text:
India’s journey from recognizing the ‘Good Samaritan’ to extending rights and now a cash award
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 11, 2021
The Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH) recently issued guidelines for a new scheme to extend cash award of Rs. 5,000 to the ‘Good Samaritan’ who provides emergency assistance to victims of fatal accidents. Here is a review of India’s journey from recognizing the ‘Good Samaritan’ to extending them rights and now a cash award.
Injuries in road accidents are among the top 10 causes of deaths globally. In 2019, over 4.49 lakh road accidents were reported in India and over 1.51 lakh persons lost their lives in these accidents. Between 2010 and 2019, a total of 14.4 lakh deaths have been reported due to road accidents in the country.
India ranks first in terms of the absolute number of deaths in road accidents among 199 countries, and deaths due to road accidents in India alone account for 11% of the accident-related deaths in the world. In India, road injuries are the leading cause of death among young adult males. With increasing vehicle population and vehicle density on roads, the probability of accidents & deaths due to them is more than before.
50% of the fatalities in road accidents could have been averted if prompt medical service was given
One major reason for the high fatalities in road accidents is the lack of timely medical treatment for victims. According to a 2006 report of the Law Commission of India, 50% of the fatalities could have been averted if victims were admitted to a hospital within the first one hour, which is called the golden hour. Lives could be saved if emergency medical treatment is provided immediately. Unfortunately, many bystanders and passers-by are hesitant to help the injured accident victims because of the fear of police harassment, detention at hospitals, and prolonged legal formalities. To encourage people to come forward and render help to the accident victims, legal protection, and perks for ‘Good Samaritan’ are necessary.
A ‘Good Samaritan’ is a person who, in good faith, without expectation of payment or reward and without any duty of care or special relationship, voluntarily comes forward to administer immediate assistance or emergency care to a person injured in an accident, or crash, or emergency medical condition, or emergency situation. A ‘Good Samaritan’ law is supposed to safeguard such individuals from harassment & legal hassles they may have to undergo for saving the lives of victims.
PIL in 2012 brought attention to the issue of protecting ‘Good Samaritans’
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the Supreme Court in 2012 requesting the Court to safeguard ‘Good Samaritans’ who come forward to help the injured, paved the way for legal protection and encouragement of ‘Good Samaritans’. Following the apex court’s orders, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), in 2015, notified guidelines about the protection of ‘Good Samaritans’ as an interim measure until appropriate legislation is made by the Union government. Later in 2016, MoRTH issued a Standard Operating Procedure for the examination of ‘Good Samaritans’ during the trial.
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 included provisions for ‘Good Samaritans’ in legislation
A new section 134A titled ‘Protection of Good Samaritans’ was inserted through the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which provides that ‘a Good Samaritan shall not be liable for any civil or criminal action for any injury to or death of the victim of an accident involving a motor vehicle, where such injury or death resulted from the Good Samaritan’s negligence in acting or failing to act while rendering emergency medical or non-medical care or assistance and that the Central Government may by rules provide for the procedure for questioning or examination of the Good Samaritan, disclosure of personal information of the Good Samaritan and such other related matters.’
In 2020, MoRTH published relevant rules laying down the ‘Rights of Good Samaritan’. The rules make it clear that it is the voluntary choice of the ‘Good Samaritan’ to disclose his/her name, identity, address or any such other personal details and no police officer or any other person shall compel a ‘Good Samaritan’ to do so.
The scheme for awarding ‘Good Samaritans’ was recently announced by MoRTH
On 05 October 2021, MoRTH issued guidelines for the ‘Scheme for grand of award to the Good Samaritan’, to motivate the general public to help the road accident victims in emergency situations. The scheme will be effective from 15 October 2021 and operational until 31 March 2026.
Under the scheme, any individual who has saved the life of a victim of a fatal accident involving a motor vehicle by administering immediate assistance and rushing to a hospital within the ‘Golden Hour’ of the accident to provide medical treatment would be eligible for a cash award and certificate of appreciation for their good deed. Golden hour is defined as the period of an hour post a traumatic injury during which the likelihood of preventing death by giving immediate medical care is the highest. A fatal accident is one which leads to a major surgery, brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, or at least 3 days of hospitalization.
Each ‘Good Samaritan’ will be given a cash award and certificate
As per the guidelines, each ‘Good Samaritan’, subject to the eligibility criteria, will be given a cash award of Rs. 5,000 per incident. That is, even if they save the lives of more than one person in a single incident, they will be eligible for a cash award of Rs. 5,000 only. If more than one ‘Good Samaritan’ saves the life of a victim, then the Rs. 5,000 cash awards will be split equally among them. If more than one ‘Good Samaritan’ saves the life of more than one victim of an accident, then they will be given a cash award of Rs. 5,000 per victim saved subject to a maximum award of Rs. 5,000 per ‘Good Samaritan’. Further, an individual ‘Good Samaritan’ can be awarded a maximum of five times in a year.
Ten worthiest ‘Good Samaritans’ in the country will be awarded Rs. 1 lakh, certificate, and trophy
Apart from the cash award, a ‘Certification of Appreciation’ will also be provided to the ‘Good Samaritans’. Additionally, the scheme has also announced the presentation of 10 national-level awards to be handed out annually for the worthiest ‘Good Samaritans’ among those who have been awarded the whole year. The national-level award winners will get a cash award of Rs. 1 lakh each along with a Certificate and trophy during National Road Safety Month (NRSM) in Delhi.
What is the procedure to identify & award the ‘Good Samaritan’?
When the ‘Good Samaritan’ informs the police first about the accident, the police upon receiving the required details from the Doctor will provide an acknowledgement to the ‘Good Samaritan’ on the official letter pad. The acknowledgement would contain details such as name, phone number, and address of the ‘Good Samaritan’, details of the accident such as time, place, and date, and how the ‘Good Samaritan’ helped in saving the life of a victim. If the ‘Good Samaritan’ takes the victim to the hospital first, then the hospital must provide all the details to the concerned police station, and the police must provide an acknowledgement to the ‘Good Samaritan’. The standard format for acknowledgement is provided in the guidelines.
Committees at the District, State, and National level will be set up for award purpose
A copy of the acknowledgement provided by the police is sent to the District Level Appraisal Committee comprising of District Magistrate, Chief Medical and Health Officer, RTO, and SSP. The committee will review and approve the proposals on a monthly basis. The cases are then sent to the concerned State/UT Transport Department for making the payment to the Good Samaritans. For the national-level awards, the State level committee of each State/UT must nominate the three most worthy proposals on a yearly basis. An Appraisal Committee of the MoRTH would review the proposals received from the States/UTs and select the best ten ‘Good Samaritans’ of the year.
An initial grant of Rs. 5 Lakhs will be provided by MoRTH to the Transport Department of the State/UT for making payment to the ‘Good Samaritans’ which would be reimbursed by the Ministry on monthly basis. A separate account is to be created for this purpose.
Different types of ‘Good Samaritan’ laws exist across the World
In countries like the United States of America (USA), differing laws exist across each of the 50 states regarding the ‘Good Samaritan’. For instance, the ‘Good Samaritan’ law in Minnesota makes it a legal obligation for the passers-by to help a person in an emergency, failure of which would fetch a penalty. Meanwhile, the law in Delaware safeguards the ‘Good Samaritans’. Furthermore, unlike in India where the ‘Good Samaritan’ policy is restricted to saving persons in road accidents, the ‘Good Samaritan’ laws in certain states of the USA are applicable to all emergency situations. In fact, there are ‘Good Samaritan’ laws exclusively for helping persons with Drug Overdose and even Environmental Good Samaritans laws. In many western countries, the moral duty to stop and render treatment to an injured or ill person has been recognized instead of making it a legal requirement.
Awareness & Quick Decision making for Award money is necessary
While the policy to encourage the ‘Good Samaritan’ with a cash award is a step in the right direction, this would be successful only when there is widespread awareness about both the award and the procedure involved. Further, the procedure & timelines to extend cash award to the ‘Good Samaritan’ should be followed scrupulously without any delay. Unless these happen, the scheme would not be successful.
Featured Image: Good Samaritans laws

