WHETHER 498A IPC CAN BE FILED AGAINST WIFE BY HUSBAND - WHAT LAW SAYS

https://youtu.be/xGNZH1AOzAs   WHETHER 498 A CAN BE FILED AGAINST WIFE BY HUSBAND ? TELUGU VIDEO

NO TO NEED RELIGION AND CASTE IN APPLICATION FORMS -HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA

 https://youtu.be/H0XxAATF_cI      NO NEED TO MENTION RELIGION &CASTE IN THE APPLICATION FORMS -HIGH COURT - TELUGU VIDEO

cyber crimes -cyber attacks

 cyber crimes -cyber attacks https://youtu.be/5boYR7zDqa4

governor powers

 https://youtu.be/iQkxlUNgjJM

Mahatma Gandhi Assassination-Reopening of Case-SLP-Dismissed

Mahatma Gandhi Assassination -Fourth Bullet Theory- -Reopening of Case-ALP-Dismissed

This SLP was filed in Hon'ble Supreme Court  as the Hon'ble High Court declined to entertain the petition and go into two questions raised i.e.

• Whether the four bullets were fired as alleged -fourth bullet theory. 

• Whether the Kapur Commission Report should be reopened after the period of 46 years.

 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)8293 OF 2018
[Arising out of D. No. 15103/2017]

Dr. Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis

Vs

Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice 

O R D E R

S.A.BOBDE & L.NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.

1. Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated on 30.1.1948; about 70 years ago. 9 accused were tried for the conspiracy and murder of Gandhiji. After trial the judgment was delivered by Learned Special Judge, Delhi on 10.02.1949 convicting seven accused and acquitting one. Accused Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte were given death sentence, four of the accused were given life sentence and remaining one was given a sentence of seven years of Imprisonment. The conviction was challenged in Punjab High Court in Appeal, High Court vide judgment dated 21.06.1949 upheld the conviction for five of the accused persons and acquitted two of the accused persons. None of the accused are alive today.

2. The petitioner who describes himself “An Engineer, Management Graduate, Ph.D and a Researcher with  passion” approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition in the year 2016. The High Court declined to entertain the petition and go into two questions raised i.e. whether the four bullets were fired as alleged and whether the Kapur Commission Report should be reopened after the period of 46 years.

3. The delay with which the petitioner has raised this issue is gross. According to the petitioner, he moved the court after doing some research about the circumstances in which Gandhiji’s assassination took place and got convinced about the involvement of an unseen hand in the assassination. We are, however, not satisfied that new research into a long concluded matter justifies a re-initiation of criminal investigation or that anything that might be stated should be allowed to reopen a case such as this. Criminal cases which result in conviction and even execution of death sentences and the demise of those who have served life sentences ought not to be reviewed, neither is there a provision in law for review. But it was argued before us that the assassination of Gandhiji was an event of far reaching consequences in the world and the nation has the right to know the truth. While undoubtedly the nation has right to know the truth, such a right cannot be invoked where the truth is already well known merely because some academic research raises a different perspective in law. This would amount to reopening issues based on hearsay. 

4. We are constrained to make this observation because Nathuram Godse was convicted on the basis of the evidence of eye-witnesses who were present at the prayer meeting. Th meeting itself was attended by innumerable people. Each one of the eye-witnesses described how Godse moved forward and shot Gandhiji. 

All the evidence reveals that three shots entered the body. It further revealed that:

(a)    One injury on the right side of the chest near nipple.

(b)    One injury below the chest on the right side.

(c)     One injury on the right side of the abdomen.

There were two exit wounds, one bullet did not exit the body. Thus, only two spent bullet were found at the place of occurrence. No fourth spent bullet or empty cartridge was found at the place of occurrence.

5. The FIR registered at 5.45 pm mentions firing of three shots. The inquest report prepared by Lt. Col. Taneja showed that Gandhiji had suffered bullet injuries from three bullets only. There were six eye witnesses; PW-31 (Amar Nath), PW-32 (Nandlal Mehta), PW-34 (Ratan Singh), PW-37 (Dharam Singh), PW-76 (Raghunath Naik), PW-82 (Sardar Gurbachan Singh). Each one of them mentions that three shots were fired by the sole assailant Nathuram Godse. No one from either side i.e. the prosecution or defence suggested that four bullets were fired or that there was a second assailant. The report submitted by Learned Amicus Curiae Shri Amrendra Sharan, Senior Advocate contains a detailed reference to all the relevant evidence in this regard.

