IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN 2015.

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN 2015.

1. Unmarried mother can become sole guardian.

ABC vs State of NCT of Delhi.

2. NJAC , an ambitious law for the appointment of HC/SC judges, declared unconstitutional.

SC Advocates on record association vs Union of India.

⚡3. Yakub Menon midnight hearing . (started at 3:20 midnight soon before his hanging).
👉🏻 Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs State of Maharashtra.
⚡4. No compromise in Rape cases.
👉🏻State of M.P. vs Madanlal.
⚡5. Uphaar cinema verdict
👉🏻Sushil Ansal vs State though CBI.
⚡6. State can't free the prisoners in every case ( remission given by Tamilnadu govt to Rajiv Gandhi murderers)
👉🏻Union of India vs Sriharan.
⚡7. Section 364A of IPC which gives death punishment to a kidnapper, is not unconstitutional.
👉🏻Vikram singh vs Union of India.
⚡8. Give compensation to the victims of crimes.
👉🏻Manohar singh vs state of Rajasthan.
⚡9. Minimum educational qualification must be there for those who want to contest elections.
👉🏻Rajbala vs state of Haryana.
⚡10. Section 66A of IT Act which punished ppl for posts on Facebook, twitter etc, was declared bad and unconstitutional.
👉🏻Shreya Singhal vs Union of India.
⚡11. A Woman can be the manager of a Joint family.
👉🏻Shreya Vidyarthi vs Ashok vidyarthi.
⚡12. All Private/Govt employers will have to complete Departmental enquiries within 6 months.
👉🏻Prem Nath Bali vs Registrar, Del HC.
⚡13. Reserve Bank of India will also come under RTI Act.
👉🏻RBI vs Jayantilal Mistry.
⚡14. ACID ATTACK victims will come under Disability List.
👉🏻Parivartan kendra vs UOI.
⚡15. Writ petition is maintainable against 'Deemed Universities'
👉🏻Dr. Janet Jayapaul vs SRM University.
⚡16. Govt Advertisements will not have photos of politicians in/on them.
👉🏻Common cause vs UOI.
⚡17. Age determination of Rape Victim will be as per J.J.Act
👉🏻State of Mp vs Anoop singh.
⚡18. Complaint under Sec 200 Cr.p.c. can be amended.
👉🏻S.R.Sukumar vs S. Sunaad Raghuram
⚡19. Obscene language can't be allowed against 'Historically respected personalities'.
👉🏻Devidas vs state of Maharashtra.
⚡20. Appointments if ARCHAKAS to be made in accordance with AGAMAS.
👉🏻Adi Saiva Sivacgariyagal Nala vs Govt of Tamilnadu.
⚡21. Father of deceased victim has a right to appeal.
👉🏻Satya pal Singh vs state of MP
⚡22. JAAT reservation declared unconstitutional.
👉🏻Ram singh vs Union of India.
⚡23. If any M.p./MLA/ Elected representative conceals his pending criminal cases , his election can be cancelled.
👉🏻Krishnamoorthy vs Sivakumar
⚡24. Writ against judiciary for their judicial actions, not maintainable.
👉🏻Riju Prasad Sharma vs state of Assam.
⚡25. Law which gave equal property rights to daughters is prospective i.e. applicable from 2005. ( section 6 Hindu succession Act)
👉🏻Prakash vs Phulvati.
16-18 year olds accused of certain offences may be tried as adults ..........                              Bowing to mounting public pressure in the backdrop of the release of the juvenile convict in the Nirbhaya case which had led to an unprecedented public outrage, Rajya Sabha passed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2015 which had been hanging fire in the House for the last many months. Under the new law, juveniles between the ages of 16 to 18 years can be tried as adults in ‘heinous cases’, thereby fulfilling one of the main demands of those who had been seeking changes to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. With Nirbhaya’s parents Asha Devi and Badri Singh in attendance (they were seated in the visitors’ gallery to watch the proceedings) Rajya Sabha today finally took up the matter for discussion and passage. The Bill had been pending consideration of the Elders for the last 7 months after it had been passed by the Lok Sabha on May 7, 2015. Moving the Bill for consideration and passage, Women and Child Development minister Maneka Gandhi today said that the legislation was “compassionate” and comprehensive in nature. “We may not be able to do anything about the juvenile convict in the Nirbhaya case but we can deter many other boys,” she said. However several parties, including the NCP, CPM and the DMK, pushed for referring the Bill to a select committee, arguing that further examination was required to decide whether the age for punitive action should be reduced to 16 years from the current 18 years. Anu Aga (Nominated member) also demanded that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for examination as lowering the age of a juvenile from 18 years to 16 years will be a step in backward direction and would be considered a knee-jerk reaction only. Left parties staged a walkout after the Chair declined CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury’s request to send the Bill to a parliament select committee for further examination.