created: October 11, 2021


text:
Insurance Companies to communicate decision on authorization for cashless treatment for COVID-19 claims within 60 minutes
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
May 5, 2021
In this roundup court judgements, we look at constitutional courts’ remarks on various aspects of the COVID-19 crisis such as oxygen shortage at hospitals, non-availability of medicines, and coercive actions against SOS calls. We also look at apex court directions on how the testimony of a person with a disability cannot be considered weak or inferior and directions to Insurance companies to communicate the decision on authorization for cashless treatment for COVID-19 claims within 60 minutes.
Supreme Court: Don’t Clampdown on Citizens’ SOS Calls for Medical Help through Social Media
In taking suo moto cognizance of the present COVID-19 situation in the country, the supreme court issued a set of recommendations and directed the state and central governments to act in an efficient and inclusive manner.
Taking note of the unprecedented humanitarian crisis in the country, following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the apex court issued notices to the Union Government, State Governments, and Union Territories. To increase the availability of oxygen and ensure transparency of demand-supply management, the court directed the Central Government to consider the following suggestions:
Further, the apex court directed the Central Government to clarify the following issues in order to ensure the protection of the fundamental rights to equality and to life and personal liberty for all persons who are eligible to take the vaccine from 01 May 2021:
The court also took notice of the fact that several critical drugs, used to treat COVID-19, such as Remdesivir and Tocilizumab, are being sold at significantly inflated prices or in fake form. In order to clamp down on this practice, the judgement recommends that the Central Government can consider constituting a special team to identify and prosecute those who: (a) sell medical grade oxygen/COVID-19 medicines at exorbitant prices; and (b) sell fake substances and recover the concerning substances. A protocol for ambulances must also be evolved to avoid citizens being exploited by extracting unconscionable charges. The Central Government can consider creating a platform for easy reporting and redressal of such cases.
The court also expressed deep regret that individuals seeking help on social media platforms have been targeted, by alleging that the information posted by them is false and has only been posted on social media to create panic, defame the administration or damage the “national image”. The apex court directed the Central Government and State Governments to ensure that they immediately cease any direct or indirect threats of prosecution and arrest to citizens who air grievances or those that are attempting to help fellow citizens receive medical aid. The court also instructed that all Directors General of Police shall ensure compliance down the ranks of the police forces within their jurisdictions.
Supreme Court: Testimony of a prosecutrix with a disability, or of a disabled witness, cannot be considered weak or inferior.
In the case Patan Jamal Vali vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the apex court issued guidelines to make criminal justice system more disabled-friendly.
While hearing an appeal filed by the sole accused tried for the offence of sexual violence against a woman with a disability, the court strongly affirmed that the testimony of a prosecutrix with a disability, or of a disabled witness for that matter, cannot be considered weak or inferior, only because such an individual interacts with the world in a different manner, vis-à-vis their able-bodied counterparts.
The judgement noted that work still needs to be done in order to make our criminal justice system more disabled-friendly and issued the following guidelines:
Delhi HC: Insurance companies to communicate their approvals to the concerned hospitals within 30-60 minutes.
In pursuance of important COVID-19 related matters, the Delhi high court also directed the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to issue immediate instructions to insurance companies/their agents to ensure no delay in giving approvals for discharge of COVID-19 patients who are covered by insurance policies.
The judgement emphasises on the following instructions to be followed by insurance companies:
Following these directions, the IRDAI has also issued relevant norms to all the insurance providers.
The judgement also took note of the shortage of Remdesivir and the struggle of the general public to find hospital beds in time. The high court issued a slew of directions and instructed the state government to develop an online portal, providing information on the availability of vacant beds capable of providing oxygen treatment. Observing that the portal is being developed, the high court directed that instead of routing all the drugs through the hospitals or other medical establishments, the patient/family member/attendant of the patient should be allowed to put in a request in the portal for obtaining the Remdesivir, along with the following details:
In dealing with another set of pleas concerning oxygen shortage of hospitals, the high court directed the state government to file an affidavit providing the status of liquid and gaseous oxygen and refillers and also directed the oxygen refillers to provide data on the government’s portal. The bench also orally observed that “We will also have to compensate these people for dying due to lack of oxygen. It’s the responsibility of the State.”
Featured Image: Important Court Judgements

source: news-factly

license: Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

author: Sai Krishna Muthyanolla


text:
Interim report of the Standing Committee highlighted many challenges with Virtual Court Proceedings
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
November 20, 2020
Court Proceedings have gone online across the world and also in India ever since the restrictions were imposed to reduce the spread of COVID-19. While virtual court proceedings have many advantages, there are many issues that need to be addressed to ensure they are accessible by all. The interim report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee highlighted some of these issues.
Functioning of the judicial system was severely impacted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Fewer physical hearings, adjustment of operations, and even closure of courts were inevitable to curb the coronavirus spread. All this meant that the backlog of cases increased, and this had a significant impact on the undertrials from the vulnerable groups.
It is not just in India but court systems across the globe were put to test. Courts in many countries went for online hearings. The Supreme Court in Ireland too sat using remote video technology for the first time.
Online hearing of court cases was implemented for the first time in many countries including India
In India, Virtual Court (VC) hearings were used in select cases even before the pandemic for the conduct of remand matters of prisoners to restrict their movement. The Supreme Court suspended physical hearings of cases since the latter half of March 2020 and rolled out VC hearings. The apex court granted legal sanctity to video conference on 06 April 2020 under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution which bestows the Supreme Court with the power to pass any decree to do ‘complete justice’. High Courts have also been given the authority to work out detailed modalities suitable for adopting video conferencing technologies. In other words, High Courts were permitted to alter the guidelines in accordance with their practices. The District Courts had to adopt to the mode of video conferencing as prescribed by the concerned High Court.
Standing Committee report on challenges faced in VCs was tabled at Rajya Sabha recently
The Parliamentary Standing Committee of the Department of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Law and Justice recently tabled an interim report on the functioning of ‘Virtual Courts’ which highlights the challenges faced and shortcomings in VC proceedings. According to the report, VC streamlines the entire proceedings as complaint and documents are filed electronically while evidence is submitted digitally, and judges decide cases online from the physical courtroom or from some other place and they hear arguments over video conferencing. But there are many challenges hindering its smooth functioning.
Digital divide is a major roadblock to accessing VCs
A representative of the Bar Council of India stated to the Committee that almost 50% of the lawyers, mainly those in District Courts, did not have any laptop or computer which hinders their participation in VC and e-Courts. The committee opined that digital divide in terms of access (to equipment and infrastructure), connectivity (access to broadband connectivity) and skill (knowledge and skills to use digital platforms) needs to be addressed. The Department of Justice told the committee that E-Seva Kendras have been established in all High Courts and one District Court in each state to aid lawyers as a part of a pilot project. Appreciating the efforts, the committee suggested to explore the viability of involving private agencies to help people in connecting with Courts.
Further, the Committee recommended the Ministry of Communication to fast-track the implementation of National Broadband Mission. The aim of the mission launched in December 2019 is to provide affordable and universal access of broadband for all.
Advocates should keep themselves updated with the changing times
The committee further stated that advocates should keep up with the changing times and that training and awareness programmes should be conducted in all court complexes including Subordinate Courts to impart the skills required to handle digital platforms. Introduction of computer related courses in Law Courses will equip budding lawyers with the necessary knowledge and skills.
Another major issue during virtual hearings as highlighted in the report is the poor digital connectivity. Technical glitches plague VC hearings, especially in peak hours. Courtroom technology’s quality needs to be improved using customized software and hardware. Also, the Department of Justice was recommended to provide WAN connectivity and superior quality videoconferencing facilities to all Court complexes under the e-courts project as per a set timeline. The committee also recommended the government to explore the feasibility of collaborating with private sector if required.
Principle of Open Courts is not complied with when hearing cases online
A representative of the Bar Council expressed concern over the opaqueness of VC hearings as it conflicts the spirit of Open Court Principle which requires that court proceedings be open and accessible to public and media. Efforts taken in countries like England and Canada to adhere to the principle were cited as examples by the body. However, this is not the first time that the Open Court Principle has been discussed.
The apex court reaffirmed the importance of the principle and observed that live streaming of Court hearings is an extension of the same as per the judgements in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others (1966), Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), and Indira Jai Singh vs. Secretary General of Supreme Court & Ors (2018). Even in India, the Madras High Court permitted live streaming of contempt proceedings against lawyers in 2015 and the Calcutta High Court permitted live streaming of hearing in a case involving the Parsi community in 2020.
The Committee recommended that the Court proceedings be live streamed to reinforce public faith in judiciary and recommended livestreaming of important cases which have a potential impact on public. The committee felt that these will be a step towards upholding transparency. Furthermore, crowding inside the court would also be reduced with live streaming.
Data protection and privacy are a cause of concern globally
The issues of data protection and data privacy were also raised in the report. This is an issue not just in India but worldwide too. Third party software is being used in India for VC hearings which are susceptible to hacking and manipulation. Ministry of Law and Justice and the Ministry of Electronics and IT were asked to look into developing a new platform for Indian judiciary. They also added that private companies may be roped in for developing AI systems to support documentation and use of graphics.
Sluggish progress in government project for computerizing Court proceedings
An Evaluation Study of e-Court Integrated Mission Mode Project commissioned by the Law Ministry noted that the infrastructure of Courts in the country mainly in rural areas, is poor. The study also found that the digital connectivity is poor thereby making it difficult for them to adapt to the VC system. Since the 1990s, computerization of some of the processes of the judicial system is being done to improve the efficiency of the system.
e-Courts Integrated Mission Project was launched in a phased manner to extend services to all key stakeholders-including the judiciary, district and subordinate courts, and citizens, litigants, and lawyers by enabling all District and Subordinate Courts through ICT. For this, the Courts would be provided with Computer Hardware, LAN, and Broadband connectivity among others. The first phase was implemented between 2007 & 2015 and since 2015, the second phase is in progress. The Committee expressed its discontent in the sluggish progress of the same and hence called for revision of the policy.
Only about 73% of the funds released have been used by HCs in more than 4 years
According to a parliament response in September 2020, Rs. 1760 crores were allocated for the second phase of the project and the government had released Rs.1459.52 crores to various organisations. In 2020-21, Rs. 68.33 crore has been released. As on 31 August 2020, a sum of Rs. 1077.76 crore has been released to all High Courts of which Rs. 790.04 crore has been utilized. On an average, only about 73% of the funds released to High Courts have been utilized so far. The utilization of these funds ranges from 96% by Punjab and Haryana High Court to nearly 35% by Gauhati (Arunachal Pradesh). Punjab HC is the only High Court to have utilized more than 90% of the funds released. Meanwhile, Delhi HC and Calcutta HC have utilized only about 43% of the funds released so far.  The number of High Courts by percentage of fund utilized is given in the table.
Though convenient, VCs have their own shortcomings which need to be addressed
To sum up the standing committee report, VCs are convenient and help in faster clearance of cases and overcome the restrictions imposed during a pandemic like COVID-19. It also brings down the expenses of commuting and paperwork, and saves a lot of time, thereby making it an affordable and accessible platform not just during the pandemic, but in the future as well.
However, starting from the ground level, there are many challenges that need to be addressed to ensure a standardized and secure functioning of VCs and this isn’t as simple as it might sound. Even though the Minister of Law and Justice has also pushed for VCs, there are many challenges involved.  For instance, there is uncertainty on whether the person is being coerced to speak. Body language and other non-verbal cues may not be observable in VC hearings. Reportedly, there are even instances of judges and advocates not maintaining the judicial decorum when working outside Courtrooms. All these issues should be looked into in addition to addressing the infrastructure, connectivity & skill gaps, before making VC hearings a permanent fixture.
Featured Image: Virtual Court Proceedings

