stock Exchange (NSE) co-location case and issued notices to the SEBI, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), the CBI, Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the NSE. According to the PIL, SEBI has not taken any effective steps to unearth the scam, “one of the biggest financial frauds ever taken place”.

It has also issued notices to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). The High Court has directed the noticees to respond on November 11.

The petition stated that NSE has violated the fundamental objective inside the trading and thereby in the process and given illegal preferential access to certain trade members to access NSE trade data at the cost of entire securities market.

The order copy dated September 27 also said that the PIL brought to the knowledge of the court that the third respondent, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed the first investigation report bearing “No.RC AC1 2018 A0011” on 28.05.2018, in relation to NSE co-location Scam and there appears to be a slow progress in the said investigation.

“We state that the NSE Colo Scam have tarnished the reputation of a major market infrastructure institution and severely challenged the integrity of the securities market. Millions of investors, mostly retail investors, would have suffered huge losses due to relatively delayed dissemination of order-book data to them and in the absence of the awareness that some select TM”s were able to access the order book data ahead of them,” the PIL said.

It further said that the terms of reference (TOR) for SEBI approved auditor and NSE approved internal auditor for the data centre and also the broker “OPG: must be investigated to see if they were adequate to unearth the illegalities and complicity and whether cognizance of all the findings of these auditors was taken by the authorities.

“Surprisingly this was not done by the 1st respondent SEBI at all,” it said. It also noted a slow progress in the CBI investigation into NSE co-location scam.

The co-location case dates back to 2015 when a whistleblower wrote to SEBI alleging that NSE was giving a few high-frequency traders and brokers preferential access to its trading platform which benefited both the parties at the cost of others.

The whistleblower had alleged that some trading member of NSE in collusion of employees or management of the exchange including preferential treatment to certain trading members to obtain faster access to market trade data.

The PIL further said: “It is shocking that the 1st Respondent (SEBI) had absolved the 7th respondent NSE and its officials of all allegations under the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to the Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (“PFUTP Regulations”) in the relevant SCNs.”

“It is submitted that when there is a serious fraud and misdemeanors committed by the top officials of the NSE who were acting hand in glove with the TMs towards manipulating the market and providing unfair trade access, NSE cannot be allowed to go scot free.”


FM on PMC Scam: Government will bring legislation

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman says, the Government will try to bring in resolutions in the upcoming Winter Session of the Parliament to avoid cases like PMC Bank scam; Speaking to media after meeting victims of PMC bank scam in Mumbai, the Minister says, she will talk to RBI governor about allowing PMC customers to withdraw their money.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman met a group of distressed customers of the cooperative bank in Mumbai on Thursday just before she addressed a press conference. She said that customers are upset over the revised Rs. 25,000 limit on withdrawals imposed by the Reserve Bank of India saying it is still too little. She added that a meeting on the issue will take place with secretaries of the ministry and RBI representatives.

She further added that they have been asked to look at the ways in which the respective Acts will have to be amended. She added that these amendments can be brought in the upcoming winter session of Parliament.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said that, the Government will bring in a law, if needed, to ensure that PMC Bank-like scams can be prevented.

Addressing media persons in Mumbai, she also assured customers of Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank that the Reserve Bank of India will sort out the issue.

NRC must for national security and will be implemented: Amit Shah

The NRC is “a must” for national security and will be implemented, Union Home Minister Amit Shah declared on Tuesday but made it clear that Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist refugees will be accorded Indian citizenship beforehand with the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill.

Addressing a BJP seminar on the National Register of Citizens, which has hitherto remained confined to Assam, the party president accused West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and her party TMC of misleading the people on the issue.

The TMC has sought to project the NRC exercise in Assam as an “anti-Bengali” move after nearly 12 lakh Bengali speaking people, including a large number of Hindus, were left out of the final list of citizens published on August 31.

“People of Bengal are being misled on the issue of NRC. I am here today to clear all doubts on the BJP’s stand …. Mamata Di is saying that millions of Hindus will have to leave West Bengal. There cannot be a bigger lie than this.

“I want to assure the people of Bengal NRC will be implemented but nothing of this sort is going to happen. I assure all Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain refugees they won’t have to leave the country, they will get Indian citizenship and enjoy all the rights of an Indian national,” Shah said in an attempt to dispel fears over the NRC in the state.

Alarmed at the possibility of the NRC being replicated in the state, people have been rushing to government and municipal offices in droves over the last few days to obtain documents that could prove West Bengal has been their place of residence for long.

Banerjee, a strident critic of both the BJP and the NRC, has claimed 11 people have committed suicide so far out of fear of being rendered stateless in the event of the citizenship register being prepared in the state, and declared she will never allow the exercise to be undertaken in West Bengal.

Even while seeking to address the concerns of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist and Jain refugees, Shah asserted that not one infiltrator will be allowed to live in India. “We will expel each one of them,” he said.

“No country in the world can run smoothly while carrying the burden of so many intruders. This has to stop. We are working towards changing Bengal. NRC is a must. We will have to implement NRC to ensure the country’s safety and security,” Shah said.

The BJP president recalled how Banerjee, during her days in the opposition, frequently raised the issue of illegal infiltration.