“Today you are demanding the juvenile age to be reduced from 18 to 16 what if tomorrow a 15-year old commits a horrendous crime,” Yechury said before leading the walkout from the House.  The Bill will now be sent to the President for his assent whereupon it will become the law replacing the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. Salient Features of the Bill: Offences committed by juveniles have been categorized as: (i) heinous offences (those with a minimum punishment of seven years of imprisonment under IPC or any other law), (ii) serious offences (carrying three to seven years of imprisonment), and           (iii) petty offences (below three years of imprisonment). Under the Bill, juveniles between the ages of 16-18 years can be tried as adults in cases of commission of heinous offences, irrespective of date of apprehension. Any 16-18 year old, who commits a lesser, i.e., ‘serious offence’, may be tried as an adult if he is apprehended after the age of 21 years. In all other cases, juveniles will get a maximum of three years in institutional care, as determined by the JJB. In case of heinous offences, if a juvenile is apprehended before 21 years of age the JJB will conduct a preliminary inquiry. This will determine his mental/physical capacity to commit an offence and an understanding of its consequences. The JJB will then pass an order that recommends: (i) interventions like counseling or community service; (ii) staying at an observation home for a temporary or long-term period; or (iii) refer the juvenile to a Children’s Court to determine whether to try him as an adult. A Children’s Court is a Sessions Court notified under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. The Child Welfare Committee (CWC) set up under the Bill will determine institutional care for children in need of care and protection. They will be composed of a chairperson and four other members who shall be experts on matters relating to children. At least one of the four members will be a woman A child who is found to be in need of care and protection shall be brought before a CWC within 24 hours. Subsequently, a Social Investigation Report is required to be prepared within 15 days. After assessing the report, the CWC may recommend that the child be sent to a children’s home or another facility for long term or temporary care, or declare the child as free for adoption or foster care. The Bill prescribes penalties for cruelty against a child, offering a narcotic substance to a child, and abduction or selling a child. The Central Adoption Resource Agency will frame regulations on adoption. Adoptive parents should be physically and financially sound. A single or divorced person may adopt a child. A single male may not adopt a girl child. The Bill also provides for inter-country adoption. Institutions for child care having a valid registration under the 2000 Act will continue to be recognized. Other institutions are required to be registered within six months of this Act coming into force. The registration is valid for five years and needs to be renewed. Inspection committees will inspect these institutions and registration may be cancelled if they do not meet the prescribed criteria. Critics of the Bill have however flagged certain issues with the Bill as passed by the Rajya Sabha. There are differing views on whether juveniles between the age of 16 and 18 years should be tried as adults in ‘heinous cases’ and ‘serious offences’ if they are apprehended only after the age of 21 years. It has been pointed out in some quarters that this provision is not in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as