Liability of employee is on principal employer: HC

MUMBAI: In a significant ruling, the Bombay high court has laid down a substantial point of law, saying the liability towards an employee engaged by a contractor or managing agent is on the principal employer.

The court recently upheld the decision of 'Mumbai Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation' to award monetary relief to a worker, who died in an accident despite the fact that he was not employed by the principal employer but by a contractor.

Justice A H Joshi was hearing an appeal filed by United Assurance Company Ltd, which challenged the award of compensation to a driver who was hired by M G M Motors to transport vehicles on behalf of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (M&M).

The Judge noted that this being an appeal under The Employees' Compensation Act, the appellant has to substantiate the challenge on substantial questions of law.

He directed the appellant's advocate K V Vitonde to pin point and address the court on substantial question of law whether a principal employer would be liable to pay compensation to a worker employed by a managing agency.

Admittedly, the victim was not employed by M&M, a top auto firm, which owned the vehicles. The victim was rather employed by M G M Motors to whom the work/contract for transport of vehicles was entrusted by the auto company.

The vehicles were required to be transported by a driver, Sureshkumar Parasnath Singh, engaged by M G M Motors on behalf of M&M. Thus, the HC held the liability towards an employee engaged by contractor or a managing agent is on the principal employer (in this case M&M).

It was suggested that since the driver was engaged by M G M Motors, the appellant (United India Assurance) does not have the liability towards payment of compensation.

The HC, however, said it is not proved that due to any terms of contract between the two sides, the liability towards employees' compensation was to be borne by M G M Motors.

Irrespective of terms, the employee concerned is seen to be entitled to receive the compensation, the Judge remarked and dismissed the appeal finding no merit in it.

Life convict can't claim to be released after 14 years: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a life convict cannot claim to have a right to be released after spending 14 years behind the bars.

A bench of P Sathasivam and J S Khehar said that life imprisonment means imprisonment for whole life and only the President and the Governors can remit the sentence and allow the convict to be released.

The bench, however, said that in those cases the government should take into account the gravity of offence while remitting the sentence.

"This court, in a series of decisions has held that life imprisonment means imprisonment for whole of life subject to the remission power granted under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution," the court said.

The court passed the order on a plea of a convict, who was awarded death sentence by trial court but was commuted into life imprisonment by Gauhati High Court, seeking direction to release him on the ground that he spent 14 years behind the bars. He was convicted in the rape-cum-murder case of a 22-year-old girl in 2000.

Advocate Parmanand Katara, appearing for the convict, pleaded that incarceration of 14 years should be held sufficient for a life convict and he should be entitled to be

released after that.

The court, however, refused to give credence to his arguments and dismissed the plea saying that it is for the government to decide on remitting the sentence.

"As stated earlier, the case on hand relates to commuting the sentence of death into imprisonment for life and we have already preserved the right of the executive for ordering remission taking note of the gravity of the offence," the bench said.

"It is also relevant to point out that when death sentence is commuted to imprisonment for life by the Appellate Court, the concerned government is permitted to exercise its executive power of remission cautiously, taking note of the gravity of the offence," it said.

Women sometime file rape cases as weapon for vengeance : HC

Penal provisions for rape are often being misused by women as "weapon for vengeance and vendetta" to harass and blackmail their male friends by filing false cases to extort money and to force them get married, the Delhi High Court has said. The court said that in many cases woman first agree to have consensual sex but she files a rape case against her boyfriend when the relationship breaks up in order to force him to get married, making not only "mockery" of the marriage but also inflate the statistics of rape cases. "Many of the cases are being reported by those women who have consensual physical relationship with a man but when the relationship breaks due to one reason or the other, the women use the law as a weapon for vengeance and personal vendetta to extort money and sometimes even to force the boy to get married to her" "Out of anger and frustration, they tend to convert such consensual sex as an incident of rape, defeating the very purpose of the provision," Justice Kailash Ghambhir said. It said the court must cautiously examine the intentions of the girl to find out whether the rape complaint is genuine or has malafide motives. "There is a clear demarcation between rape and consensual sex and in cases where such controversies are involved, the court must very cautiously examine the intentions of both the individuals involved and to check if even the girl on the other hand is genuine or had malafide motives. Cases like these not only make mockery of the sacred institution of marriage but also inflate the statistics of rape cases which further deprecates our own society," the court said. The court made these observations while granting anticipatory bail to a man, a resident of Rani Bagh.