6. Another submission made by the petitioner is that this Court should review the Kapur Commission findings. G.V. Ketkar, grandson of Lokmanya Balgangadhar Tilak, made a statement that he had knowledge about the conspiracy to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi prior to the incident. This raised a political storm and the Kapur Commission was set up inter alia to inquire into the conspiracy to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi. The commission headed by former Judge of this Court Shri Jivanlal Kapur submitted its report in 1969. According to the petitioner, the following finding of Kapur Commission in its report is unfair since it hurts the sentiments of the followers of Shri Savarkar:-
“All these facts taken together were destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group” He, therefore, prayed for a review of this finding or setting up of a new commission.
7. The Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that this finding was rendered after the demise of Shri Savarkar and no opportunity was given to Shri Savarkar or any of his  representatives. He submitted that the finding is unfair since Shri Savarkar had been acquitted at the trial. There is no doubt that this finding does not in any way interfere with the acquittal and is a general observation probably made since Godse and others were found to have been associated with Shri Savarkar. It cannot have the effect of overturning of the finding of the criminal court which acquitted Shri Savarkar. Constitution bench of this Court in Ram Kishan  Dalmia v. Justice S.R.Tendolkar  considered the effect of the findings of a Commission as follows:-
“The Commission has no power of adjudication in the sense of passing an order which can be enforced proprio vigore.” Further, the Constitution bench declined to act on the findings in the report of Commission of Inquiry;  “But seeing that the Commission of Inquiry has no judicial powers and its report will purely be recommendatory and not effective proprio vigore and the  statement made by any person before the Commission of Inquiry is, under s.6 of the act, wholly inadmissible in evidence in any future proceedings, civil or criminal, there can be no point in the Commission of Inquiry making recommendations for taking action “as and by way of securing redress or punishment” which, in agreement with the High Court, we think, refers, in the context, to wrongs already done or committed, for redress or punishment for such wrongs, if any, has to be imposed by a court of law properly constituted exercising its own discretion on the facts and circumstances of the case and without being in any way influenced by the view of any person or body, howsoever august or high powered it may be.” The submission of the petitioner that Shri Savarkar has been held guilty for the murder of Gandhiji is misplaced.

8. We are, however, not inclined to enter into the correctness or fairness of the findings in this report. That would be  another exercise in futility and would none the less pan new fires of controversy. This Court must at all cost be vary of such contentious issues and must not allow its jurisdiction to be invoked for such purposes.
9. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept the fourth bullet theory propounded by the petitioner. Learned Amicus Curiae categorically submitted that perusal of original photograph at the museum leads to no such inference. We consider the petitioner’s attempt to reopen this controversy as an exercise in futility. Since the person who took the photograph cannot be examined and any statement about the photograph made by any expert would not be admissible at this stage.
10. The court is beholden to Shri Amrendra Sharan, Ld. Amicus Curiae who has painstakingly examined the entire record of the case & even exhibits of the national museum for the assistance of the court.

11. We see no merit in this SLP and hereby dismiss the same.

J.S.A. BOBDE
J.L. NAGESWARA RAO
NEW DELHI
MARCH 28

Disabled Rights -Supreme Court Directions

S.C issues directions on three issues relating to disabled rights   :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 292 OF 2006

DISABLED RIGHTS GROUP & ANR.                            .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                              .....RESPONDENT(S)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 997 OF 2013 

Three issues are raised in this petition which is filed in public interest, for the benefit of persons suffering from ‘disability ’ as per the definition contained in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act) 1995 (hereinafter referredto as the ‘Disabilities Act, 1995’) which now stands repealed and is replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Disabilities Act, 2016’). 

The first issue related to the non-implementation of 3% reservation of seats in educational institutions as provided in Section 39 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 and Section 32 of the Disabilities Act, 2016.

