The Apex Court Defines State Sponsored Terrorism

Recently The Supreme Court of India has redefined State Sponsored Terrorism, while disposing Criminal Appeal No.1491 0f 2012, in a matter against State of Jarkhand, that" It is not the duty of the police officers to kill the accused merely because he is a dreaded criminal. Undoubtedly, the police have to arrest the accused and put them up for trial. This court has repeatedly admonished trigger happy police personnel, who liquidate criminals and project the incident as an encounter. Such killings must be deprecated. They are not recognized as legal by our criminal justice administration system. They amount to State sponsored terrorism."

Landmark Guidelines set up by the Supreme Court of India in respect of Inherent Power and Compounding of Offences

While adjudicating Special Leave petitions of Gian Singh and others against State of Punjab and others, the Supreme Court of India has recently setup a landmark Ratio in respect of Inherent Powers of the Court in quashing and compounding any proceedings, observing that: " The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

SC: " Freedom of Speech and Expression is not an absolute Right "

As per a recently published report of Economic Times, the Division Bench of the Hon. Supreme Court of India has observed, while dealing with a dispute between Sahara Group and market regulator SEBI that " Freedom of Speech and Expression is not an absolute right under the Constitution and the journalists should understand the 'lakshman rekha' so that they do not cross the line of contempt." The court, however, refrained from framing broad guidelines for reporting of sub-judice court matters, saying it cannot be done "across the board."

A Threat of Nature in Rajasthan ?!!

Six Districts of Rajasthan collect 60 decree Celsius hot water directly from all Lands Resources like hand pumps, well, etc. since many days... The earth below the ground surface seems to occur some natural processes, which our scientist still do not resolve. It is the same area where the ancient River Sarasvati has been said to exist and have vanished due to something like a severe earthquake in past.. Does this recent phenomenon give us any Signals of any such new Earthquake !!!???

A Cry of The Apex Court: - "We are still in the the tunnel and the light is far away"

While rejecting the plea of Gurgaon Gramin Bank's plea about the jurisdiction of the court in the matters of Civil Appeal No.6261 of 2012, the Hon. Supreme Court of India has recently strictly commented about the burning issue of Delay in Court Proceedings and has again emphasized that " Number of litigation in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentality Banks, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the Officers’ skin. Judicial system is over- burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion, this court has reminded the Central Government, State Governments and other instrumentality as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category"