Obscene content: Delhi High Court OK's govt ban on TV channe

lDelhi High Court has upheld the Centre's decision to ban for 10 days transmission of an entertainment channel for airing 'obscene' dialogues and 'vulgar' words besides being derogatory to women. Accepting the recommendation of Inter Ministerial Council (IMC), the I&B Ministry on May 17 had asked Comedy Central to go off air from today till June 4 for telecasting "offensive" words in 'Stand Up Club' and 'Popcorn' programmes on May 26 and July 4 last year. Dismissing a plea of Viacom 18 Media Pvt Ltd against the government decision, Justice V K Jain said the penalty prohibiting the telecast of the channel for ten days cannot be termed as "excessive, harsh or unreasonable." "Considering that the penalty could be prohibition of telecast up to 30 days for first violation and up to 90 days in case of second violation, the penalty imposed upon the channel cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. "Even if one were to exclude the second violation i.e. telecast of the programme 'Popcorn' from consideration, the penalty, prohibiting the telecast for ten days for the first violation alone cannot be said to be excessive, harsh or unreasonable," the court said referring to 2011 Policy Guidelines for up-linking of television channels from India. A perusal of the impugned order would show that CD recording of the offending programmes were previewed by IMC which found it to be very offensive, crossing all limitations of good taste and decency, the court said. On May 17, the Ministry had prohibited transmission or retransmission of the channel for 10 days on any platform throughout India with effect from 00:01 hours on May 25 till 00:01 hours on June 4. The court accepted Additional Solicitor General A S Chandhiok's argument that under Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, the government, in the interest of public order, decency or morality, can regulate or prohibit the transmission or retransmission of any channel or programme. It rejected the channel's argument that the decision is discriminatory as the government had not consulted the Broadcasting Consumers Complaint Committee (BCCC) before imposition of the penalty. Countering the argument, the senior law officer had argued that the consultation with BCCC not being a statutory requirement, the failure to acknowledge any such consultation would not vitiate the order passed by the government under the Act.

Spot-fixing: SC agrees to hear PIL to stay IPL matches

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to give an urgent hearing to a PIL seeking stay on all remaining matches of IPL in view of the spot-fixing scandal.

A bench of justices B S Chauhan and Deepak Misra posted the matter for further hearing at 2 PM on the PIL which is also seeking setting up of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into the issues of match fixing and other alleged irregularities in the IPL.

The petition by Lucknow resident Sudarsh Awasthi has made all IPL franchises and BCCI party in the case along with the Centre.

"There are many irregularities in the IPL beginning from auction of players. Black money and money from anti-social elements are involved in the IPL which needs to be probed," the petition submitted.

It sought a stay on remaining four matches including final match of the IPL till the probe is completed.

Eighteen people -- three IPL players, four former players and 11 bookies and their assistants -- have been arrested since last Thursday in connection with the spot-fixing scandal that has rocked the cricketing world.

Arrests for social media posts: section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act.

The Supreme Court said that no person should be arrested for posting objectionable comments on social networking sites without taking prior permission from senior police officials.

The apex court, which refused to pass an order for a blanket ban on the arrest of a person for making objectionable comments on websites, said state governments should ensure strict compliance of the Centre's January 9 advisory which said that a person should not be arrested without taking permission from senior police officials.

"We direct the state governments to ensure compliance with the guidelines (issued by Centre) before making any arrest," a bench of justices B S Chauhan and Dipak Misra said.

It said the court cannot pass an order for banning all arrest in such cases as operation of section 66A (pertaining to objectionable comments) of the Information Technology Act has not been stayed by the apex court which is examining its constitutional validity.

In view of public outrage over people being arrested for making comments or liking posts on Facebook, Centre had on January 9 issued advisory to all states and UTs asking them not to arrest a person in such cases without prior approval of a senior police officer.

The advisory issued by the Centre says that, "State governments are advised that as regard to arrest of any person in complaint registered under section 66A of the Information Technology Act, the concerned police officer of a police station may not arrest any person until she/he has obtained prior approval of such arrest from an officer, not below the rank of inspector general of police (IGP) in metropolitan cities or of an officer not below the rank of deputy commissioner of police (DCP) or superintendent of police (SP) at district level, as the case may be."

The apex court was hearing an application seeking its direction to the authorities not to take action for posting objectionable comments during the pendency of a case before it pertaining to constitutional validity of  

The section states that any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or communication device, any information that was grossly offensive or has a menacing character could be punished with imprisonment for a maximum term of three years, besides imposition of appropriate fine.

