"Accused has no right to file any materials or documents at the stage of framing of charges" SC

While deciding a petition of the applicant Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd. & Ors., in the matter of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.4606 of 2011, the Hon. Supreme Court of India, has reiterated the principle of criminal jurisprudence in respect of the rights of the accused at the time of framing of charges, as earlier decided in the matters of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568, and has observed that " The law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. No provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the "Code") grants to the accused any right to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. That right is granted only at the stage of the trial. Satish Mehra case, (1996) 9 SCC 766 holding that the trial court has powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence."

" For custody of children, the paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the child and not the rights of the parents under a statute." SC

While adjudicating about the custody of the minor children, in a judicial battle between husband and wife, in the matters of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) Nos. 35468 & 35469 OF 2009 of the applicant wife Gayatri Bajaj, the Hon. Supreme Court of India has again emphasized upon the principles of welfare and interest of the child and has observed that " In a matter relating to the custody of children the first and the paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the child and not the rights of the parents under a statute. Even the statues, namely, the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 make it clear that the welfare of the child is a predominant consideration. In a matter of this nature, particularly, when father and mother fighting their case without reference to the welfare of the child, a heavy duty is cast upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously bearing in mind the welfare of the child as paramount consideration.

For a specific performance of a contract of sale of immovable property, there must be certainty with respect to the property to be sold. And the relinquishment has to be unambiguous " SC

While adjudicating some important issues of laws, with respect to the specific performance of a contract,in the matters of Civil Appeal No. 3249 OF 2005, The Hon Supreme Court of India has recently observed that " Damages and specific performance are both remedies available upon breach of obligations by a party to the contract. The former is considered to be a substantial remedy, whereas the latter is of course a specific remedy. It is true that explanation (i) to Section 10 of the Act provides that unless and until the contrary is proved, the Court shall presume that breach of contract to transfer immovable property cannot be adequately relieved by compensation in money. However, this presumption is not an irrebuttable one. That apart, for a specific performance of a contract of sale of immovable property, there must be certainty with respect to the property to be sold. As held by this Court in para 18 of Mayawanti Vs. Kaushalya Devi reported in 1990 (3) SCC 1 :-"18. The specific performance of a contract is the actual execution of the contract according to its stipulations and terms, and the courts direct the party in default to do the very thing which he contracted to do. The stipulations and terms of the contract have, therefore, to be certain and the parties must have been consensus ad idem. The burden of showing the stipulations and terms of the contract and that the minds were ad idem is, of course, on the plaintiff. If the stipulations and terms are uncertain, and the parties are not ad idem, there can be no specific performance, for there was no contract at all…………." As far as the propositions of law concerning relinquishment as canvassed by the respondents are concerned, there is no difficulty in accepting the same. However, the relinquishment has to be unambiguous. As held by this Court in Surjit Kaur Vs. Naurata Singh reported in 2000 (7) SCC 379, the party seeking part performance must unambiguously relinquish all claims to performance of remaining part of the contract. "

Sisva has set up an illustrative landmark in village administration

In Sisva village of Anand District in Gujarat has recently set up an illustrative landmark, by selecting unanimously only young unmarried girls of an age between 18 to 22 years as its Gram Panchayat Members, including its Sarpanch Hinalben Shaileshbhai Patel. It is also its fourth consecutive unanimous selection of all its Gram Panchayat Members, without any election, by this united electoral community of village Sisva. Such an unity at the smallest unit of an electoral body is not only meant to save lots of public money but also a symbol of strength to work together with unity, in the large interest and  progress of their village. And now for this term, the selection of all these young educated girls in the administration of a village has reinforced the strength and vision of this village for its pretty good future. So this is not only a big illustration to all our villages, but also other electoral units like Municipalities, Corporation, Taluka Panchayat as well as District Panchayat, where more and more involvement of selected young generation could be a new gateway for a total revolution,meant for development and progress at large.

SC: “Right to Information is an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to free speech and expression.” A Landmark Judgment of the Apex Court on its Denial and Remedies.

