Best of the Rest

1. Freedom of press: There should be no suppression of speech and expression supposedly to protect children from harmful material

Facts

The Petitioner had filed the Writ Petition to seek protection of minor children from harmful and disturbing materials published in newspapers.

The Petitioner grievance was that the freedom of speech and expression enjoyed by the newspaper industry was not in balance with the protection of children from harmful and disturbing materials.

The Petitioner was considered in the growing tendency amongst youngsters and minors of indulging in X-rated jokes, SMSs and MSSs, discussions on sex matters etc. which confuse young minds.

Held

The Hon’ble Apex Court dismissing the Petition observed that there are sufficient safeguard in terms of various legislative, norms and rules to protect society in general under the Press Council Act, 1978, IPC etc and children, from obscenity and prurient content.

It was observed that in the event that a particular news item or picture published in newspapers offends any person they may avail the remedies available to them.

Under the present legal frame work any steps to impose a blanket ban on publishing of such news items or photographs would amount to prejudging the matters.

Any steps to ban publishing of certain news pieces or pictures would fetter the independence of free press, which is one of the hallmarks of our democratic set up.

It was further observed that an imposition of blanket ban on the publication of certain photographs and news items etc., will lead to a situation where the newspaper will be publishing material which caters only to children and adolescents and adults will be deprived of their share of the entertainment which are permissible under the normal norms of decency in any society. It was observed that a culture of ‘responsible reading’ should be inculcated among the readers of any news article. The members of the public and readers should not look for meaning in a picture or written article, which are not conceived to be conveyed through the picture or the news item.

Meaning of obscenity

The term obscenity is most often used in a legal context to describe expressions (words, images, actions) that offend the prevalent sexual morality.

In judging as to whether a particular work is obscene, regard must be had to contemporary mores and national standards.

The test or standard for judging a work as obscene should be that of an ordinary man of common sense and prudence and not an “out of the ordinary or hypersensitive man”. The definition of obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities. Many cultures have produced laws to define what is considered to be obscene, and censorship is often used to try to suppress or control materials that are obscene under these definitions.

Where art and obscenity are mixed, what must be seen is whether the artistic, literary or social merit of the work in question out weighs its ‘obscene’ content.

Nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene.

Ajay Goswami vs. UOI 2007 (1) SCC 143

2. Testamentary disposal of Self acquired property: Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Sec. 14(2)

Facts

One ‘R’ (Husband) had some self acquired properties. He was the absolute owner of the property. ‘R’ had his wife ‘I’ and his two nephews and he disposed of the property during his life time by a will. He provided in the will that after his death his wife so long as she remains alive will be the absolute owner of the property and after her death rights over the properties would be inherited by his two nephews. Thus his wife during her lifetime, would not be entitled either to transfer the property by way of any will or to mortgage or sell them to anyone else.

After the death of ‘R’ his wife purported to gift the property in favour of a Gurdwara. The nephews filed a suit challenging the deed of gift. It was claimed that under the will of ‘R’ ‘I’ (wife) took only a life estate and the properties were vest to the them (nephews).

Held

On appeal by the nephew (Appellant) against the order of the High Court the Hon’ble Apex Court held that ‘R’ had validly disposed of his property by providing for a limited estate to his heir, the wife, the wife has to take it as the estate falls. This restriction or limitation on her right so provided, is respected by the Act in sec. 14(2) and in such a case the wife is bound by the limitation and cannot claim any higher right by invoking sec. 14(1) of the Act.

It was also observed that ‘R’ was otherwise also entitled to dispose of the property under section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act. He was thus entitled to interfere with the succession that would have ensured if he had died intestate (i.e., without a will).

In view of the above ‘I’ (wife) was not competent to gift away the properties in favour of the Gurdwara.

Sadhu Singh vs. Gurdwara Sahib Narike & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 75

3. Service Law: Indulging in riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour and raising dirty slogans against management like calling the employer ‘thief’ or ‘chor’ is a serious abuse by an employee

Fact

The appellant (employee) was charged for indulging in riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviours and raising dirty slogans against the management of the company.

An enquiry was conducted and the charges were established and proved against the appellant for which he was dismissed. The Labour Court upheld the findings of enquiry officers. On Writ Petition filed by the appellant the High Court dismissed the same. The appellant preferred appeal against the order of High Court.

Held

The Hon’ble High Court held that the in the inquiry it had been sufficiently proved that the appellant had indulged in acts of riotous disorderly and indecent behaviour in and around the employer’s compound. The appellant had also raised dirty slogans during the demonstration against be employers which were found to be inflammatory character.

The Court thus held that calling the employer ‘thief’ or ‘chor’ is a serious abuse by an employee and cannot be treated lightly, therefore the dismissal of the appellant was upheld.

Sahil Khan vs. M/s. Hashmat & Co. 2006 Vol. 108 (4) Bom. L.R. 3081

4. Sanction for prosecution in case of public servant : Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988, section 19

Held

In cases covered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in respect of public servants the sanction is of automatic nature.

The sanction required u/s. 197 of Cr. P.C., 1973 operate conceptually in different field. In a case covered under the section 197 of the code, the basic features of the case have to be considered to find out whether the alleged act has any nexus with the discharge of duties. However, position is not so in the case of section 19 of the Act.

Lalu Prasad alias Lalu Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar through CBI (2007) 1 SCC 49

5. Finding of Criminal Court should be considered

When the findings of the criminal court had a direct bearing on the issue to be decided by the Appellate Tribunal the same should be considered and if the Tribunal order could stand against the finding of the criminal court, adequate and justifiable reasons should be given.

Shrirang Ramratan Chandak vs. UOI 2007 (207) ELT 217 (Bom)