VAKALATGIRI

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court recently granted relief to an administrator of a WhatsApp group in an FIR registered over offensive messages posted in the group by a member.  The High Court has reiterated that WhatsApp group admin cannot be held liable for objectionable content posted by members.  The court added, however, that if additional evidence is collected that demonstrates the administrator was engaged in the crime, he can be convicted according to the law.  The Madurai Bench referred to the Kishore v. State Maharashtra of the Bombay High Court which ruled that a WhatsApp group admin must be deleted from the list of accused if he did not play any part in the crime committed by group members other than being an admin. However, the Court also held that if another material is gathered that shows the admin being involved in the crime, he may be tried according to the law. In Kishor v. State of Maharashtra an application under Section 482 of the Code of Crimin...

  EVERY PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE CONSUMING : DELHI HIGH COURT In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court observed that every person has a right to be informed about what he is consuming. The division bench, comprising Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh, was hearing a plea moved by a trust comprising members following a strict vegetarian lifestyle. They were aggrieved by the fact that manufacturers of a plethora of products, including eatables, were keeping consumers in the dark by not disclosing the real source of the ingredients. The bench noted that it has found that several food articles which have ingredients sourced from animals are shown as “vegetarian” by affixing a green dot on the packaging. The  Delhi high court has ruled that there should be complete disclosure of all ingredients used to manufacture any food article so that people can determine if they are truly “vegetarian” or “non-vegetarian”, adding that “every person has a right to know what t...

From the idol of Ram Lalla being found inside the mosque in December 1949 followed by the filing of the first couple of pleas in the matter to the eventual demolition of Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, the Ayodhya dispute has long been a part of political discourse in the country, especially over the last three decades. TIMELINE OF EVENTS   1528-29 Babri Majid Constructed in Ayodhya by Mughal Emperor Babur’s commander Mir Baqi. 1885 Mahant Raghubir Das files a plea in the Faizabad district court, seeking to build a temple on land next to the mosque. Court rejects plea. December, 1949 Idol of Ram Lalla found inside the mosque. Hindus call it divine appearance; start offering prayers. Others say that it was smuggled in there. 1950 Suits filed in Faizabad Court by Gopal Singh Visharad and Paramahansa Ramachandra Das,seeking permission to worship the idols of Ram Lalla. 1959 Nirmohi Akhara files plea seeking possession of the disputed lan...

FATHER CAN’T AVOID MAINTAINING CHILDREN JUST BECAUSE MOTHER IS EARNING  The Delhi High Court recently ruled that man cannot avoid the responsibility of maintaining his children on the ground that his estranged wife is earning because a lot of time and effort also go into the upbringing. In  Farooq Ahmed Shala v. Marie Chanel Gillier CRL.REV.P. 855/2018,  Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva said it would be incorrect to hold both parents equally responsible for the expenses of a child. In the case, the Petitioner has challenged the order of interim maintenance @ Rs.60,000/- per month. The Petitioner challenged the order on the ground that he is a pauper and does not have any source of income and that the respondent wife herself is running a business. The  High Court of Delhi  dismissed the appeal and made the following observations in the case: Para 18.  Mere fact that the respondent wife is earning does not absolve the petitioner of his responsi...

Right to get Anticipatory Bail is not any FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT : Punjab and Haryana High Court. In a Judgement titled Sanjiv Sharma Vs State of Haryana  Punjab and Haryana High Court held that right to get anticipatory bail is not any Fundamental Right. Honble High Court made this observation while rejecting an application filed by a man involved in a case registered under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. While speaking on this matter, Justice Rajbir Sehrawat asserted that an accused is still a citizen of India and he has a fundamental right to life and liberty. But these rights could be curtailed accordingly as the law has established several procedures. Justice Shehrawat stated that in order to curtail the liberty and life of an accused, one should refer CrPC. This section makes it clear that an investigating officer can arrest an accused without having a warrant and he doesn’t need a court’s order, interference or assistance in order to ca...