“When Mamata Di was in opposition, she asked for these intruders to be removed from Bengal. She had once thrown her shawl at the Speaker’s face over that. Now that those intruders have become her vote bank, she doesn’t want them to be removed. Political ambitions should not prevail over national interest,” he said.

The tempestuous TMC boss was, however, measured in her response to Shah’s accusations.

“Please don’t create rift among people. Bengal is known to respect leaders of different faiths for ages. None can spoil that,” Banerjee said at the 95 Pally Puja inuguration without naming the BJP chief.

In his speech, Shah hailed Prime Minister Narendra Modi for scrapping provisions of Article 370 that accorded special status to Jammu and Kashmir, saying it will facilitate complete integration of the state into India.

Referring to Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the founder of Janasangh, the BJP’s precursor, Shah said it was due to the sacrifices of the leader that West Bengal was today a part of the Indian republic.

Shah also exuded confidence that BJP would come to power in West Bengal with full majority in the next assembly elections.

“The blood of BJP workers that has been shed in Bengal will not go in vain. You’ve given a chance to Communists, Congress and the Trinamool Congress. Now is the time to give a chance to the BJP to form the government and change West Bengal,” Shah said.

Child trafficking case: Delhi court orders framing of charges against 7 people

A court here has ordered framing of charges against seven people for allegedly abducting children, including newborns, and selling them.

It observed that trafficking in human beings is a multi-layered phenomena that can take different forms and occur in various industries.

“There common characteristic is the element of constraint, deceit, threat, fraud, coercion, etc. used with an aim to economically and/or sexually exploit one or other persons and besides that there are other, less widely known forms of trafficking,” Additional Sessions Judge Anil Antil said.

Prima facie various offences, including trafficking and forgery, are made out against the seven accused, the court said, adding it cannot be said that sale and purchase of infants are out of the purview of the offence of trafficking.

It said the seven accused abducted children from their guardians by fraud and were actively involved in trafficking.

“All the accused, who in connivance of their common intention, were knowingly or actively involved in the commission of offence of trafficking and for this purpose they abducted innocent babies from their lawful guardianship by playing fraud upon their parents/guardian,” the judge said.

The court passed the order of framing charges against the seven people — Mohd Jahangir, Rahul Baudh, Jyoti Baudh, Jitender Kumar, Mithla, Shakeela Khatoon and Kavita.

“Though it seems that the babies were taken from their parents with the consent but I must state that consent by playing fraud and based on false and misleading facts is no consent in the eyes of law in terms of Section 90 of the IPC,” the judge said.

The Crime Branch of Delhi Police in February last year busted a child trafficking racket following a tip off and recovered a 10-day-old old baby from Jahangir’s possession.

Officials had arrested Jahangir, along with the other co-accused, who during interrogation revealed about other cases of abduction.

Later, police recovered some minors and cash worth Rs 43,500 from one of the accused persons.

The counsel for accused submitted in court that they cannot be framed for chid trafficking since consent of victim was mandatory to indicate that there was exploitation and therefore, the said provisions were not applicable to case of minors.

The counsel further contended that mere sale and purchase of infants cannot be termed as exploitation.

It’s govt decision whether to set up KVs in each tehsil :HC

The Delhi High Court said Tuesday that setting up of Kendriya Vidyalayas (KVs) in every tehsil across the country was a policy decision of the Centre and left it to the government to take a call on the issue raised in a PIL.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar said that whether to set up central schools in every tehsil or making it mandatory to study ‘aims, objects and basic structure of the Constitution’ in classes I-VIII, as sought in the petition, was a decision which the government has to take.

It left it to the central government to consider the issues raised by BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in his plea and disposed of the matter.

Upadhyay, also a lawyer, had claimed in his plea that “unity in diversity is observed and celebrated” in the KVs as these schools have students from all parts of a state and “equal opportunities are provided to all students in spite of their religious, territorial differences”.

“The low fee structure of Kendriya Vidyalayas will help the poor students in getting a quality education along with an exposure to the competitive world. The establishment of KVs will encourage nearby schools to provide a better education as they will face a competition,” the petition had claimed.

It had said that presently, there were 5,464 tehsils in India and a total of 1,209 KVs.

“To achieve real equality and elevate poor, weak, Dalits, tribals and deprived sections of society, State must provide uniform education having common syllabus and common curriculum to all students of I-VIII standards in spirit of Articles 14, 15, 16, 21A and Preamble of the Constitution,” the plea had said.

Raja Bahadur property: Supreme Court directs matter to CJI for reference to larger bench

With two judges arriving at different conclusions, the Supreme Court has directed that the issue of acquisition of properties of the late Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri, a member of the Constituent Assembly, by the Rajasthan government be placed before the Chief Justice of India for reference to a larger bench.

While Justice R Banumathi set aside the order of the Rajasthan High Court — directing that the properties be made over to Khetri Trust, a trust said to have been created by Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh — Justice Indira Banerjee upheld the order.

Accordingly it was ordered, “in view of difference of opinions & the distinguishing judgments (Hon’ble R. Banumathi, J. allowed the appeal & Hon’ble Indira Banerjee, J. dismissed the appeal), the matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for referring the matter to the Larger Bench”.

A Bar at law from England, a Rajya Sabha Member & ambassador to Laos, Raja Bahadur Singh died intestate on Jan 28, 1987.