ratified by India. The Parliamentary Standing Committee in its report had observed that the Bill violates the UNCRC as it differentiates between children below 18 years of age. The UNCRC states that signatory countries should treat every child under the age of 18 years in the same manner and not try them as adults. There are also apprehensions that this clause which differentiates between juveniles depending on the nature of the offence, may not satisfy the requirements of Article 14, 20(1) and 21 of the Constitution. Yet another anomaly of the Bill is that the penalties prescribed under the Bill are not in proportion to the seriousness of the crime committed. For example, a person giving a child a tobacco product or liquor attracts a higher term of imprisonment and fine than a person who engages in child trafficking.Highlights of the Bill
® The Bill replaces the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000. It addresses children in conflict with law and children in
need of care and protection.
® The Bill permits juveniles between the ages of 16-18 years to be tried as
adults for heinous offences. Also, any 16-18 year old, who commits a
lesser, i.e., serious offence, may be tried as an adult only if he is
apprehended after the age of 21 years.
® Juvenile Justice Boards (JJB) and Child Welfare Committees (CWC) will
be constituted in each district. The JJB will conduct a preliminary
inquiry to determine whether a juvenile offender is to be sent for
rehabilitation or be tried as an adult. The CWC will determine
institutional care for children in need of care and protection.
® Eligibility of adoptive parents and the procedure for adoption have
been included in the Bill.
® Penalties for cruelty against a child, offering a narcotic substance to a
child, and abduction or selling a child have been prescribed.                                                  Key Issues and Analysis
® There are differing views on whether juveniles should be tried as
adults. Some argue that the current law does not act as a deterrent for
juveniles committing heinous crimes. Another view is that a
reformative approach will reduce likelihood of repeating offences.
® The provision of trying a juvenile committing a serious or heinous
offence as an adult based on date of apprehension could violate the
Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (requiring that laws and
procedures are fair and reasonable). The provision also counters the
spirit of Article 20(1) by according a higher penalty for the same
offence, if the person is apprehended after 21 years of age.
® The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires all signatory
countries to treat every child under the age of 18 years as equal. The
provision of trying a juvenile as an adult contravenes the Convention.
® Some penalties provided in the Bill are not in proportion to the gravity
of the offence. For example, the penalty for selling a child is lower than
that for offering intoxicating or psychotropic substances to a child.
® The Standing Committee examining the Bill observed that the Bill was
based on misleading data regarding juvenile crimes and violated
certain provisions of the Constitution.                                                                                            A juvenile or child is a person less than 18 years of age. Under Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the
minimum age at which any person can be charged for a crime is seven years. The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 addresses children who are in conflict with law and children in need of care
and protection.2
 The Act was brought in to adhere to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC) which was ratified by India in 1992. As a signatory, India is required to undertake all appropriate
measures to ensure the rights of children with regard to juvenile justice, care and protection, adoption, etc.
As per 2011 census data, juveniles between the ages of seven to 18 years constitute about 25% of the total
population.3 According to the National Crime Records Bureau
(NCRB), the percentage of juvenile crimes as a proportion of total
crimes has increased from 1% to 1.2% from 2003 to 2013.
4