The petition was also filed regarding the arrest of a Hyderabad-based woman activist, who was sent to jail over her Facebook post in which certain "objectionable" comments were made against Tamil Nadu Governor K Rosaiah and Congress MLA Amanchi Krishna Mohan. After filing of the petition, she was released by a district court at Hyderabad.

Jaya Vindhayal, the state general secretary of People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), was arrested on May 12 under section 66A of the IT Act for the "objectionable" post.

According to the police, she had also allegedly distributed pamphlets making objectionable allegations against Rosaiah and Mohan before posting the comments online.

The matter was mentioned before the bench by law student Shreya Singhal, seeking an urgent hearing in the case, saying the police is taking action in such matters even though a PIL challenging validity of section 66A is pending before the apex court.

She had filed the PIL after two girls - Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan - were arrested in Palghar in Thane district under section 66A of IT Act after one of them posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's death and the other 'liked' it.

On November 30, 2012, the apex court had sought response from the Centre on the amendment and misuse of section 66A of IT Act and had also directed the Maharashtra government to explain the circumstances under which the 21-year-old girls were arrested.

Pursuant to the notice issued by the apex court, the Centre had informed it that the controversial provision in the cyber law under which two girls were arrested for Facebook comments did not curb freedom of speech and alleged "high handedness" of certain authorities did not mean that it was bad in law.

The ministry of communication and information technology in its affidavit had said that an advisory had been issued to all the state governments, saying that due diligence and care may be exercised while dealing with cases arising out of the alleged misuse of cyberspace.

The Maharashtra government in its reply had said the arrests of girls in Thane district were "unwarranted" and "hasty", which "cannot be justified".

The state government had also submitted an affidavit stating that the Thane Police SP (Rural) had been suspended for arresting the two girls despite the instruction by the IGP not to take such action.

The court had earlier issued notices and sought responses from governments of Delhi, West Bengal and Puducherry where a professor and a businessman were arrested under section 66A of the Act for a political cartoon and tweeting against a politician respectively.

HC raps Punjab govt for inaction against Honey Singh for "Main hoon Balatkari " song

Punjab government on Tuesday received rap on its knuckles from the Punjab and Haryana high court for not taking any action against Punjabi rapper Honey Singh, who is in storm of controversy for singing lewd song.

"Why the Punjab government has not taken cognizance of "Main hoon Balatkari "song sung by Honey Singh, even though it attracts the provisions of Section 294 IPC, which is a cognizable offence?" "If you go through the article published in The Times of India, compiling such lewd songs, which has been attached with the petition, your head will hang with shame." remarked the acting chief justice, Jasbir Singh with utmost anguish and pain.

"We are sure, you would not be able to go through the complete song "Main hoon Balatkari", a visibly annoyed Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain told the Punjab government counsel.

Taking up the case on Tuesday, division bench comprising acting chief justice Jasbir Singh and Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, also directed the Punjab government to take appropriate action against the singer for the vulgar song.

Meanwhile, singer Honey Singh, who was directed by the HC on April 25 to appear before it, could not appear before the court on account of non-completion of summoning process.

The HC thereupon directed that fresh summons shall be served on him through ordinary post, registered post as well as through e-mail to ensure his presence before the HC on July 4.

During the hearing of the case, HC also observed "song of Honey Singh, available on youtube, indicates that it was sung at a concert in Gurgaon. Thus, it cannot be said that no action can be taken against its singer as it could possibly be uploaded on youtube from any where in the world."

Thereafter, bench ordered to implead the Haryana government as well as UT administration as respondents in this case asking them to take action in accordance with law on the issue of vulgar songs.

The matter had reached before the HC through a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by NGO called HELP of Nawanshar in Punjab seeking directions to set up some effective mechanism for curbing the menace of obscene/vulgar/lewd songs from the state of Punjab. PIL filed through advocate H C Arora had submitted that all limits of decency are being violated by such songs. Arora referred to provisions of section 294 of Indian Penal code (IPC), according to which singing of lewd/ obscene songs at public places is an offence.

HC advice to youth

Turning towards a large number of young people who had gathered inside the court room on Tuesday, the bench gave them also a bit of advice - "These young men have come to the HC for seeing Honey Singh. They should rather boycott such singers who sing lewd and obscene songs. These young men should realize that our culture is being spoiled by such vulgar songs."

1993 Mumbai serial blasts case: SC rejects Sanjay Dutt's review plea

Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt's hope of getting relief in 1993 Mumbai blasts case was on Friday dashed with the Supreme Court dismissing his plea seeking review of its judgement on his conviction and five-year jail term.

A bench of justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan, which had delivered on March 21 verdict, refused to review its verdict on Dutt's plea.

