Facing contempt of court charge Say sorry early - No Merit In Delayed Apology, Rules SC

Facing proceedings of criminal contempt of court You better apologise unconditionally and that too swiftly. Any dithering will be fraught with the risk of you landing in jail,the Supreme Court has warned.
An apology in a contempt proceeding must be offered at the earliest possible opportunity, said a Bench comprising Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly in an order which toughens the already stringent laws dealing with criminal contempt of court. Criminal contempt of court is a higher degree of offence compared to civil contempt, and is invoked against those who brazenly slander a courts reputation.
Justices Singhvi and Ganguly, however, stressed that the courts needed to exercise the power to punish for contempt with restraint.Contempt power has to be exercised with utmost caution and in appropriate cases, it said, underlining this was why the contempt power has not been vested in lower courts. The lower courts have to make a reference to the concerned HC for initiation of contempt against a person for his contemptuous behaviour.

The Bench rejected a delayed apology by one Ranveer Yadav, who was sentenced to two months imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2,000 for creating a ruckus in a Khagaria court in Bihar forcing the trial judge to leave the court room. His apology came long after trying to justify his misbehaviour in the court on the ground that other accused in the case had provoked him. His misconduct was aggravated by his earlier misdemeanour of being discourteous to public prosecutors coupled with his flaunting of political connection and criminal antecedents.
============================
Colleges to serve legal notice on govt


Hyderabad: The state government will be served legal notices by colleges in the state demanding release of funds pending under the fee reimbursement scheme (wherein SC,ST,OBC,EBC and minority students get a complete reimbursement of their tuition fee). In a general body meeting of Consortium of Private Engineering Colleges Managements Association of AP (CPECMA), it was decided that the colleges would first serve notices to the state government on May 17 and later give them time till May 25 to pay the pending fee.The colleges threatened to go on strike from May 26 if the government failed to pay up the fee until then.The managements claimed that the government has to release over Rs 2,000 crore towards the pending fee amount. If the state government fails to release the funds, we will not reopen the colleges. Examinations of first year students which is scheduled to begin on June 1 will also be stalled, said P Rajeswar Reddy,secretary, CPECMA. Representatives said that even MBA, MCA and Pharmacy colleges will go on strike on the same day.
=============================
DV Act can be used against women: Govt


The central government says the Domestic Violence Act, enacted with a view to protect women, can also be used to prosecute women. Backing the recent decision of some courts in Delhi to invoke the civil law against women, an affidavit filed in the Delhi high court by the women and child development ministry says that the main purpose of the Act is to protect women from domestic violence but not solely protect them from male persons, right of the victim against domestic violence cant be guided by the gender of the perpetrator. The governments stand came in response to a petition by a widow questioning the invokation of the Act against women by a few courts in Delhi. Varsha Kapoor through her lawyer Arvind Jain had urged the court to strike down a section in the Act that allowed courts to sanction prosecution of women. Justifying the stand of the government, the affidavit adds,the main purpose of the society and law maker is to provide certain protection to the women so that they can live with honour, the legislature never wanted to exempt women from prosecution- if any crime is committed by a woman she is liable to be prosecuted irrespective of gender. In her petition, Kapoor, who has been booked under the DV Act on the complaint filed by her estranged daughter-in-law, has also challenged a lower courts order against her.

The DV Act is a benevolent piece of legislation aimed to provide for more effective protection of rights of women under the constitution who are victims of violence of any kind within family, the petition argued, pointing out that such a law cant be allowed to be misused against women. Saying that a lot of confusion on the concerned provision has been generated due to conflicting verdicts by several high courts across the country, Jain said that HC needs to clarify the law in this regard so that the same can be applied by lower courts. The above stated conflicting, confusing, absurd and unconstitutional provisions have created such a mess and chaos that interest of justice/ends of justice are not available to the petitioner to rescue her dignity and honour, the petition states.
==============================
High security registration plates to cost less after apex court verdict


Now, buying a high security registration plate (HSRP) for your car wont burn a hole in your pocket. For, this judgment from the Supreme Court will help you in getting an HSRP manufactured by an Indian firm for Rs 500 instead of paying Rs 1200 for the one made by a foreign multinationals Indian venture. The SC has dismissed appeals by foreign multinational backed Indian firms Shimnit Utsch India Private Ltd and Tonnjes Eastern Security Technologies Pvt Ltd claiming that state governments had no right to change the conditions laid down in the Central law proposed notice inviting tenders for HSRPs. Indian HSRP manufacturers had protested against the experience and certain minimum turnover clauses attached to the notice inviting tenders and alleged that this was tailor-made for foreign multinationals to bag the contracts for supply of HSRPs. West Bengal and Orissa had effected changes in the NITs doing away with the clause requiring previous experience in manufacturing of HSRPs to qualify for submitting tenders. The changes were challenged unsuccessfully by Shimnit and Tonnjes in the Calcutta and Orissa high courts respectively. Both had moved the apex court against the decisions of the HCs. A bench comprising Justices RV Raveendran, RM Lodha and CK Prasad on Wednesday said that the Centre had only issued guidelines as far as NITs were concerned and that the state governments had the power to modify them. The bench noted that As a matter of fact, the Central government has clarified the position in its communication with the states/UTs that draft tender conditions circulated by them are only suggestive. Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Lodha said that even the apex courts decision in the Maninderjit Singh Bitta case validating the central law for HSRPs was of no help to Shimnit and Tonnjes.

It is important to notice that the bids pursuant to the second NIT have been evaluated by authorities in West Bengal and we have been informed that  lowest bid per HSRP unit for a vehicle is Rs 469 while the offer made by Shimnit is of about Rs 1200, the bench said. Such a huge difference in the rate per HSRP unit shows that the action of the state government in doing away with the conditions of experience in foreign countries and prescribed turnover from such business has been in larger public interest without compromising on safety, security and quality or sustainable capacity, the apex court said.
===========================
(source-toi)