created: November 20, 2020


text:
International Migrants more than doubled in 30 years, represent 3.6% of World Population
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 1, 2022
The World Migration Report 2022 presents updated statistics and understanding of migration and mobility throughout the world. The latest report indicated that there were around 281 million international migrants in the world in 2020, up from 128 million in 1990. The total migrant population represents only 3.6% of the global population. Here is a review.
The World Migration Report 2022 presents updated statistics and understanding of migration and mobility throughout the world. In this story, we look at evidence-based analysis of emerging migration trends and issues.
Migrations constitute 3.6% of global population; only 1 in 30 people are migrants
According to current global estimates, there were around 281 million international migrants in the world in 2020, which equates to 3.6% of the global population. Overall, the estimated number of international migrants has increased over the past five decades, from more than 128 million in 1990 to 281 million in 2020.
The UN Report calculates that vast majority of people continue to live in the countries in which they were born and hence only one in 30 are migrants.
Significantly, the great majority of people do not migrate across borders; much larger numbers migrate within countries (an estimated 740 million internal migrants in 2009). However, the increase in international migrants has been evident over time – both numerically and proportionally – and at a slightly faster rate than previously anticipated.
Although there is only a small proportion of the world’s population overall who are international migrants (3.6%), there exists wide variation at the country level. In some countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, over 88% of the population are international migrants.
Remittances soar to USD 702 billion in 2020; faced only a 2.4% dip due to COVID-19
International remittances are financial or in-kind transfers made by migrants directly to families or communities in their countries of origin. The World Bank compiles global data on international remittances. This data, however, does not capture unrecorded flows through formal or informal channels. The actual magnitude of global remittances is therefore likely to be larger than available estimates.
According to current global estimates, there has been an overall increase in remittances in recent decades, from USD 126 billion in 2000 to USD 702 billion in 2020. Despite predictions of a large decline in international remittances due to COVID-19, the year 2020 saw only a slight drop from the 2019 global total. One of earlier stories discusses this in detail.
India & China are top remittance recipients
In 2020, India, China, Mexico, the Philippines, and Egypt were top five remittance recipient countries. India and China were considerably above the rest, with total inward remittances exceeding USD 83 billion and USD 59 billion, respectively. Mexico, Philippines, and Egypt recorded remittances at USD 42.9 billion, USD 34.9 billion, and USD 26.6 billion, respectively.  This is followed by Pakistan at USD 26.1 billion, France at USD 24.5 billion, and so on.
The following graph shows how the top ten remittance recipients have shifted since 1995.
Source: World Migration Report 2022
India’s inward remittance grew by 6.5 times in the last 20 years and 34.7 times in the last 30 years
As per the World Bank (WB) Group’s Migration and Development Brief 2021, India has remained as the top destination for inward remittances. After a slight fall in 2020 due to COVID-19, India inward remittance was estimated at USD 87 billion in the WB Brief, which is close to the actual figures reported in the present UN Migration Report. For the past 20 years, from 2000 to 2020, the value of remittances to India grew by 6.5 times during this period.  One of earlier stories discusses this in detail.
In the last 30 years, the value of remittances to India grew by more than 34.7 times. From USD 2.4 billion in 1990, the inward remittance to India has grown to USD 83 billion in 2020.
As per the RBI’s fourth round of survey of authorised dealers on India’s inward remittances in 2016-17, about 58.7% of total remittances was received by four states namely Kerala, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The Southern States dominated with a combined share of 46% in total remittances.
The RBI Bulletin states that the flows of remittances broadly mirror the State-wise composition of the stock of overseas migrants. These results are largely corroborated by surveys independently conducted by multilateral agencies, which have also highlighted a shift in cross-border migration flow from prosperous states such as Kerala and Karnataka to states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar largely comprising of low or semiskilled contractual workers with low level of income. For instance, states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar (two of the most populous states in India) together accounted for 4.4% of total remittances in 2016-17.
US remains the top remittance-sending country, followed by UAE, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland & Germany
In 2020, the United States has consistently been the top remittance-sending country, with a total outflow of USD 68 billion. This was followed by the United Arab Emirates (USD 43.2 billion), Saudi Arabia (USD 34.6 billion), Switzerland (USD 27.96 billion), and Germany (USD 22 billion).
China (also a top remittance recipient) is also the 6th largest remittance-sending country at USD 18.1 billion. This is followed by Russia at USD 16.9 billion, France (also 7th largest remittance recipient) at USD 15 billion, and so on.
High-income countries have remained the main source of remittances.
The following graph shows how the top ten remittance sources have shifted since 1995.
Source: World Migration Report 2022
Europe and Asia hosted the highest global migrant stock in 2020
The UN Migration Report 2022 highlights that COVID-19 travel restriction measures – both internal and international – were quickly put in place by the vast majority of countries around the world, with the peak occurring in late March to early April 2020.
While the number of international migrants increased in all UN regions, it increased at a higher degree in Asia and Europe as compared to other regions. In 2020, Europe and Asia each hosted around 87 and 86 million international migrants, respectively – comprising 61% of the global international migrant stock. These regions were followed by North America, with almost 59 million international migrants or 21% of the global migrant stock, Africa at 9%, Latin America and the Caribbean at 5%, and Oceania at 3%.
However, when compared with the size of the population in each region, shares of international migrants in 2020 were highest in Oceania, North America, and Europe, where international migrants represented, respectively, 22%, 16% and 12% of the total population. In comparison, the share of international migrants is relatively small in Asia and Africa (1.8% and 1.9%, respectively) and Latin America and the Caribbean (2.3%).
In a nutshell, the World Migration Report 2020 emphasises that migration corridors represent an accumulation of migratory movements over time. Multiple factors have shaped migration “corridors” over the years. Long-term data shows that international migration is not uniform across the world but is shaped by economic, geographic, demographic, and other factors resulting in distinct migration patterns, such as migration “corridors” developed over many years.
The report features interesting and interactive maps and timeline charts providing a snapshot of how migration patterns have evolved over the years.
Featured Image: International Migrants