Second equally important issue raised in this petition, which is intimately connected with the first issue, is to provide proper access to orthopedic  disabled persons so that they are able to freely move in the educational institution and access the facilities.  

Third issue pertains to pedagogy i.e. making adequate provisions and facilities of teaching for disabled persons, depending upon the nature of their disability, to enable them to undertake their studies effectively. 

S.C's  Directions issued: 

[i]While dealing with the issue of reservation of seats in the educational institutions, we have already given directions in para 8 above that the provisions of Section 32 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 shall be complied with by all concerned educational institutions. In addition to the directions mentioned therein, we also direct that insofar as law colleges are concerned, intimation in this behalf shall be sent by those institutions to the Bar Council of India (BCI) as well. Other educational institutions will notify the compliance, each year, to the UGC. It will be within the discretion of the BCI and/or UGC to carry out inspections of such educational institutions to verify as to whether the provisions are complied with or not.

(ii) Insofar as suggestions given by the petitioner in the form of “Guidelines for Accessibility for Students with Disabilities in Universities/Colleges” are concerned, the UGC  shall consider the feasibility thereof by constituting a  Committee in this behalf. In this Committee, the UGC would be free to include persons from amongst Central Advisory Board, State Advisory Boards, Chief Commissioner of State Commissioners appointed under the Disabilities Act. This Committee shall undertake a detailed study for making provisions in respect of accessibility as well as pedagogy and would also suggest the modalities for implementing those suggestions, their funding and monitoring, etc. The Committee shall also lay down the time limits within which such suggestions could be implemented. The Expert Committee may also consider feasibility of constituting an in-house body in each educational institution (of teachers, staff, students and parents) for taking care of day to day needs of differently abled persons as well as for implementation of the Schemes that would be devised by the Expert Committee. This exercise shall be completed by June 30, 2018.

(iii) Report in this behalf, as well as the Action Taken Report, shall be submitted to this Court in July, 2018. On receipt of the report, the matter shall be placed before the Court.

15^th December ,2017

Supreme Court of India

Land Mark Hon'ble Supreme Court Order on Bharat stage IV vehicle

Land Mark  Hon'ble Supreme Court Order on Bharat Stage IV vehicles : Registration of Pollution-Free Vehicles only allowed 

What it appears to be a land mark judicial pronouncement on the issue of fundamental right  ,pollution-free air to all , which changes the lives of the people ,Right to Life means Right to pollution-free air ,of late air  pollution has engulfing almost all major cities and creating health hazards to all  ,it has been observed dangerous smoke emissions from the vehicles are the  main source of air pollution in all cities.  

 The Following Directions by Hon'ble Supreme Court on BS-IV Vehicles :

1. No registration of vehicles which do not meet requirement of  Bharat Stage -IV with effect from 1st April,2017

2. Non -BS -IV registration is allowed vehicles purchased before 31st March ,2017  

 

Full Text of Hon'ble Supreme Court order :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A.NO. 487/2017, I.A. NO. 491/2017, I.A. NO. 494/2017, I.A. NO. 489/2017, I.A. NO. 495/2017

in

Writ Petition(Civil) No.13029/1985

M.C.MEHTA                                          ...PETITIONER(s)

 

VERSUS

          UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                        ...RESPONDENT(s)
 

O R D E R

We have heard the learned Solicitor General, learned  Amicus  Curiae, learned counsel for the interveners who are manufacturers of vehicles(two wheelers,three wheelers,four wheelers and commercial vehicles –for short referred to as ‘such vehicles’)and learned counsel for the  association  of dealers of such vehicles.

The seminal issue in  these  applications  is  whether  the  sale  and registration and therefore the commercial interests of  manufacturers and dealers of such vehicles that do not meet the  Bharat  Stage-IV  (for  short 'BS-IV') emission standards as on 1st April, 2017 takes  primacy  over  the health hazard due to increased air pollution of  millions of our country  men and women. The answer is quite obvious.

The controversy relates to the sale and  registration  (on  and  after 1st April, 2017) of such vehicles lying in stock with the manufacturers  and dealers that meet the Bharat Stage III emission standards (for short  BS-III standards) but do not meet the BS-IV emission standards.

