The Delhi High Court has stated that no person, be a journalist or otherwise, can claim an open access to the precinct of the Parliament. (Anil Chamadia vs Media Advisory Committee of the Rajya Sabha)
FREE Legal advice service Help! We offer a comprehensive legal advice and opinion service covering all aspects of Indian law: Email a legal question. WE DO NOT ASK ANY INFORMATION FROM USERS
Thursday, May 21, 2020
Friday, May 15, 2020
‘No loudspeakers for azaan, only human voice allowed’: UP top court orders
The Allahabad High Court has held that azaan, or the Islamic call to ritual prayer, can be recited by a muezzin from minarets of the mosques by human voice only without using any amplifying device or loudspeakers.
The court added that such recitation by human voice cannot be hindered under the pretext of violation of the guidelines issued by the state government to contain the spread of coronavirus.
It also said that one can’t use a loudspeaker for azaan without prior permission of district administration in accordance with the law.
“We are of the opinion that azaan may be an essential and integral part of Islam but its recitation through loudspeakers or other sound amplifying devices cannot be said to be an integral part of the religion warranting protection of the fundamental right enshrined under Article 25, which is even otherwise subject to public order, morality or health and to other provisions in part III of the Constitution,” the bench ruled.
It cannot be said that a citizen should be coerced to hear anything which he does not like or which he does not require since it amounts to taking away the fundamental right of other persons,” the bench added.
However, the court shot down the state government’s contention that its recitation by human voice was violative of any provision of law.
“The government had not been able to explain as to how the recitation of azaan merely through human voice can be violative of any provision of law or any guidelines issued in view of Covid-19 pandemic,” it said.
The Bench, however, kept it open for petitioner to approach the district administration for permission to use loudspeaker for azaan. It added that one can’t use loudspeakers for azaan or for any other purpose without prior permission of district administration.
The bench of Justices Shashi Kant Gupta and Ajit Kumar thus disposed of a PIL filed by BSP MP from Ghazipur, Afzal Ansari, seeking lifting of ban on azaan from mosques in Ghazipur.
Friday, May 8, 2020
Vizag gas leak incident - Rs 50 Crores with the District Magistrate, Vizag.-NGT
"Having regard to the prima facie material regarding the extent of damage to life, public health and environment, we direct LG Polymers India Pvt., Limited to forthwith deposit an initial amount of Rs. 50 Crore, with the District Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam, which will abide by further orders of this Tribunal. The amount is being fixed having regard to the financial worth of the company and the extent of the damage caused."
- Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy, Former Judge, A.P. High Court; - (Online till he is able to reach Vizag);
- Prof. Ch V Rama Chandra Murthy, Former Vice Chancellor, Andhra University, Vizag;
- Professor Pulipati King, Head of Chemical Engineering Department, Andhra University, Vizag;
- Member Secretary, CPCB (Online, if travel is restricted due to Covid-19);
- Director, CSIR-Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (Online, if travel is restricted due to Covid-19);
- Head, NEERI, Vizag.
UK Court Rejects Fugitive Economic Offender Vijay Mallya's Appeal Against Extradition Order
Wednesday, May 6, 2020
Liquor purchase allowed twice a week with a gap of 3 days, Bill should record Aadhaar: Madras HC guidelines for liquor sale amid COVID-19
Limits on alcohol purchase at a time
- Adding to the prohibition on bulk sales, the Court has said that “not more than two bottles of 750 ml each (including wine, beer etc.) of any one type will be sold to one customer at a time."
- Those paying through approved online modes may purchase two bottles a day as detailed above.
- Those without mobile/smart phones or online payment apps can purchase only one bottle a day.
- The customer cannot make purchase of liquor more than twice a week and with a minimum gap of three days.
Cash payment prohibited unless customer does not have digital pay facilities
- To avoid unnecessary malpractices of over charging through cash payments and to encourage digital payment, the payment for liquor purchase should be made through approved E-payment applications like RuPay, Bhim, Google Pay etc. which can be made available to all smart phone holders and easily assumed in shops.
- The Court added “the payment through these banking channels will not only keep a track and check on the sale of liquor, but is also likely to prevent those who do not intend to pay through known and approved sources.”
- To encourage digital payment and online booking, the Court has also directed that those who book liquor and make the online payment will be permitted to buy up to two bottles of one type of liquor a day.
- Those who do not make online payments and who do not book orders online, as they may not have such mobile phone facilities, will be allowed to purchase only one bottle of 750ml in a day based on the tokens issued to them.
- Cash payment is prohibited save for those who do not have mobile facilities to make online payment. This was in view of a submission that there were over 7,000 MRP violations booked by the State in the last ten months.
- The Court also noted that cash payment would not be a justified course of action in COVID-19 times.
- The State of Tamil Nadu and the TASMAC authorities have also been directed to consider online methods of liquor sale with online payment, by employing the issuance of online tokens coupled with time slots for purchase. This was suggested as a measure to avoid unnecessary crowding in TASMAC/liquor outlets.
Aadhaar, name, address of purchaser to be recorded in Bill
- The Bill of sale should include the “name, address and Aadhaar number” of the customer.
- The Court has added that “if any sale is found to be made in violation of this direction and such fact is brought to the notice of this court, that shop in question will be immediately closed and will not be allowed to be reopened, except by the specific orders of the Court.”
Saturday, May 2, 2020
‘Ramayan’ beats GoT to become world’s most viewed TV show
105-year-old coop bank’s licence cancelled by RBI
Friday, May 1, 2020
Tax Authorities Can't Give Their Own Interpretations To Legislative Provisions On Perception Of Trade Practices : SC
Based on this, the court held as illegal the circulars issued by the Rajasthan Commercial Tax department, which stated that goods imported from other states will be regarded as 'constructively delivered' after a reasonable period of lying with the transporter in the imported state.
Observing that the department had no authority to prescribe such cut-off date for termination of inter-state transit, the SC held that there is no concept of 'constructive delivery' of goods under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and that the inter-state movement of goods will terminate only when the actual physical delivery is taken.
The case (Commercial Tax Officer vs M/s Bombay Machinery Store) pertained to the interpretation of Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
READ FULL JUDGEMENT