created: January 1, 2022


text:
Review: JK&L High Court Rules That Writ Petition Should Not Be Entertained in Case of Availability of Statutory And Equally Efficacious Remedy
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
December 28, 2022
In this edition of court judgements review, we look at the Supreme Court’s judgement on dismissal of CISF officer, Kerala High Court’s remarks on ‘Right to be Forgotten’, Delhi High Court’s judgement on molestation, Madras High Court’s judgement on court’s interference in PMLA proceedings, and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court’s judgement on maintainability of writ petition in light of availability of an alternative and effective remedy.
SC: Police Officers are not required to do moral policing, ask for physical favour or material goods
In CISF and Others vs. Santosh Kumar Pandey, the apex court held that even police officers are not required to do any form of moral policing, while upholding the dismissal of a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) officer who harassed a couple at night.
The bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J.K. Maheshwari was hearing an appeal filed by the CISF against the reinstatement of the officer as directed by the Gujarat High Court. Santosh Kumar Pandey was on night duty when he saw his colleague with his fiancée travelling in a motorbike. He then stopped them and asked his colleague if ‘he can spend some time’ with his fiancée and also demanded some material goods if they were to be left. Upon a complaint and subsequent departmental inquiry, it was found that the officer was guilty and as a result, was dismissed from the service. It was challenged by the officer in Gujarat High Court which directed reinstatement along with the 50% back wages. The CISF filed an appeal against this judgement.
Upon hearing the counsels from both sides and looking at the evidence and reasoning, the apex court held that unless the court finds that the findings recorded are based on no evidence, are perverse, or are legally untenable in the sense that it fails to pass the muster of the Wednesbury principles, judicial review is not equivalent to adjudication of the case on the merits, and adequacy or inadequacy of evidence. In this case particularly, it observed that when the Evidence Act is not relevant, a comprehensive and practical approach is necessary. Even when the Evidence Act is applicable, the enactment grants discretion on issues related to the evaluation, analysis, and appraisal of evidence. It further held that
Regarding the issue of penalty proportionality, the apex court held that the facts in the current instance are shocking and upsetting. The respondent is not a police officer, and even police officers are not required to do moral policing or solicit pecuniary or physical favours.
Accordingly, the disciplinary authority’s decision to remove the employee from service is upheld, and High Court’s judgement is set aside.
Kerala HC: A claim for the protection of personal information based on the right to privacy cannot co-exist in an Open Court justice system and in cases where the law does not recognize the open court system and matrimonial cases, masking of personal identities is permitted
In Vysakh K.G. vs. Union of India & Anr. And Other Connected Cases, the Kerala High Court held that a claim for the protection of personal information based on the right to privacy cannot coexist in an open court justice system, and masking of personal identities is allowed in situations where the law does not recognise the open court system.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen was hearing a petition referred by Single Judge Justice Anil K. Narendran as these cases present a question of seminal importance in judicial information policy. The reference is as below.
This was clubbed with other cases that have similar arguments. The petitioners claim in these cases is regarding the publication of court records and the right to privacy and the fine balance between them. The discussion in the High Court proceedings was around Privacy, Courts as democratic institutions, open data and public interest and the right to be forgotten.
On the Privacy front, the Court felt that the primary issue for the petitioners is allowing their personal and private information to remain permanently in the digital public space, invading their right to privacy and right to forget the past. On the Courts as institutions, it is held that a greater emphasis must be laid on the public interest to strengthen the relationship between open justice and the populace and to foster confidence in the administration of justice. Every public institution in a liberal democracy is based on public deliberation. On the issue of open data, the court viewed that the information that is available to the judiciary cannot be monopolised by the Court. Data withholding would be detrimental to””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””” the general welfare. The judiciary is required by the wider public interest to share data with the general public, stakeholders, researchers, government, etc., even though courts have not established any open data policies. While deciding on a case of this nature, the Court cannot disregard the greater legal environment in which the administration of justice operates. On the issue of the ‘Right to be forgotten’, the “right to be forgotten” cannot be asserted as a “right in presentium” because it is contextually tied to the past. Everybody has the right to live in the present and forget about the past. This is a fundamental aspect of the right to live honourably.
Upon hearing the counsels, Amicus Curie, and senior lawyers, the Kerala High Court held that,
The court further stressed on the need for a legislation on this right to be forgotten. It held that nothing stops the Legislature from passing legislation recognising the right to be forgotten, which would allow it to decide what time period should be used to remove such information once it has passed. The Legislature also has the authority to specify the conditions under which a right to be forgotten may be exercised. The legislation must specify the grounds on which a person may assert the right to be forgotten because it is not an absolute right.
Finally, the High Court held that the Registry is bound to publish privacy notices on its website in both English and vernacular languages. Accordingly, the reliefs are granted.
Delhi HC: Priority should be given to the wellbeing of the child whose mental psyche is vulnerable, impressionable, and susceptible while dealing with issues connected to harassment of school-aged children
The Delhi High Court, in Ranajit Roy vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr, observed that any act of sexual harassment can cause mental trauma and can influence their thought process in the years that follow and in a majority of times, the long-term effects of sexual harassment are insurmountable.
The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was hearing an appeal against the judgement of a single judge that upheld the orders of the Delhi School Tribunal and Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the appellant. The appellant is a physics teacher against whom charges of sexual molestation are filed by the student of the ninth standard, which led to the suspension on grounds of lack of integrity and in violation of Rule 123(b)(xvii) and (xviii) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The Disciplinary authority handed down a heavy sanction of removal from service and the Appellant was given 15 days to file any representation against the proposed penalty. The Appellant appealed against the aforementioned order to the Tribunal which rejected the appellant’s appeal, and the appellant then challenged the Tribunal’s decision by submitting a Writ Petition to the learned Single Judge. The Order of the Tribunal and the Order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on the appellant were upheld by the learned Single Judge.
The Division bench, upon hearing both sides held that nothing substantial was brought on record by the appellant which would call for the interference of the court. It relied on the judgement of the apex court in Union of India and others vs. P. Gunasekaran , which listed out principles that mandate the court’s interference in disciplinary proceedings.
Further, it relied on Union of India and Others vs. Subrata Nath, it was held that Courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence.
Accordingly, it held that keeping in mind the judgement rendered in the case of P. Gunasekaran, none of the broad parameters, within which the High Court ought to exercise its powers under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, it does not see any reason to interfere with the Orders issued by the Disciplinary Authority, the Tribunal, and the learned Single Judge. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Madras HC: Courts are not expected to stall investigations unless such an investigation is found to be without jurisdiction or there is misuse of power of investigation, or such an investigation is an abuse of process of law
The Madras High Court, in Southern Agrifurane Industries Private Ltd., vs. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, held that the courts cannot act as stumbling blocks in the investigation if they are satisfied that the investigation is within the contours of the law and there is no misuse of the power of investigation.
The two-judge bench comprising of Justice P.N. Prakash and Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, was hearing a plea by Southern Agrifurane Industries Private Ltd to refrain the ED from proceeding with an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on the grounds that the Directorate was acting outside of its authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The corporation was accused of sending foreign currency abroad in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Management Rules, and the ED launched an inquiry. Certain movable and immovable possessions of the petitioner were seized subject to interim orders by the Directorate, which was not approved by the Competent authority. Further, it was argued that the company’s behaviour merely constitutes a FEMA violation and that no case of cheating had been established. Furthermore, even if the accusations were true, there were no proceeds of crime, and without those, no violation of the PMLA was established.
The court heard the counsels of both sides and agreed with the submissions made by the ED. It relied on judgement of the apex court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others. vs. Union of India and Others, where it was held that the ECIR is a departmental document that is exclusively used to open an inquiry under the PML Act and cannot be compared to a FIR. A predicate offence that complies with the scheduled offence requirements of the PML Act must have occurred to launch such an investigation. Apart from that, it suffices if there is prima facie evidence that the scheduled offence has produced proceeds of crime. In the current instance, both prerequisites are met.
Further, the High Court held that,
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
JKL High Court: In face of availability of statutory and equally efficacious remedy, writ petition should not be entertained
In Bindu Singh Jamwal vs. UT of J&K & Ors., the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that unless there are exceptions carved out to the general principles, writ petition cannot be entertained in the face of availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy.
A single judge bench of Wasim Sadiq Nargal was hearing a writ petition against the unilateral alteration of a revenue entry in respect of a piece of land without hearing the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s decision to remove an interim ruling in favour of the petitioner was being challenged in court. Further, the SDM ordered that a report must be submitted by the Tehsildar within 15 days, and the private respondent, in whose name the revenue entry was made, was prohibited from interfering with the petitioner’s possession. The court proceeded on the merits and vacated the interim order since the petitioner was unable to show up on the next date.
The counsel for the petitioner claims that the challenged ruling is otherwise perverse and cannot pass the test of law, and as such should be overturned. Because the petitioner had to be heard before the interim order could be vacated, the petitioner’s counsel has filed for its annulment. The counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary concerns in light of an alternative and effective remedy afforded by the Land Revenue Act, with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition.
Hearing both sides, the High Court agreed with the submission by the respondent that the current writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, as the petitioner did not avail of the alternative and effective remedy made available by the Act. Further, the court held that it did not think this is a situation that falls under the exceptions to the general principles, where the Constitutional Court would accept the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution in the face of an alternative and effective remedy.
The High Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how the petition falls under the exceptions carved to the general principles of law in cases of availability of alternate remedy.