Briefly, according  to  the  manufacturers, they  are  entitled  to manufacture such vehicles till 31st March, 2017 and they have  done  so.  In so doing, they say that they have not violated any prohibition or  any  law.

Hence, the sale and registration of such vehicles on  and  from  1st  April, 2017  ought  not  to  be  prohibited. They  say  that  they  will  not   be manufacturing any vehicle that does  not  comply  with  the  BS-IV emission standards from and after 1st April, 2017 and therefore  the  only  issue  is the sale and registration of  the  existing  stock  of  such  vehicles  that comply with BS-III emission standards.They  say  that  they  may  be  given reasonable time to dispose of the existing stock of such vehicles.

On the other hand, according to the learned  Amicus,  permitting  such vehicles to be sold  or  registered  on  or  after  1st  April,  2017  would constitute a health hazard to millions of  our  country  men  and  women  by adding to the air pollution levels in the country (which are  already  quite alarming). It is her submission that  the  manufacturers  of  such  vehicles were fully aware, way back in 2010, that all vehicles would have to  convert to BS-IV fuel on and from 1st April, 2017 and therefore, they had more  than enough time to stop the production of BS-III compliant vehicles  and  switch over to the manufacture of BS-IV compliant  vehicles.  In  fact,  the  major manufacturer of 4 wheeler vehicles, Maruti Sazuki  had  completely  switched over to the manufacture  of  BS-IV  compliant  vehicles  a  few  years  ago.

However, for reasons best  known  to  manufacturers  of  such  vehicles  and entirely at their peril, they did not  make  a  complete  switch  (though  a partial switch has been made)  even  though  they  had  the  technology  and technical know-how to do so.  Therefore, keeping the larger public  interest in mind and the potential health hazard to millions of our country  men  and women due to increased air pollution, there is no justification for  any  of the manufacturers  not  shifting  to  the  anufacture  of  BS-IV  compliant vehicles well before 1st April, 2017.

It has been brought to our  notice  that  on  5th  January,  2016  the learned  Solicitor  General  on  behalf  of  the  Government  of  India  had submitted before this Court that requisite quality fuel for BS-IV  compliant vehicles would be available (all over the  country)  with  effect  from  1^st April, 2017.[1] This was confirmed and reiterated by the  learned  Solicitor General during the course of hearing and he stated that now from 1st  April,2017 requisite quality fuel for BS-IV compliant vehicles would be  available all over the country. He  also  pointed  out  that  the  refineries  of  the Government of India had incurred an expenditure of  about  Rs.30,000  crores for producing requisite fuel for BS-IV compliant vehicles.

On balance, in our opinion,  the  submission  of  the  learned  Amicus deserves to be accepted keeping in mind the potential health hazard of such vehicles being introduced on the road affecting millions of our  people  in the country. The number of such  vehicles  may  be  small  compared  to  the overall number of vehicles in the country but the health of  the  people  is far, far more important than the commercial interests of  the  manufacturers or the loss that they are likely to  suffer  in  respect  of  the  so-called small number of such vehicles. The  manufacturers  of  such  vehicles  were fully aware that eventually from 1st April, 2017 they would be  required  to manufacture only BS-IV compliant vehicles  but  for  reasons  that  are  not clear, they chose to sit back and declined  to  take  sufficient  pro-active steps.

Accordingly, for detailed reasons that will follow,we direct that:

(a)On and  from  1st  April, 2017 such vehicles  that  are  not  BS-IV compliant shall not be sold in India by any manufacturer or dealer, that  is to say that such vehicles whether two wheeler, three wheeler,  four  wheeler or commercial vehicles will not be sold in  India  by  any  manufacturer  or dealer on and from 1st April, 2017.

(b)All the vehicle registering authorities under the Motor Vehicles  Act, 1988 are prohibited for registering such vehicles on  and  from  1st  April, 2017 that do not meet BS-IV emission standards, except on proof that such  a vehicle has already been sold on or before 31st March,2017.As mentioned above,detailed reasons  for  the  above  order  will  be given in due course.

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

(MADAN B. LOKUR)

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

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

NEW DELHI

MARCH 29, 2017

-----------------------

[1]

[2]               M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2016) 4 SCC 269

Courtesy : Supreme court of India Website