ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINE WHETHER INFORMATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005

Answering the above question the CIC  in case of  Razakk vs Haidar held that the EVM is covered within the definition of of information given in section 2 (f) of the RTI Act and can be given.

Supreme Court ordered to circulate the Judgment to DGPs of the State,all the Courts and Chief Secretaries to sensitize the police officers

Today the Supreme Court ordered to circulate the judgment of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India to all the Police Chief of all the States and to sensitize all the police officers on scrapping of  section 66 A of the I T Act and its continuous use by police even after scrapping.

PEOPLES’ UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
M.A. No. 3220/2018 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 199/2013 IA No.170338/2018- CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) Date : 15-02-2019

The suggestion is that copies of this Court’s judgment in ‘Shreya Singhal v. Union of India’ [(2015) 5 SCC 1] will be made available by every High Court in this country to all the District Courts. 

This should be done within a period of eight weeks from today. Also, we direct the Union Government to make available copies of this judgment to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments and the Union Territories. 

This should be done within a period of eights weeks from today. The Chief Secretaries will, in turn, sensitize the police departments in this country by sending copies of this judgment to the Director General of Police in each State, within a period of eights weeks thereafter.  

Supreme Court decision in Contempt case against CBI Interim Director

The Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi today held CBI Additional Director M Nageswara Rao guilty of contempt of court for transferring the investigating officer heading the probe in Muzaffarpur shelter home case in violation of the orders of the Court. 

The Court sentenced him till the rising of the Court and imposed a fine of Rs. one lakh, after noting that the transfer orders were passed by him despite knowing that the SC had ordered that the investigation team should not be changed.

ACTION AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS USING SECTION 66 A OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT

Supreme Court issued notice to the Central Government regarding continued use of section 66A of The Information Technology Act even after it is scrapped by the Supreme Court in case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India in 2015

In the petition submitted by the PUCL it is submitted that the police is still using the scrapped section of I T Act.

The Supreme Court took the matter seriously and asserted that the concerned official will be arrested if the order of Court scrapping the section 66 A of I T  Act, is violated.

SUPREME COURT TRANSFERS BIHAR MUZAFFARPUR SHELTER HOME RAPE CASE

A bench of Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, on Thursday ordered the transfer of the Muzaffarpur shelter home sexual assault case from Bihar to a Saket  court in New Delhi and slammed the state government for its management of shelter homes. also directed the POCSO court to complete trial within six month.

 The apex court also rapped the CBI for transferring its officer probing the sexual assault case and said it amounted to a violation of its order. 

The bench asked the CBI to file an affidavit giving an explanation. "Enough is enough. Children cannot be treated like this. You cannot let your officers treat children this way. Spare the children," the top court told the Bihar government. 

It said the court will summon the chief secretary if the state fails to give all information sought by the court.

ARREST IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 46 (4) OF THE Cr.P.C IS ILLEGAL

Mumbai high court in case of kavita manikikar vs CBI,   (WP 1142/2018) decided on 2/5/18 held that arrest in violation of section 46 (4) Cr.P.C. is illegal and awarded compensation of 50000 Rs to the petitioner and also directed the Government to initiate departmental proceeding against the erring officers. The Government is also given the liberty to recover the amount awarded from the erring police officers.

Fixing Different Age of Superannuation Based On Ranks In CRPF, ITBP, BSF Unconstitutional: Delhi HC

A Division bench comprising Justice S.Muraleedhar and Sanjeev Narula held that there appears to be no justification in discriminating amongst the CAPFs particularly when the retirement age of all members of the CISF and AR is 60 years and whereas the retirement age of those of the rank of Commandant and below in BSF, CRPF, SSB and ITBP is 57 years and declared declared that the fixing of the age of superannuation of members of the ranks of Commandant and below in the ITBP, CRPF, BSF and SSB different from those in the ranks above that of the Commandant is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Accordingly a direction is hereby issued that within a period of four months from today the Respondents i.e. the MHA in consultation with the CAPFs concerned will take all consequential steps by way of implementation of this judgment. This will include arriving at a decision as regards the retirement age which will uniform for all members of the CAPFs irrespective of their rank thus bringing all of them, including the CISF and the AR, on par and fixing the date from which such changed retirement age W.P.(C) 1951/2012 and batch matters Page 70 of 70 will take effect. 72. The Court clarifies that this judgment will not have the effect of reinstatement of the Petitioners who have already retired. In view of the principle of „no work, no pay‟, it will also not have the effect of their being entitled to any arrears of pay for any further period beyond their retirement. However, for the purposes of calculation of retiral benefits, including pension and gratuity, the differential period (in the event of enhancement of the retirement age) will be added to period of service actually rendered by each of them. In other words, their notional date of retirement would be arrived at by adding the differential years to their actual date of retirement. On such calculation they would be entitled to the arrears of retirement benefits after adjusting the amount already paid. 

(Dev Sharma vs ITBP, decided on 31/01/2019 Delhi HC)