created: December 28, 2022


text:
Review: Karnataka HC Holds That Not Mentioning Batch Number, Best Before or Veg/Non-Veg Symbol on Food Articles is an Offence
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
November 23, 2022
In this week’s review of Court Judgments, we look at Supreme Court’s dismissal of plea against penalty on Municipal body for dumping solid waste in a lake, Delhi High Court’s observation that Electricity is essential service, Kerala High court’s observation in a case that caused public outcry, Karnataka High Court’s judgment regarding a case relating to food adulteration and NCLAT’s observation regarding advance payment made for services not provided.
SC: Dismisses plea against penalty on Municipal body for dumping solid waste in Wular Lake
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Municipal Committee, Bandipora, challenging the National Green Tribunal’s refusal to interfere with the imposition of penalty by the J&K State Pollution Control Committee (PCC).
The Municipal Committee, Bandipora was imposed a penalty of Rs. 64.21 lakhs for the dumping of solid waste in the catchment area of Wular Lake in Kashmir.
Wular Lake is the second-largest freshwater lake in Asia. In 2019, activist Dr. Raja Muzaffar Bhat filed an application in the NGT against the dumping of waste and encroachment of Hokersar Wetland, Wular Lake. The NGT had in August 2020 directed the divisional commissioner, Kashmir, state PCC and other authorities to take necessary action.
In February 2021, the state PCC said that Solid waste was continuously dumped at the Zalwan Nassu site, which is a catchment area of Wular Lake. The site was in proximity to the district headquarters in Bandipora. PCC noted that the waste was being disposed in a haphazard and unscientific manner by the Municipal committee.
State PCC levied a fine of Rs. 64.21 lakhs upon the Executive Officer Municipal Committee, Bandipora for violation of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The fine was also levied in line with Environmental Compensation under Polluter Pays Principle as per approved guidelines of the Central Pollution Control Board and National Green Tribunal.
A Civil appeal was moved by the CEO of the local body. The NGT bench headed by its chairperson Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel observed that it remains undisputed that the municipal body did fail to scientifically manage the waste in terms of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, therefore it cannot interfere with the order passed by the state PCC. However, it stated that the amount recovered may be utilised for the restoration of the environment.
This stand of NGT was challenged in the Supreme Court. The bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T Ravikumar stated that they do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the National Green Tribunal and proceeded to dismiss the civil appeal.
Delhi HC: Electricity is an essential service, and cannot be denied without cogent, lawful reason
In the case of Sudarshan Kumar Sharma and Anr vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors, the Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed that electricity is an essential service and that a person cannot be deprived of it without a cogent or lawful reason.
The court was dealing with a plea filed by a couple, who are senior citizens, seeking the installation of a fresh electricity meter at their premises. They are engaged in a partition suit with the husband’s three brothers and hence want the electricity meter without the need for NOC from them.
A submission was made that, an electricity meter was provided to two of the respondents without insisting on NOC, but they have been denied the same for want of a NOC. The petitioners complied with all the formalities and there are no outstanding dues with respect to the electricity connection installed at the premises.
The counsel appearing for BSES (electricity provider) submitted that the petitioner’s request was not acceded to in view of the objections raised by the brothers. They concur with the petitioner’s submission that there are no pending dues.
The court observed that the supply of electricity cannot be denied to the petitioners. It directed the BSES to provide a fresh electricity connection without insisting on the NOC from other respondents within two weeks of filing the application.
The court said that it is well-settled that even if disputes exist regarding the ownership of a property for which an electricity connection is sought, the concerned authorities cannot deprive the legal occupant by insisting on a NOC.
With respect to NOC, reference was made to the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Dilip (dead) through Lrs vs. Satish & Others.
It asked the petitioners to pay the electricity charges without default and that BSES can disconnect the supply in failure of the same.
Karnataka HC: Not mentioning batch number, Best before or Veg/Non-Veg symbol on food articles is an offence.
A single judge bench of Justice Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry said that food articles sold without labels mentioning their batch number, “best before” and “Veg” or “Non-veg” symbol, etc. is an offence under Section 7(i) and 7(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and punishable under Section 16(1)(a).
The court was hearing the case of Syed Ahammed vs. the State of Karnataka, and upheld the decision of the trial court while dismissing the petition. The trial court has convicted one Syed Ahammed for storing and selling misbranded and adulterated coffee powder in his shop.
The complainant i.e., Food Inspector, alleged that while on his duty, he visited the petitioner’s shop and inspected the coffee seeds and their powder, which were meant for public sale. He noticed that the accused had stored and was selling misbranded and adulterated coffee powder in his shop.
He, accompanied by his staff purchased 600 gms of coffee powder and subjected it to scientific analysis. The report from the analyst confirms that the coffee powder was adulterated and misbranded. The misbranding relates to wrong information about the contents, and non-printing of batch numbers & “best before” on it. Hence it was alleged that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 7(i) and 7(ii) and 16(a)(i) of the Act.
The petitioner argued that the coffee powder was not adulterated and the public analyst in the report has also not stated that consumption of that coffee powder is injurious to health. The counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the shop was a small shop dealing with coffee seeds and coffee powder, therefore there was no misbranding of the coffee powder.
The court referred to the evidence, and noted that as per the scientific analysis, the caffeine content was 0.4 % which was less than the prescribed standard of “not less than 0.6%”. Further, the aqueous extract was 55%, whereas the prescribed standard was not to be more than 50%.
The analyst report also stated that the label fastened to the coffee powder shows that it was manufactured by Select Coffee Works, but the batch number, ‘best before’ and ‘veg’ or ‘non-veg’ symbol were also not printed upon it.
The court rejected the contention of the petitioner that the analyst has not opined the commodity was injurious to health and hence is not adulterated.
It stated that the arguments of the petitioner could not convince the court and that the coffee powder, a primary food, is proved to be adulterated.
Kerala HC: Court cannot be swayed by public outcry and proceeds to grants pre-arrest bail in an assault case.
Kerala High Court has granted pre-arrest bail to three Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) employees, who were booked for assaulting a man and his daughter for demanding renewal of a concession certificate for her.  There was a public outcry after a video of the incident was leaked in the media.
As for the case details, the accused were booked for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 342, 323, 324 and 354, read with Section 34 IPC. As per the submission of the persecution, the petitioners along with other accused (also KSRTC employees) formed an unlawful assembly and verbally abused and assaulted the complainant and his daughter. As per the statement given by the daughter, the complaint alleging the accused of outraging her modesty was also added.
The counsels on behalf of the petitioners contended that they were innocent and added that the public outrage was due to a distorted video and wrong media publicity.
The prosecution opposing the bail application submitted that the allegations were serious in nature. It also pointed out that since the video was leaked to the public, it would send a wrong message to the public if the accused were granted bail.
Based on the details, the court said that the only non-bailable offence is in relation to Section 354 IPC. It stated that the circumstances and the intention of the accused have a bearing on defining outrage to a woman’s modesty. In her statement, the complainant’s daughter submitted that in the push and pull during the incident, she felt pain over her body but asserted that none had hit her.
Based on the facts and circumstances and the statement given by the complainant and his daughter, the Court observed that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not essential.
The court stated that it cannot be swayed by public outcry and needs to strictly confine itself to the allegations and the statements given by the witnesses.
NCLAT Delhi: Advance paid towards service is operational debt.
As per the details of the case, Chipsan Aviation Private Limited vs. Punj Llyod Aviation Limited, Chipsan Aviation Pvt ltd. was engaged in business with Punj Lloyd Aviation ltd. for charter services of aeroplanes and helicopters, hired on a long-term basis for non-scheduled operators/owners.
On 28 March 2016, Chipsan Aviation Pvt Ltd (Operational Creditor) advanced an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs to Punj Lloyd (Operational Debtor) for aviation-related services. However, the services were not provided, nor was the advance amount refunded.
The amount received was shown under Current liabilities in the Balance Sheet of the Corporate Debtor. It was continuously shown as advances received from the customers during the financial years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18.
In late 2019, the Operational Creditor issued a Demand Notice under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), to the Operational Debtor demanding a refund of the advance amount.
Since there was no response, the Operational Creditor filed a petition under IBC, seeking initiation of an Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor over a default of Rs. 97.4 lakhs, inclusive of interest.
The Operational Debtor responded stating that there was no privity of contract between the parties and that no operational debt exists under IBC. It stated that the contract was with M/S Buildarch Aviation. It also pointed out that the advance payment was made on 28 March 2016 and the petition was filed after the expiry of three years.
The Adjudicating Authority rejected the petition and held that the advance payment made by the operational creditor does not fall within the definition of Operational Debt. The Operational Creditor filed an appeal before NCLAT against the order.
NCLAT’s bench placed emphasis on the Supreme Court judgment in Construction Consortium Limited vs. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
It observed that though there was no privity of contract between the parties, the advance payment of Rs. 60 lakhs is clearly operational debt. It stated that the Adjudicating Authority had committed an error in rejecting the petition. It set aside the order and revived the petition by Chipsan Aviation Pvt Ltd.
Featured Image: Review of Court Judgments