Dutt, who was granted four weeks more time to surrender to undergo remaining three-and-a-half-year jail term, will have to surrender before jail authorities on May 16.

With the dismissal of review plea, 53-year-old Dutt has got only one option of getting relief from the court by filing a curative petition.

The apex court had on March 21 upheld his conviction in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case which it said was organised by underworld don Dawood Ibrahim and others with the involvement of Pakistan's ISI.

However, the apex court had reduced to five years the six-year jail term awarded to Dutt by a designated TADA court in 2006 and ruled out his release on probation, saying the "nature" of his offence was "serious".

Dutt was convicted by the TADA court for illegal possession a 9 mm pistol and an AK-56 rifle which were part of a consignment of weapons and explosives brought to India for coordinated serial blasts that killed 257 people and injured over 700 in 1993.

The bench also dismissed similar pleas filed by other six convicts in the case.

Other six convicts, who filed review petitions are Yusuf Mohsin Nulwalla, Khalil Ahmed Sayed Ali Nazir, Mohamed Dawood Yusuf Khan, Shaikh Asif Yusuf, Muzammil Umar Kadri and Mohd Ahmed Shaikh.

SC slams Centre for providing security to Ambani

NEW DELHI: Centre's decision to provide 'Z' category security to the richest Indian Mukesh Ambani on Wednesday drew flak from the Supreme Court which asked why such people are given security cover by the government when the common man is feeling unsafe.

The apex court ticked off the government for giving protection to such people when the common man in the country is unsafe because of lack of security and said that a five-year-old girl would not have been raped if there was proper security in the capital.

The bench reasoned that the rich can afford to hire private security personnel.

"We read in newspapers that ministry of home has directed providing for CISF security to an individual. Why is state providing security to such person?" a bench headed by Justice GS Singhvi said without taking the name of Ambani.

"If there is threat perception then he must engage private security personnel," the bench said adding, "Private businessmen getting security is prevalent in Punjab but that culture has gone to Mumbai."

The bench, however, said that "We are not concerned about the security of X,Y,Z persons but about the security of common man".

The bench was hearing a petition filed by a Uttar Pradesh resident on misuse security cover and red beacon provided by the government to people.

Government's decision to provide Z had evoked sharp criticism from Left parties following which it was clarified that he will foot the expenses for this estimated to be Rs 15-16 lakh per month.

The business tycoon is the new entrant to the 'Z' category VIP security club after the Union home ministry had recently approved an armed commando squad following threat perceptions.

Consumer is king': SC clears hurdles for FDI in retail

The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the hurdles for the implementation of FDI in multi-brand retail sector saying that the "consumer is king and if that is the philosophy working behind the policy then what is wrong?"

The apex court said the policy aimed at "throwing out" the middleman, who are "curse to Indian economy" and "sucking" it, has to be "welcomed".

A bench headed by Justice RM Lodha said the policy does not suffer from any unconstitutionality or illegality requiring it to be quashed.

"This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstituional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power.

"The impugned policy cannot be said to suffer from any of the vires," the bench, also comprising justices Madan B Lokur and Kurien Jospeh, held while dismissing a PIL challenging the notification on the FDI in multi-brand retail sector.

Before pronouncing the order, the bench said the policy was for the benefit of the consumer, farmers and the retailers with the objective to eliminate middlemen.

"Consumer is the king and if that is the philosophy working behind the policy what is wrong. The policy is to free the economy from the middleman. Middleman is sucking our economy. These are suckers to be thrown out for direct benefit of consumers. If that is the objective of the policy what is wrong with it.

"The middleman is a curse to Indian economy. They work as sucker and they have to be thrown out and that is the object of the policy and you have to welcome it," the bench said and added that the policy would bring choice for the consumers who are the real king.

The bench in its order said "it is thus left to the choice of state governments whether or not to implement policy to allow FDI upto 51 per cent in multi-brand retail".

It rejected the contention that departement of industrial policy and promotion (DIPP) under its business rule was not empowered to make policy pronouncment.

The apex court further said there was no merit in the contention that the Centre has no authority to formulate FDI policy and the PIL filed by advocate ML Sharma has to be dismissed as "there is no challenge to the amendements in Foreign Exchange Management (transfer or issue of security by a person, resident, outside India) Regulations, 2000, by which FDI in multi-brand retail sector was allowed.

While upholding the policy, the bench said, "We have carefully considered the submission made by petitioners and the challenge is not founded on any material".

During the hearing, the bench said the policy of FDI in multi-brand retail was discussed and debated in detail in both Houses of Parliament before it was voted in favour of the government.

