Understanding A Constitutional Bench | Is Hijab A Constitutional Matter?
Abhijeet Kumar Pandey versus State of Bihar & Ors.
The SKV Law Offices (Commercial) filed a Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation in the wake of the urgent requirement of a new Greenfield Airport in the State of Bihar, which sets to resolve a number of Bihar’s socio-economic problems, including the state’s growing migration, rising air traffic demand, and infrastructure constraints. By virtue of the Writ Petition, for the very first time in the history of independent India, right to safe travel has been embedded in right to life and liberty. Notably, the Patna Airport has been among one of the most dangerous airports in the country. Keeping in mind, the necessity of the hour, the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents-State of Bihar and Union of India to develop/construct a Greenfield Airport at District – Saran, Bihar at the earliest. In addition, this airport shall prospectively provide Bihar with a wealth of new options for commerce, tourism, and the development of its people’s resources. Understanding the right to life and liberty in the context of air travel and the way to a right to safe travel as an aspect of Article 21, the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna opined that the right to safe travel is inherent in the right to free movement and the right to life and liberty under the Constitution of India and that there is an urgent need of a safe airport within the vicinity of Patna that already stands approved as on date. The Court vide its judgement dated 04.02.2023, directed the Union of India, the State of Bihar, and the Airport Authority of India to consider developing an alternative airport to Patna and Bihta on the lines of a Greenfield Airport; arriving at a decision on the situs for the airport within three months and instructed the State/Union of India and the private tenderer, if any, to take all possible steps to ensure adherence to the principles of sustainable development and obtain all required environmental clearances, in respect of such construction. The Hon’ble Court also made observation that the Airport Authority has powers to acquire land under the Airports Authority Act and if it does not receive sufficient support from the State/Union Government, the Airports Authority can acquire land and construct the airport. SKV Comment: The present Public Interest Litigation was filed under the able guidance of Mr. Varun Singh assisted by a team of advocates at SKV Law Offices (Commercial). A step ahead in the interpretation of the facet of right to life wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna aptly observed the necessity of safe air travelling to and from the State of Bihar keeping in view the Constitutional Rights of the citizens. In the spirit of success of the PIL, we hope and wish that the direction given by the Hon’ble Court will be implemented to its logical conclusion. Please find the link to Download
Amarjeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining a twenty-year-old criminal case, stayed the proceedings. The present Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court of India, pursuant to an erroneous decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which had erred in indiscriminately quashing the order of summon passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Mathura. The business between the Petitioner and Respondent were in the nature of running accounts, and that the Complainant had falsely implicated the Petitioner under Section 420 of IPC on account of dishonest encashment of a cheque belonging to the Respondent, where pertinently the ombudsman ruled the encashment unquestionable, as no attempt of withholding the cheque could be made out. It had been contended that the High Court had strayed from passing a reasoned order, without appreciating the facts of the case, on settled position of law. It has deviated from applying its mind to the current facts of the case and has been trapped in passing the order on the basis of a similar application filed by the other co-accused and that that the summoning order is inherently defective and irrational on points of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court appreciated the facts and circumstances at hand and granted relief to the Petitioner by imposing interim stay on further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order dated 16.12.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. SKV Comment: The present Special Leave Petition was argued by Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas Singh assisted by Mr. Varun Singh and a team of advocates at SKV Law Offices (Commercial) wherein the interim relief sought by the Petitioner was successfully secured in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Please find the link to Download
Smt. Satyavati Devi versus MCD & Ors- W.P(C) 1983/2023
The Present Petition was filed before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India seeking an appropriate writ, for prohibiting the Respondents from harassing the Petitioner and forcing her to pay weekly bribe for the Peaceful continuation of the business of Street Vending. The Petitioner herein, Ms. Satyavati Devi is a Street Vendor in the business of street vending since the past 17 years, legally and rightfully entitled to continue her business in the streets of Delhi. The Respondents on the other hand, are the Law enforcement officers in Delhi, who have repeatedly indulged in the illegal acts of harassment, mental & physical violence against the Petitioner and her family without any justifiable cause, even after she possesses the Certificate of Vending from the East Delhi Municipal Corporation. The above acts of the Respondents are illegal, arbitrary, violative of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner enshrined under Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Further, Respondent No. 3 has also acted in violation of Section 27 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 as the said section clearly prohibits and penalizes harassment by any police official against street vendors. In reaching the judgement in the present case, the division bench of Hon’ble J. Mr. Siddharth Mridul and Hon’ble J. Ms. Tushar Rao Gedela, placed reliance on the cases of Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai, (2004) 1 SCC 625, Gainda Ram v. MCD, (2010) 10 SCC 715, and Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation (1989) 4 SCC 15, in which the Hon’ble Court recognized the rights of the street vendors and strictly prohibited any form of violence against them. On 15.02.2023, the Apex Court adjudged in favor of the Petitioner represented by Advocates of SKV Law Offices who pressed to limit their relief to a direction to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to permit her to vend, strictly in accordance with the terms of Certificate of Vending, issued by the East Municipal Corporation of Delhi and simultaneously, directing the Delhi Police to not obstruct or impede the Petitioner from continuing to vend in terms of the Certificate of Vending in the subject zone. The Petition was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court and was disposed of accordingly in the very first hearing ensuring that speedy justice is served to those who knock the door of the Hon’ble Court. Please find the link to Download
Sandesh Mayekar v Union of India & Ors. WP (C) 700 of 2019.
This judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi changed the trajectory of the elections to the Dental Council of India from the State of Maharashtra, by ensuring that the procedure for preparing and finalizing the list of voters would for the first time be done online, for which a wide publication would also be issued. Further, to streamline the issue the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has directed the Authorities to design and carry out a two-stage electoral list preparation process and take representations from any and all dentists whose names have not been considered while preparing the electoral list. Glaring illegalities and discrepancies in election of the Dental Council of India, in the State of Maharashtra, dehors the provisions of the Dentist Act, 1948, necessitated the present Writ Petition. In the past election it came to the notice of the Petitioner that the person who was in charge of preparing the electoral list was also the person contesting the election. Further, there were serious violations of the provisions of Dentist Act, 1948 which led to a situation wherein only 2000 voters had submitted a valid ballot paper despite there being more than 34000 voters. Aggrieved by the illegalities and lapses in the election process, the Petitioner vide the said writ petition proposed some lucrative recommendations to ensure that the election is conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The Delhi High Court vide judgement dated 2nd February, 2023, accepted the recommendations made by the Petitioner and was pleased to direct the concerned authorities for the implementations of the recommendations proposed by the Petitioners. Sandesh Mayekar v Union of India & Ors. WP (C) 700 of 2019. This judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi changed the trajectory of the elections to the Dental Council of India from the State of Maharashtra, by ensuring that the procedure for preparing and finalizing the list of voters would for the first time be done online, for which a wide publication would also be issued. Further, to streamline the issue the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has directed the Authorities to design and carry out a two-stage electoral list preparation process and take representations from any and all dentists whose names have not been considered while preparing the electoral list. Glaring illegalities and discrepancies in election of the Dental Council of India, in the State of Maharashtra, dehors the provisions of the Dentist Act, 1948, necessitated the present Writ Petition. In the past election it came to the notice of the Petitioner that the person who was in charge of preparing the electoral list was also the person contesting the election. Further, there were serious violations of the provisions of Dentist Act, 1948 which led to a situation wherein only 2000 voters had submitted a valid ballot paper despite there being more than 34000 voters. Aggrieved by the illegalities and lapses in the election process, the Petitioner vide the said writ petition proposed some lucrative recommendations to ensure that the election is conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The Delhi High Court vide judgement dated 2nd February, 2023, accepted the recommendations made by the Petitioner and was pleased to direct the concerned authorities for the implementations of the recommendations proposed by the Petitioners.
M/s DSP Associates v. Union of India & Ors.
This SLP was preferred against order of the National Green Tribunal on the grounds of serious violations of Principles of Natural Justice. The Petitioner is a mining contractor and National Green Tribunal passed an order imposing heavy penalty and blacklisting the Petitioner without affording the Petitioner a proper opportunity of being heard. The damages against the Petitioner had been assumed on the basis of supposed violation of EC condition, whereas there was no actual violation or loss committed by the Petitioner. The Impugned order was passed on the basis of a report by the Joint Committee wherein it was recorded that the Petitioner had “not raised any objections to the report”, when in reality the Petitioner was never supplied a copy of the report nor was the Petitioner given an opportunity to present its case and object to the report. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while hearing the said matter was pleased to accept the contentions of the Petitioner by holding that such an order could not have been passed against the Petitioner without affording them an opportunity of being heard and that there was no reason to dispute the correctness of the statements made on oath in the affidavit by the advocate for the petitioner regarding technical glitch. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.02.2023 set aside the compensation payable/ penalty levied on the Petitioner and gave the liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the report by the Joint Committee and the order of black-listing. Please find the link to Download