created: November 23, 2022


text:
Karnataka HC notes illegal parking on footpaths or public streets will amount to violation of fundamental rights
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
May 19, 2021
In this roundup of Court judgements, we look at Constitutional Courts’ remarks & directions on the concern regarding the shortage of the COVID-19 vaccine, the need to decongest jails due to the high risk of transmission, and illegal parking on footpaths and streets.
Karnataka HC: Illegal parking on footpaths or public streets will amount to violation of fundamental rights under Article 21.
In the case Ramachandra Reddy vs. Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, the high court held that encroachment of footways or public streets upon in any manner, including by parking of vehicles, will amount to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21
The court was hearing public interest litigation regarding the encroachments made on footpaths/ footways in a particular location of the city. The petitioner also prayed for making a particular street one-way and for ensuring that all road signals are erected.
The petitioner submitted photographs revealing that the footways are being used for parking two-wheelers and four-wheelers. The report submitted by the Member Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority also showed that the footways are being used for parking vehicles and particularly two-wheelers and there are other encroachments on the footways.
In examining the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, the high court held that it is the statutory obligation of the BBMP to properly maintain public streets, and the right to have roads and footways in a reasonable condition is a part of the right guaranteed under Article 21.
Therefore, the court held that serious consequences may follow in the event there is a breach or violation of the said right guaranteed by the Constitution of India, by the BBMP, or any other Corporation established under the Act of 1976. Thus, it follows that if the footways or public streets are encroached upon in any manner including by parking of vehicles, it will amount to a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Madhya Pradesh HC: The need of the hour is to immediately decongest jails.
In a suo moto proceeding, the high court took note of regular reports about prisoners, both under-trial and convicted, being found infected with Coronavirus. Considering that all the Jails in the State are presently housing prisoners almost double the number of their capacity, the high court observed that the need of the hour is to immediately decongest them.
The judgement mentions the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) report titled “Preparedness, Prevention and control of COVID-19 in prisons and other places of detention” that highlights that prisoners are more vulnerable to the pandemic than the general population because of the confined conditions in which they live together for prolonged periods of time. The judgement also highlights the Supreme Court case that acknowledged “a high risk of transmission of COVID-19 to prison inmates”, with prisoners, prison staff, families of prisoners and lawyers entering and leaving jails frequently, and called upon the State Governments and the Union Territories to submit replies on steps being taken by them to prevent the spread of the pandemic among prisoners and juveniles. The apex court suggested that prisoners convicted of or charged with offences involving jail terms of seven years or less could be considered for release on parole or interim bail. It was, however, left open for the ‘High Powered Committees’ to determine the category of prisoners who should be released.
The judgement notes the actual number of the prisoners against the cumulative capacity of all the Central Jails, District Jails, Open Jails, and Sub-jails in the State at the end of February 2021.
In view of the overly congested situation of jails and the unprecedented situation faced by the country following the second wave of COVID-19, the bench recommended that the jail authorities should consider granting emergent parole, of at least 90 days, on usual conditions to the following categories of prisoners:
For under-trial prisoners, the bench recommended the following:
The Superintendent of Jails should in respect of under-trials prisoners, who are facing trial for the offence punishable up to a maximum of seven years, obtain their applications for interim bail and forward the same to the District and Session Judge concerned, who shall have the same considered and decided within four days for their release on temporary bail for at least a period of 90 days, on the execution of bail bond and surety.
The Superintendent of Jail should in respect of those under-trial prisoners, who are covered by the SOP issued by the National Legal Services Authority in December 2018, obtain their applications for grant of interim bail and similarly forward the same to the District and Session Judge concerned, who shall have the same considered and decided within four days for their release on temporary bail for at least a period of 90 days, on the execution of bail bond and surety. In this regard, the assistance of the District Legal Services Authority may be taken if necessary.
In addition to the above, the high court also to issue following directions:
High courts express concern over shortage of COVID-19 vaccine
While recognizing that vaccination is a major step required to prevent the spread of COVID-19, several high courts of the country expressed concern over the shortage of vaccines being faced by states. Given the present circumstances, the courts noted that the facts and figures on record show that the situation on availability of vaccines is not reassuring, with several states facing difficulties in maintaining the pace of their vaccination drives.
Karnataka HC: Not giving second dose of COVID-19 vaccine will be a violation of fundamental right to life under Article 21.
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to place on record a road map on how it proposes to provide vaccination to everyone in the state. The court has also asked the state to elucidate how it is going to achieve the target of vaccinating those above the age of 45 years and how it proposes to cover the weaker sections of the society.
The high court also observed that not giving a second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine will be a violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. On perusing the figures, the court noted that broadly there are 31 lakh beneficiaries in the state, who are awaiting their second dose per prevailing policy. However, the total stock of vaccines in the state as of 13 May 2021,  is 12,32,960 doses (inclusive of both Government of India quota and state procured). On state’s submission, the bench noted that currently there are 14,87,262 Covishield beneficiaries due for the 2nd dose and 5,10,467 Covaxin beneficiaries due for the 2nd dose, out of the stock of 12,32,960 available. Thus, the court notes that there will be a gap of approx. 8.73 lakh vaccine doses.
The court observed that if the present scenario continues, the vaccination drive will be completely ineffective in the state. The high court urged the Central Government to bridge the gap in the shortage of vaccine at the earliest to prevent wastage of National Resources.
Kerala HC: Directed the central government to furnish a time-frame within which vaccines will be supplied to state
While taking up a PIL challenging the Centre’s ‘Liberalised Pricing and Accelerated National Covid-19 Vaccination Strategy’, the high court directed the Centre to apprise it of the time frame within which Covid vaccines could be supplied to the State. In another order dated 07 May 2021, the high court had asked the Centre to furnish details regarding the supply of vaccines to Kerala.
Delhi HC: Dissemination of information on COVID-19 management crucial
On hearing a clutch of petitions concerning the COVID-19 situation in the national capital, the bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rekha Palli urged the Central government and Government of Delhi to take steps regarding the dissemination of information on COVID-19 management. The high court held that appropriate dissemination of information is the responsibility of the state. Questioning the caller tune used for awareness of vaccination drive, the high court also questioned the centre on how will people get vaccinated if there are not enough vaccines.
In submission, the counsel for GoI apprised the high court that the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has from time to time updated the guidelines and have also taken steps to share regular tweets and short videos on ICMR’s Twitter handle and that the brochures are uploaded on the website.
To this, the bench observed that informative audio-visuals should be televised on news channels like Doordarshan. The court emphasised that information on what kind of Concentrator to buy, what are the do’s and don’ts, etc. are crucial under the current circumstances and must be provided to people in an easily understandable manner. The high court also suggested that engagement with a team of producers or experts in collaboration with the experts themselves can be used for the dissemination and propagation of COVID-19 information.
Featured Image: Important Court Decisions