The bench noted that the policy was prepared after detail study of the economy of developing countries like China, Brazil, Argentina, Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand where FDI is permitted upto 100 per cent, local retailers co-exist along with organised retail and are integral in the organised retail chain.

In the order, the bench accepted the submission made by the Centre in its affidavit in which it said that the decision to allow FDI in multi-brand retail is a policy formulated by the Government of India in conformity with FEMA 2000.

While formulating the policy, the primary focus was to benefit the consumer by enlarging the choice of purchase at more affordable prices and by eradicating the traditional trade intermediaries/middleman to facilitate better access to the market (ultimate retailer) for the producer of goods.

The affidavit had said farmers will also benefit significantly from the option of direct sales to organised retailers.

The apex court also noted that a study commissioned by the World Bank shows that the average price that a farmer receives for a typical horticulture product is only 12-15 per cent of the price the consumer pays at the retail outlet.

Profit realisation for farmers selling directly to organised retailers is about 60 per cent higher than that received from selling in the 'mandi'.

The affidavit had said these aforesaid views are supported through the findings of a study instituted by government on the subject of 'Impact of organised retailing on the unorganised sector', through the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), submitted in May 2008.

Consumer is king': SC clears hurdles for FDI in retail

The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the hurdles for the implementation of FDI in multi-brand retail sector saying that the "consumer is king and if that is the philosophy working behind the policy then what is wrong?"

The apex court said the policy aimed at "throwing out" the middleman, who are "curse to Indian economy" and "sucking" it, has to be "welcomed".

A bench headed by Justice RM Lodha said the policy does not suffer from any unconstitutionality or illegality requiring it to be quashed.

"This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstituional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power.

"The impugned policy cannot be said to suffer from any of the vires," the bench, also comprising justices Madan B Lokur and Kurien Jospeh, held while dismissing a PIL challenging the notification on the FDI in multi-brand retail sector.

Before pronouncing the order, the bench said the policy was for the benefit of the consumer, farmers and the retailers with the objective to eliminate middlemen.

"Consumer is the king and if that is the philosophy working behind the policy what is wrong. The policy is to free the economy from the middleman. Middleman is sucking our economy. These are suckers to be thrown out for direct benefit of consumers. If that is the objective of the policy what is wrong with it.

"The middleman is a curse to Indian economy. They work as sucker and they have to be thrown out and that is the object of the policy and you have to welcome it," the bench said and added that the policy would bring choice for the consumers who are the real king.

The bench in its order said "it is thus left to the choice of state governments whether or not to implement policy to allow FDI upto 51 per cent in multi-brand retail".

It rejected the contention that departement of industrial policy and promotion (DIPP) under its business rule was not empowered to make policy pronouncment.

The apex court further said there was no merit in the contention that the Centre has no authority to formulate FDI policy and the PIL filed by advocate ML Sharma has to be dismissed as "there is no challenge to the amendements in Foreign Exchange Management (transfer or issue of security by a person, resident, outside India) Regulations, 2000, by which FDI in multi-brand retail sector was allowed.

While upholding the policy, the bench said, "We have carefully considered the submission made by petitioners and the challenge is not founded on any material".

During the hearing, the bench said the policy of FDI in multi-brand retail was discussed and debated in detail in both Houses of Parliament before it was voted in favour of the government.

The bench noted that the policy was prepared after detail study of the economy of developing countries like China, Brazil, Argentina, Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand where FDI is permitted upto 100 per cent, local retailers co-exist along with organised retail and are integral in the organised retail chain.

In the order, the bench accepted the submission made by the Centre in its affidavit in which it said that the decision to allow FDI in multi-brand retail is a policy formulated by the Government of India in conformity with FEMA 2000.

While formulating the policy, the primary focus was to benefit the consumer by enlarging the choice of purchase at more affordable prices and by eradicating the traditional trade intermediaries/middleman to facilitate better access to the market (ultimate retailer) for the producer of goods.

The affidavit had said farmers will also benefit significantly from the option of direct sales to organised retailers.

The apex court also noted that a study commissioned by the World Bank shows that the average price that a farmer receives for a typical horticulture product is only 12-15 per cent of the price the consumer pays at the retail outlet.

Profit realisation for farmers selling directly to organised retailers is about 60 per cent higher than that received from selling in the 'mandi'.

The affidavit had said these aforesaid views are supported through the findings of a study instituted by government on the subject of 'Impact of organised retailing on the unorganised sector', through the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), submitted in May 2008.