While adjudicating CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 of Chief Information officer and others against the State of Manipiur and others , the Hon. Mr. Justice Ganguly Supreme Court of India has set up a landmark judicial precedent in respect of Laws of Rights to Information and its denial and remedies, in accordance with the provisions ofRight to Information Act and has observed that ” Right to information, which is basically founded on the right to know, is an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.A society which adopts openness as a value of overarching significance not only permits its citizens a wide range of freedom of expression,it also goes further in actually opening up the deliberative process of the Government itself to the sunlight of public scrutiny.In making a request for an Information, an applicant is not required to give any reason for obtaining the information or any other personal details excepting those which are necessary for contacting him. Such request has to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. In any case within 30 days from the date of receipt of the request either the information shall be provided or the same may be rejected for any of the reasons provided under Sections 8 and 9. The proviso to Section 7 makes it clear that when it concerns the life or liberty of a person, the information shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.The appellant after having applied for information under Section 6 and then not having received any reply thereto, it must be deemed that he has been refused the information.The said situation is covered by Section 7 of the Act. The remedy for such a person who has been refused the information is provided under Section 19 of the Act.”

Vidhya Sahayak for teachers, Lok Rakshak for police and Gram Mitra in rural administration are “Gujarat State Sponsored Financial Exploitation”

A division bench of the Gujarat High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice J B Pardiwala, has observed last week, while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) that has challenged the Gujarat government policy to recruit young people on fixed salary for five years, that “It had “almost” made up its mind that the state government’s scheme to recruit Class III and IV employees on fixed salary for a fixed time frame was in violation of Constitutional provisions.” Dr. Rajendra Shukla, president of the Shree Yogkshem Foundation for Human Dignity, the petitioner of the aforesaid PIL called the policy of Government of Gujarat as ‘unlawful’ and ‘unfair’ labour practice, which is exploitative in nature and has recently further added in public that, “In our state of Gujarat, today ‘State Sponsored Financial Exploitation’ is practised, wherein the youth are employed on a fixed salary basis, like Vidhya Sahayak for teachers, Lok Rakshak for police and Gram Mitra in rural administration, which is a practice not followed anywhere else in the country. For instance, a youth will get employed for a meagre amount of Rs.1350 per month for five years. Imagine how his person would be running his house? Under the name of development, everything is hollow.”

“India needs strong implementation of laws, rather than new legislation”

It was a dispute that there is no law or legislation to curb corruption, now it is a dispute that there is no strong legislation proposed to curb any corruption…. and all our politicians with their volunteers are involved in one kind of internal war against each other, without attending to their parliamentary functions and there is a bog waste of our valuable time, public money and man hours in such liquid political situations… This is really unfortunate transactions of the present time, because several laws are there in our nation… yet another agitation is procured without any judicious consideration… as you know well that the so-called Lokpal bill is still not legislated, but the so-called corrupt ministers like Raja, and Kanimozi could have been sent behind the bars… even in past several immune personalities should have suffered and incurred even severe imprisonments or vigorous sentences for their dishonest actions… and more such so-called immune public servants may be sent to jails in coming days, for their illegal dishonest corruptions… The History of our Nation is a good witness of such events, one can look at it… and It is that only important ingredient of “Dishonesty” behind every serious public offence like corruption, misappropriation, theft, cheating, criminal breach of trust or unlawful gratification pertaining to the moral turpitude under Indian Penal Code and other present Acts, … So provisions of laws are there and remedies are also enacted, simply proper implementation and appropriate maintenance is strictly essential to control such the evil or corruption… and above all the strong and honest will power and determination to curb the corruption is necessary before any action or legislation… because “Laws alone are not the remedies to control corruption”. If one may look at our certain landmark judicial precedents, it may be certainly summarized that “Nobody is immune in the eyes of laws, if he has contravened any express provisions of laws….No action is protected, if it is done against the provisions of laws…. an illegal act can not be said as an official act or duty…. no public servants are entitled to act beyond the laws… Thus every dishonest action or inaction are liable to be punished if it is so intended.. But it is never strongly intended, except we spend again and again… as usually in the hands of politically oriented people… As a matter of fact, the recent remarks of our Hon Supreme Court ” How much we are spending on the security of the people who don’t deserve it.. “ says lots of things… if we read and see in between the lines in the large interest of our country…