text:
Review: Karnataka HC orders compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to a man wrongly arrested
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
August 3, 2022
In this week’s review of Court Judgments, we look at the Supreme Court’s observation regarding the mother’s right to decide on the surname of the child and the apex court’s observation regarding the criteria to decide the custody of a child. We also look at the Delhi High Court’s consideration of delay in filing an appeal in a POSH Act case, Allahabad High Court’s decision upholding the will of a minor child and Karnataka High court’s directions for compensation relating to wrongful arrest.
Supreme Court: Mother can give the surname of the second husband to the child after the death of the biological father.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice Krishna Murari observed that a mother who has remarried after the death of her earlier husband can decide the surname of the child and include her in her new family.  In the case, Akella Lalita vs. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao, Supreme Court has set aside an earlier judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
As per the case details, the dispute was between the mother of the child, who has remarried and the parents of her deceased husband, who is the biological father of the child. The contention was about the surname that needs to be given to the child.  The mother approached Supreme Court challenging the judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The AP High Court in its judgement had directed the mother to change the surname of the child and also to show the name of her new husband in records only as ‘stepfather’. The High-count directed that wherever the records permit, the name of the natural father shall be shown.
The case in the Supreme Court raised two issues:
The Supreme Court bench referred to the case of Githa Hariharan & Ors vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors, wherein the mother was elevated to an equal position as a father thereby improving her right as a natural guardian of the child under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Adoption Act, 1956.
Regarding the surname, the bench observed that surname is not only indicative of lineage but also plays a role in the social reality and creating a sense of being for children in a particular environment. Homogeneity of surname helps to create, sustain, and display the notion of family.
It noted that the direction of the High Court to include the name of the present husband as step-father in documents is almost cruel and is mindless of how it would impact the mental health and self-esteem of the child. Since the child would now be part of the adoptive family it is logical that he takes the surname of the adoptive family.
Delhi High Court: Delay in filing appeal u/s 18 of POSH act can be condoned
In the case DB Corp ltd vs. Shailja Naqvi & Ors, Delhi High Court observed that under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 i.e. POSH Act, a victim’s delay in filing an appeal against the inquiry report can be accepted if such a delay is explained.
Per the case details, the first respondent accused the second respondent of having sexually harassed her at the workplace.  The complaint was referred to an internal complaints committee of the company. Through the inquiry report dated 24 May 2016, the second respondent was exonerated. An appeal was filed against the report under Section 18 of the POSH Act to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal condoned the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal. This was challenged by the petitioner company, which was aggrieved by the order of the tribunal court.
The question raised in the High court was whether the Industrial tribunal could condone the delay in filing the appeal under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act, as there is no provision for condonation of delay.  The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar agreed with the observation made by the Industrial Tribunal and stated that a victim of sexual harassment remains in a state of trauma, and it cannot be expected that she would immediately approach a court to seek appellate remedies.
Allahabad High Court: Can’t detain minor in protection homes against her wishes
Allahabad High Court bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed that even the parents cannot compel detention of a minor against her will unless there is some other reason for it. The court made this observation in case X(Minor) and Another vs. the State Of U.P. and 2 Others and granted the custody of the minor to her mother after ascertaining the minor’s wishes.
As far as the case is concerned, the mother of the minor victim lodged an FIR under Section 363 and 366 IPC relating to her missing daughter. The victim was recovered from the Railway station in Kasganj and was produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Kasganj. In the statement, the minor expressed her desire to go with her mother and also refused medical examination.
However, the Child Welfare Committee did not give custody of the victim to her mother but sent her to Rajkiya Balika Grih.  The mother moved an instant revision plea challenging the order passed by Child Welfare Committee, Kasganj.
The victim expressed her desire to go with her mother, even to the High Court. Since the mother was also willing to take custody, the pending question before the court was whether a victim can be kept in a protective home against her wishes.
The court reviewed multiple earlier judgments and observed that while the welfare and care of the child is the legal responsibility of the child welfare authority, credence must also be given to the wishes of the child.
Based on the statements made by the victim and her mother, the court directed to handover of the custody of the victim to the mother and set aside the order passed by Child Welfare Committee.
Supreme Court: Wish or Desire of a Child is different from the Best Interest of Child
The Supreme Court observed a difference between the question of ‘What is the wish/desire of the child’ and ‘what would be the best interest of the child’. This observation was made by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar & CT Ravi Kumar in the case, Rohith Thammana Gowda vs. State of Karnataka.
An appeal was filed by a father whose habeas corpus petition was earlier dismissed by the Karnataka High Court.  In the high court, the father contended that the child is in unlawful custody of the mother, and she is continuing to hold the custody of the child against the orders issued in the US courts to return the child to USA.
The High court, based on the interaction with the child noticed that the child expressed the desire to stay with his mother. Hence, the high court held that the child is not in the unlawful custody of the mother.
Looking into the appeal, Supreme Court observed that there needs to be a distinction between the desire of the child and what is best for the child. The court needs to look beyond the allegations made against each other by the couple as they are at loggerheads and as the allegations are aimed to depict the other parent as unworthy of having custody of the child.  Therefore, the court needs to consider what would be in the best interest of the child.
The Supreme Court stated that the Karnataka High Court ought to have acknowledged the orders of the US Court which directed the return of the minor child to its father in view of the best interests of the child. As such, the welfare of the child would be for the return to his native country i.e., the USA. The child is a naturalised American citizen and has an American passport.  He was brought up with the social and cultural values of the USA and is more accustomed to them. Further, there would be better prospects if he returns to the USA.  In view of this, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and issued various directions regarding the custody and visitation rights.
Karnataka HC: Orders compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to a man wrongly arrested
In the case Ningaraju N vs. Official Liquidator of M/S India Holiday Pvt. Ltd, the Karnataka High Court directed the state government to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to Ningaraju N, for being wrongly arrested based on alleged confusion in identity. Further, the single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has held that whenever any warrant is issued, the arresting officer is required to ascertain the identity and be assured of the person being arrested is the same one against whom the warrant is issued.
As per the details presented in the case, the only reason why the person was arrested was that the name of the father of the person arrested was the same as the name of the father of the person against whom the warrant was issued.  The court expressed its failure to comprehend, how the name of the father might have influenced the wrongful arrest.  It was observed that the arrestee stated that he was not the person named in the warrant, but the arresting officer has not verified and presented him in court. This is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution.
It directed the State to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs within 8 weeks. It also directed the Director General of Police to issue guidelines or Standard Operating Procedure, if not already issued, regarding the steps to be taken by the arresting officer before arresting a person.
Featured Image: Review of Court Judgments

