CA EXAMS POSTPONED TO NOVEMBER 2020: ICAI NOTIFIES SC

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) propounded before the Supreme Court that the May cycle exams, condemned to be held in July-August amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, have been rescheduled till November 2020. Ramji Srinivasan, the lawyer appearing for the ICAI, contended before the apex court bench that the institute had decided not to organise the CA examinations this semester and added that it is likely to delay the same till November 2020. A two-judge bench headed by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and also constituting Justice Sanjiv Khanna discarded of the plea after hearing the submissions of ICAI.


However, the apex court permitted the petitioner the liberty to make a representation to the ICAI for the persisting issues, if any. ICAI will have to conclude a decision on the same within four weeks. The apex court was hearing a petition filed by Anubha Shrivastava Sahai, the President of India Wide Parents Association, desiring orders to organise the exams at a huge number of centres amidst appropriate safeguard measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Lawyer Alakh Alok Srivastava had represented for the petitioner before the top court and was debating through video conferencing in the matter .


The plea also sought a prevail on the rejected scheme for around 3.46 lakh CA students, who were scheduled to attend in the May cycle exams, that was prior set to be conducted by the ICAI between July 29 to August 16. The ICAI had given its candidates, who had already submitted an online examination application for May 2020 Examination cycle, the option to drop out from May 2020 examinations and proceed their candidature to the next examination. The top court had earlier recommended the ICAI consider the students who are inadequate to appear for the exam to be considered an “opt-out case” even if they don’t choose the same.

(By- Vasundhara Dhar)

SC REFUSES TO ENTERTAIN PLEA SEEKING RESTRICTION ON AMARNATH YATRA AMID COVID-19

Expressing regard for the principle of “separation of powers”, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea seeking to stop the Amarnath Yatra this year citing the risk of COVID-19.

A bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and K M Joseph said that local administration was better equipped to take a decision on the matter. Accordingly, the bench left the matter to be decided by the local administration in accordance with statutory guidelines.

A bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and K M Joseph said that local administration was better equipped to take a decision on the matter. Accordingly, the bench left the matter to be decided by the local administration in accordance with statutory guidelines.
Matter must be left to competence of Local Administration, keeping in mind the Statutory Provisions”, the bench ordered The bench pointed that the SC had to modify its earlier order banning Jagannath Rath Yatra to allow Rath Yatra at Puri, based on the proposals of Puri administration.

This means that the local administration is better equipped to deal with the exigency of the situation, the Court said.

By – Samarth gogia

VIKAS DUBEY ENCOUNTER: HOURS BEFORE DUBEY’S DEATH, PLEA WAS FILED IN SC APPREHENDING DEATH AND SEEKING PROTECTION

A Mumbai based lawyer had moved the Supreme Court seeking urgent listing of his plea which sought for protection for gangster Vikas Dubey who was caught in Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh on July 9.

Petition filed by Ghanshyam Upadhyay urged for the listing of his plea on Friday, July 10, stating that after Dubey’s aides were killing in “fake encounter” by the Uttar Pradesh Police, Dubey too is likely to face the same fate now that he is in Police custody.

The petition says that killing of an accused in police custody is in violation of rule of law, regardless of how heinous the crime committed by the accused is. This is also a serious violation of human rights and “nothing short of Talibanisation of the country”.

SC ALLOWS SERVICE OF SUMMONS VIA WHATSAPP, E-MAIL AND FAX

Supreme Court on Friday allowed the service of summons and notices, a necessity in almost all legal proceedings, through instant messenger like WhatsApp as well as by e-mail and fax.
A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde observed that it has been brought to the notice of the court that it is not feasible to visit post offices for service of notices, summons, and pleadings. The bench also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and R Subhash Reddy observed that notice and summons should be sent through e-mail on the same day along with instant message through WhatsApp and other phone messenger services.
The bench clarified that all methods should be deployed for a valid service on the party. “Two blue ticks would convey that the receiver has seen the notice,” noted the bench.

(BY- ANUPAMA)

SC TO DECIDE WHETHER RESTRICTING THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IS A VALID CONDITION FOR BAIL OR NOT

Supreme Court in the matter of Sachin Chaudhary v. state of Uttar Pradesh is to determine whether restricting use of social media be a valid condition for granting bail. Chaudhary was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court in a case of sedition on a condition before him that he will not be using social media till the matter is under the trail.
Chaudhary was arrested by Uttar Pradesh police on the grounds of sedition and he was in jail since April 11; When Chaudhary was released on bail by Justice Siddharth of Allahabad High Court in view larger mandate under the ambit of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Certain directions were issue to him which were not to tamper with the evidence, he shall cooperate in the proceedings.

