Education

Live streaming of SC proceedings

The apex court in a historic judgement directed the Centre to frame rules for this and said the project will be carried out in phases

The Supreme Court pushed for greater transparency in the judicial system by setting the stage for live-streaming of court proceedings of cases of constitutional importance. The court directed the centre to frame rules for this and said the project will be carried out in phases.

Case Name: Swapnil Tripathi V. Supreme Court of India


Issue: Bar imposed on interns entering courtrooms on miscellaneous days challenged

Judgement: Live-streaming of court proceedings in larger public interest allowed. It said that appropriate Rules in that regard will be framed soon under Article 145 of the Constitution of India.

The Court had also observed that live streaming of court proceedings will help litigant instantaneously know what happened to his case and how his lawyer performed his case before the Court.

Background:

Article 145: deals with the Rules of Court, etc. It states that

(1) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament the Supreme Court may from time to time, with the approval of the President, make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court including

(a) rules as to the persons practising before the Court,

(b) rules as to the procedure for hearing appeals, and other matters pertaining to appeals including the time within which appeals to the Court are to be entered;

(c) rules as to the proceedings in the Court for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III;

(cc) rules as to the proceedings in the Court under Article 139A;

(d) rules as to the entertainment of appeals under sub clause (c) of clause ( 1 ) of Article 134;

(e) any judgment pronounced or order made by the Court may be received and rules as to the conditions the procedure for such review including the time within which applications to the Court for such review are to be entered;

(f) rules as to the costs of and incidental to any proceedings in the Court and as to the fees to be charged in respect of proceeding therein;

(g) rules as to the granting of bail;

(h) rules as to stay of proceedings;

(i) rules providing for the summary determination of any appeal which appears to the Court to be frivolous or vexatious or brought for the purpose of delay;

(j) rules as to the procedure for inquiries referred to in clause ( 1 ) of Article 317

(2) Subject to the provisions of clause ( 3 ), rules made under this article may fix the minimum number of Judges who are to sit for any purpose, and may provide for the powers of single Judges and Division Courts

(3) The minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Article 143 shall be five: Provided that, where the Court hearing an appeal under any of the provisions of this chapter other than Article 132 consists of less than five Judges and in the course of the hearing of the appeal the Court is satisfied that the appeal involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the appeal, such Court shall refer the question for opinion to a Court constituted as required by this clause for the purpose of deciding any case involving such a question and shall on receipt of the opinion dispose of the appeal in conformity with such opinion

(4) No judgment shall be delivered by the Supreme Court save in open Court, and no report shall be made under Article 143 save in accordance with an opinion also delivered in open Court

(5) No judgment and no such opinion shall be delivered by the Supreme Court save with the concurrence of a majority of the Judges present at the hearing of the case, but nothing in this clause shall be deemed to prevent a Judge who does not concur from delivering a dissenting judgment or opinion

Delhi High Court Orders Ban on sale of Online Medicines

Case Name: Zaheer Ahmed vs NCT of Delhi

Issue: Online sale of medicines

Judgement: The Delhi High Court has ordered a ban on the sale of online medicines by E-pharmacies across the country. A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V K Rao has also ordered central and Delhi governments to implement the order.

MOB LYNCHING

Case Name: Tehseen S. Poonawalla V. Union of India & Ors.

Issue: Rising instances of cow vigilantism

Judgement: Horrendous acts of mobocracy can’t be allowed become new norm: lynching incidents condemned; directions issued.

The Supreme Court observed that it is the duty of the State to ensure that the machinery of law and order functions efficiently and effectively in maintaining peace so as to preserve our quintessentially secular ethos and pluralistic social fabric in a democratic set-up governed by rule of law.

No individual in his own capacity or as a part of a group, which within no time assumes the character of a mob, can take law into his/their hands and deal with a person treating him as guilty.

There can be no shadow of doubt that the authorities which are conferred with the responsibility to maintain law and order in the States have the principal obligation to see that vigilantism, be it cow vigilantism or any other vigilantism of any perception, does not take place.

The Bench directed the Centre and states to take preventive, punitive and remedial measures to stop lynching incidents in future.

The Court urged the Parliament to enact a separate law to punish offenders participating in lynching of persons.

Now you can get handpicked stories from Telangana Today on WhatsApp / Telegram everyday. Click this link to subscribe and save this number 9182563636 on your contacts.

To Top