created: August 3, 2022


text:
Review: Karnataka HC Rules That Accused Who is Acquitted of Charges is Entitled to Anonymity of His Name in Digital Records
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 20, 2024
In this edition of the Court judgements review, we look at the SC directions regarding details to be contained in Police Reports filed before magistrates after the investigation of criminal cases, Madhya Pradesh HC order that police protection cannot be given for longer period to private persons, even if it had involved threat of life, Karnataka HC order that an Accused who is Acquitted of Charges made against is entitled to anonymity of his name in the Digital Records, as a matter of Right to Live with Dignity.
SC: Issues important directions regarding details to be contained in Police Reports filed before magistrates after the investigation of criminal cases
In the case of Dablu Kujur vs. The State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court (SC) was dealing with the bail application filed by the accused in the commission of crimes under Section 302, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25 of Arms Act (AA). The court dismissed the bail application by holding that it is not inclined to do so, since the trial of the case in the fag end.
In the same case, the SC has also issued several important directions on the information and details to be contained in the report filed by the police officers before the competent magistrates after the completion of the crime investigations under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), while referring to its earlier order dated 17 July 2023, wherein it had observed that the chargesheets filed by the police of Jharkhand, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh did not contain the necessary details in accordance with section 173 of the CrPC.
Accordingly, the SC issued the following directions on the information to be contained in the police reports filed under section 173 of CrPC and ordered strict compliance by the Police.
Madhya Pradesh HC: Police Protection cannot be given for longer period to private persons, even if it had involved threat of life
In the case of X vs. Y, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (HC) was dealing with a writ petition filed by two businessmen, who are brothers and are engaged in the business of Real Estate in the City of Gwalior. The facts of the case were that in the year 2005, the petitioners had sought police protection from the Superintendent of Police (SP) with the claim that they had received threats of extortion from miscreants, after which the police protection was given to them. Subsequently, the petitioners and their sons were attacked. The son of Petitioner No. 2 was killed, whereas Petitioner No. 1 had survived because of the gunman provided to him and Petitioner No. 2 was the witness of the incident. In the year 2007, the accused were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the police protection continued to be given to the petitioners. In the year 2008, the SP had sought to remove police protection for petitioners, citing the non-payment of required fees for the police protection to the petitioners. However, it continued for 3 more years and was eventually removed in the year 2011. Subsequently, the petitioners have filed the Writ Petition in HC seeking police protection. In its interim order dated 6 January 2012, the HC had directed the police department to give the police protection until the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the matter did not come up for hearing for several years and was heard in the year 2023. During all these years, the police protection was continued to be given to the petitioners.
When the matter was taken up, the HC noted that all the miscreants responsible for the attack were already sentenced to life imprisonment in accordance with the law and that no other threat against petitioners exists. In addition, the petitioners also have 3 private licensed guns with them. Further, the court noted that the petitioners did not pay the requisite fee which was supposed to be paid to the police department for providing police services to them.
Therefore, the HC dismissed the plea for grant of police protection by noting that it is neither a constitutional nor a statutory right of petitioners to enjoy continuation of police protection. The police are for the protection of common people such as the poor, whistle-blowers, women facing harassment, eve teasing, etc., The core duties of police are crime investigation and tacking law and order, which would take a backseat if they were given for service of superfluous claims made by petitioners. But, against the Spirit of the Constitution, petitioners have enjoyed the free services of policemen all through from 2012, and even without paying any amount of fee. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition and ordered for arrears amount of Rs. 2,55,64,176 rupees to be paid to the police department.
J & K HC: Approaching Sessions Court first for Anticipatory bail is preferrable, though the concurrent jurisdiction exists with HC
In Mohd. Shafi Masi vs. Union Territory of J&K, the HC of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed an application for Anticipatory Bail by stating that it is preferable to approach the session court first for the same relief, though the concurrent jurisdiction vests with the high courts as well. The court relied on the numerous orders which various HCs have already passed on the same issue. Particularly, the court noted that in Smt. Manisha Neema vs. State of M.P. (2003 (2) MPLJ 587), the Madhya Pradesh HC has held that approaching the lower court i.e. Sessions Court first gives an advantage to the HC to appraise itself on the grounds which have been considered by the session court. Further, in Smt. Savitri Samso vs. State of Karnataka (2001 CriLJ 3164), the Karnataka HC held that applications for Anticipatory Bails should be filed before the Sessions Court first unless sufficient cause for not approaching the same court is made out before the HC. Similarly, the J& K HC in Rouf Ahmad Mir v. SSP and Anr had held that HC can entertain Anticipatory Bail applications before they were filed in the Session Courts if only rare, exceptional, and unusual circumstances exist.
By taking note of catena of other judgments that have held a similar position, the HC held that there is nothing on record that shows circumstances or compelling reasons that have prevailed in the case before it to skip over the jurisdiction of Sessions Court and approach the High Court directly. Accordingly, it dismissed the Anticipatory Bail Application.
Karnataka HC: Accused who is Acquitted of Charges made against is entitled to anonymity of his name in the Digital Records, as a matter of Right to Live with Dignity
In the case of X vs. Y, the Karnataka HC was dealing with a Writ Petition (WP) in which the petitioner sought the relief of erasing his name from the digital records of the court, relating to a case in which he was accused and was subsequently acquitted.
The facts of the case were that in a separate criminal case, the petitioner was accused of intimidating a 16-year-old minor girl for sexual intercourse through the text messages that he was exchanging with a minor girl. The minor girl’s father filed a criminal case against the petitioner under the IPC and POCSO Act. Upon the investigation, the case was found false and subsequently, the petitioner was discharged of charges against him. However, his name would appear on the internet and in the digital forums, including the digital records maintained by the courts, as the accused and then the acquitted. Due to this, the petitioner approached HC, claiming that the appearance of his name in the digital records of the court is preventing him from getting jobs and pursuing his career. Therefore, it is depriving him of his personal right to live with dignity, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court had agreed with the contention of the petitioner that though he is acquitted of charges laid against him, his name continues to appear in the digital records, which is causing him to lose his job and also his reputation. While agreeing to it, the court referred to several other judgments in which it was held that the right to privacy from the digital world is part of the Right to Life, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1), the SC observed that the impact of the digital age is such that information about individuals is permanently stored. Though people forget, the internet does not, and it does not let people forget too. People are not static as they change, they are entitled to re-invent, reform, and grow from their past, which can be nurtured by the Right to Privacy.
Accordingly, the court directed the erasure of the petitioner’s name in the digital records of the court, but not in the police records.
Karnataka HC: Divorced Husband cannot be allowed to create artificial deductions to provide less maintenance to Family
In the case of X vs. Y, the Karnataka HC was dealing with the petition filed against the order of the Family Court. The facts of the case were that Husband ‘X’ and Wife ‘Y’ were married and bore a girl child. Subsequently, they are divorced, owing to the cruel treatment of the wife by the husband. The family court ordered a maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000 to be paid to the wife for a lifetime or till she remarries and Rs. 10,000 to be paid to the daughter till her marriage, along with the cost of litigation. The husband challenged the maintenance amount award granted by the family court to the wife and child, by claiming that it was too high an amount for him to provide.
When the matter was taken up, the HC noted that the husband is a working employee of the State Bank of India (SBI) and drawing a salary of over 1,00,000 rupees. In contra, the wife does not have any source of income, and the daughter is not married yet. The husband claimed that though he draws a high salary, a lot of it goes into monthly deductions. The court noted that the deductions claimed by the husband are provident fund contribution, house rent recovery, furniture recovery, loan obtained by the husband, LIC premium and festival advance, which are all deductions accruing to the benefit him only and they cannot be considered as deductible in the assessment of maintenance to be given to the family.
If such a claim is allowed to operate, it would result in the creation of artificial deductions, which would then be used to show lesser home take-away salary, to deliberately mislead the courts in such matters. This is evident in the present case where the husband has arranged for 50% of deductions to be made on salary for the sole benefit and to purposefully reduce the amount of maintenance to be paid.
Accordingly, the HC has dismissed the petition and ordered a maintenance amount as awarded by the family court, along with an additional cost of Rs. 15,000 as litigation cost, to be paid to the wife and daughter by the husband.