(By- Siddharth Addy)

Mere presence of Statutory Fund No Bar To Create Separate Fund For Voluntary Donations : Centre orders SC

The Central Government has stated the Supreme Court that there subsists no broadcasting on formation of PM CARES Fund as it is exclusive and unique from the National Disaster Relief Fund (NDF) which is designated under the Disaster Management Act. The PM CARES Fund is one such fund which obtains voluntary donations as well. The affidavit notifies that mere presence of a statutory fund would not constraint formation of a separate fund like PM CARES Fund which furnishes for voluntary donations. The bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, SK Kaul & MR Shah, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that the analysed affidavit in response has been appealed and that a copy shall be provided to parties, earliest tomorrow evening.

The instant case relates to a appeal asking transmit of all funds from PM Cares Fund which was set up to combat the COVID-19 pandemic to National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) and forming of a National Plan under Section 11, read with Section 10 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, in order to cope with the current pandemic and, to lay minimum standards of relief under Section 12 of DMA

The Centre has also certified on record a National Plan formulated under Section 11 of the DMA which significantly deals with “Biological and Public Health Emergencies”. Various states also have their respective Disaster Management Plans at the State Level in place. The plea further states that the NDRF is not being appropriately used by the authorities
despite the existing health crisis. It further apprises the matter of lack of clarity stating that it is not amounted to CAG Audits and has also been announced to be external beyond the scope of the RTI Act by not being under the section of “public authority”.

(BY- ADARSH KHUNTIA)

RESTRICTIONS ON INTERNET CONTINUES IN J&K, DESPITE SUPREME COURT’S ORDERS

Supreme Court in an earlier plea has already directed the concerned authorities to appoint a special committee led by the Union Home Secretary to “immediately” determine the necessity of continuing the restrictions in J&K.
Moreover in the same plea the court had also directed the panel to examine the “appropriateness” of the petitioners; suggestion to limit the Net restrictions to areas where it was necessary and allow faster Internet (3G or 4G) on a trial basis in certain geographical areas and advise the J&K government on it.
However the administration has not taken any compliance to the same stating that “internet services have been put in place to “curb misuse of data for uploading, downloading, circulation of provocative content on the social media and prevent or reduce rumor mongering and fake news, counter attempts of recruiting gullible youth into the militants’ ranks”. “In the interest of Sovereignty of India “.

(BY- SANYOGITA)

SC ADVOCATES-ON-RECORDS ASSOCIATION URGES CJI BOBDE TO LOOK INTO THE SUDDEN DEMISE OF SENIOR ADVOCATE DHINGRA DUE TO UNAVAILABILITY OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE

The Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association (SCAORA) has passed a Resolution seeking time-bound enquiry into the allegations of medical negligence on the premises of Supreme Court which led to the death of 80 year old lawyer, SK Dhingra.

Mr. Dhingra suffered a cardiac arrest in his chambers and succumbed to the same after the government dispensary within the Court premises was unable to provide him with medication or send him a doctor, SCAORA states that this is “an utter failure of the Supreme Court administration and security.”

SC directed Himachal police to submit the investigation details of the Vinod Dua Case

The Supreme Court pulled up the Himachal Pradesh Police for neglecting to record the examination reports relating to the rebellion argument documented against columnist Vinod Dua. The Bench of Justices UU Lalit, Mohan M Shantanagoudar, and Vineet Saran took up the supplication documented by veteran writer Vinod Dua looking for insurance from coercive activity according to a FIR recorded against him in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.At the beginning of the present hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, speaking to Dua, named the police cross examination as provocation. He guaranteed that Dua got similar inquiries from the police on different events, and that the police has wouldn’t outfit subtleties of the grumbling.

Asserting that Dua was a “mindful writer” with a remaining of around 45 years in the calling, Singh said that he reserved the option to condemn the administration under the ensured the right to speak freely of discourse and articulation. This privilege was being influenced by virtue of police’s activity against him, Singh submitted. The Court has now directed the police to place the details on record in a sealed cover (Vinod Dua v. Union of India).

(By- Adarsh Khuntia)

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association has requested to the Secretary General to improve the functioning of Virtual Courts.

Amid this pandemic situation and Courts working virtually, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has written down a letter addressing to the Secretary General stating that “there have been many grievances” with regard to the technical issues surrounding Virtual Courts in terms of connectivity and glitches, there has no “proper redressal” even after timely complaints have been registered via email and through calls to helpline no 1881.

To which there should be a proper installation and “sufficient video conferencing facilities” to be set up at the Supreme Court premises.

(BY- SANYOGITA)