As the Shiv Sena split hearing continued, Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked whether the Election Commission, finding all three tests problematic, could have denied the reserved symbol to both factions and let each establish its strength independently without drawing on Balasaheb Thackeray’s legacy. Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, for the Shinde faction, defended the Commission’s reliance on organisational structure. The matter is part-heard.
A PIL before the Karnataka High Court challenges the State’s September 8 order restricting Vande Mataram to its first two stanzas at most government programmes, arguing that prescribing the content of a national symbol falls within the Union’s exclusive competence and that the Cabinet decision was taken without a note, a sponsoring department or legal consultation. The petition does not seek to compel anyone to sing. The Court is expected to take it up shortly.
Arguing Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai told the Delhi High Court that mere use of offensive language does not attract the SC/ST Act, that the insult must be intentional and tied to caste identity, and that the Section 18 bar does not apply where the ingredients are not prima facie made out, relying on the Supreme Court’s Shajan Skaria decision. The prosecution and complainant contested that reading. The order is reserved.
The petitioner sought the Rs 4 lakh COVID ex-gratia payment for his father’s death, which had been rejected because no RT-PCR or antigen test was done. The Patna High Court accepted that the absence of a test report is not by itself conclusive, but held that the relaxation still requires reliable corroborative proof that the death was due to COVID, and dismissed the petition where the hospital record was silent and the death certificate placed the death at home.
In a fresh Section 9 arbitration petition, BharatPe’s parent Resilient Innovations has asked the Delhi High Court to restrain any transfer of or encumbrance over the warrants of Unity Small Finance Bank without its written consent, alleging a breach of the shareholders’ agreement. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela issued notice and listed the matter for October 1. No interim order has been passed yet.
Hearing Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in an SC/ST Act case, Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court observed that a person who calls himself a YouTube commentator must understand the platform, the context and the impact of what he says, that he cannot name a person in a manner crossing legal limits, and that where a statute like the SC/ST Act creates special protections one must be especially circumspect. The observations were made orally and are not a ruling.
Seeking anticipatory bail in an SC/ST Act case over remarks made in a YouTube broadcast concerning Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad, Ajeet Bharti told the Delhi High Court that he is a YouTube commentator who has consistently spoken against caste discrimination, and that the remarks complained of were made in a moment of provocation after an offensive post about his married sister, without any intention to insult any caste. The Court will view the video in chambers.
In an affidavit before the Delhi High Court, the Centre has said a competent adult should be allowed to nominate a partner, including a partner in a queer relationship, to take healthcare decisions in the event of incapacity, and that the relief sought can be accommodated within the existing legal and ethical framework. The petition seeks recognition of a non-heterosexual partner as a medical representative.
Doubting an earlier ruling that damages under Section 14B of the EPF Act are automatic, the Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench the question whether the authorised officer retains a discretion not to levy a penalty at all. It directed resolution applicants to pay the provident-fund dues with statutory interest in four quarterly instalments in the meantime.
Dismissing a first appeal, the Gujarat High Court upheld concurrent findings of the Waqf Board and the Waqf Tribunal on the character and management of a disputed dargah waqf in Patan district. It held that an inquiry under Section 40 of the Waqf Act is not a full-fledged trial, and that the appellants had shown no real prejudice from the denial of a separate hearing on their preliminary objections.