During the same period, 16-18 year olds accused of crimes as a
percentage of all juveniles accused of crimes increased from 54%
to 66 %. The types of crimes committed by juveniles in the 16-18
year age group vary as seen in Table 1.
Over the years, courts have looked at various cases regarding
juveniles committing crimes under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000,
and have recommended reviewing the Act with regard to issues
related to implementation of the Act, stringent penalties, etc.
5, 10
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014
was introduced in Lok Sabha on August 12, 2014 to address
crimes committed by juveniles, children in need of protection, their rehabilitation and adoption processes, etc.  Children in Conflict with Law
· Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) will be constituted in each district to deal with children in conflict with law.
They will consist of a Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate and two social workers, including a woman.
· Offences committed by juveniles are categorized as: (i) heinous offences (those with minimum punishment of
seven years of imprisonment under IPC or any other law), (ii) serious offences (three to seven years of
imprisonment), and (iii) petty offences (below three years of imprisonment). A juvenile cannot be given life
imprisonment without the possibility of release or death penalty.
· Under the Bill, a juvenile in conflict with law can be required to spend a maximum of three years in a special
home or fit facility. However, juveniles in the age group of 16-18 years may be tried as adults in certain
cases. Any person who is between the ages of 16-18 years and has committed a heinous offence may be tried
as an adult, irrespective of date of apprehension. Also, a juvenile between 16-18 years of age who has
committed a serious offence and apprehended after the age of 21 years, may be tried as an adult.
· In all other cases, juveniles will get a maximum of three years in institutional care, as determined by the JJB.
· In case of heinous offences, if a juvenile is apprehended before 21 years of age the JJB will conduct a
preliminary inquiry. This will determine his mental/physical capacity to commit an offence and an
understanding of its consequences. The JJB will then pass an order that recommends: (i) interventions like
counseling or community service; (ii) staying at an observation home for a temporary or long-term period; or
(iii) refer the juvenile to a Children’s Court to determine whether to try him as an adult.
· A Children’s Court is a Sessions Court notified under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act,
2005. For the purposes of this Bill, once a juvenile is referred by a JJB to a Children’s Court it will
determine whether to try him as an adult or else recommend counseling, stay at observation home, etc.
Children in Need of Care and Protection
· Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) will be constituted in each district to deal with children in need of care
and protection. They will be composed of a chairperson and four other members who shall be experts on
matters relating to children. At least one of the four members will be a woman.
Table 1: Juveniles between 16-18 years
apprehended under IPC
Crime 2003 2013
Burglary 1,160 2,117
Rape 293 1,388
Kidnapping/abduction 156 933
Robbery 165 880
Murder 328 845
Other offences 11,839 19,641
Total 13,941 25,804
Note: Other offences include cheating, rioting, etc.
Source: Juveniles in conflict with law, Crime in
India 2013, National Crime Records Bureau.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014 PRS Legislative Research
April 20, 2015 - 3 -
· A child who is found to be in need of care and protection shall be brought before a CWC within 24 hours.
Subsequently, a Social Investigation Report is required to be prepared within 15 days. After assessing the
report, the CWC may recommend that the child be sent to a children’s home or another facility for long term
or temporary care, or declare the child as free for adoption or foster care.
Offences and Penalties
· The offence of assaulting, abandoning, abusing, or willfully neglecting a child will attract a punishment of up
to three years of imprisonment and/or a fine of one lakh rupees. The penalty for employing a child for the
purpose of begging will lead to an imprisonment of up to five years and a fine of one lakh rupees.
· A person who gives a child an intoxicating or narcotic substance will be liable for imprisonment up to seven
years and a fine extending up to one lakh rupees. The penalty for selling or buying a child for any purpose
will be imprisonment up to five years and a fine of one lakh rupees.
Other Provisions
· Adoption: The Central Adoption Resource Agency will frame regulations on adoption. These regulations
will be implemented by state and district agencies. Prospective adoptive parents should be physically and
financially sound. A single or divorced person may adopt a child. A single male may not adopt a girl child.
The Bill also provides for inter-country adoption.
· Registration of institutions: Institutions for child care having a valid registration under the 2000 Act will
continue to be recognized. Other institutions are required to be registered within six months of this Bill
coming into force. The registration is valid for five years and needs to be renewed. Inspection committees
will inspect these institutions and registration may be cancelled if they do not meet the prescribed criteria.Type a message

16-18 year olds accused of certain offences may be tried as adults ..........                              Bowing to mounting public pressure in the backdrop of the release of the juvenile convict in the Nirbhaya case which had led to an unprecedented public outrage, Rajya Sabha passed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2015 which had been hanging fire in the House for the last many months. Under the new law, juveniles between the ages of 16 to 18 years can be tried as adults in ‘heinous cases’, thereby fulfilling one of the main demands of those who had been seeking changes to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. With Nirbhaya’s parents Asha Devi and Badri Singh in attendance (they were seated in the visitors’ gallery to watch the proceedings) Rajya Sabha today finally took up the matter for discussion and passage. The Bill had been pending consideration of the Elders for the last 7 months after it had been passed by the Lok Sabha on May 7, 2015. Moving the Bill for consideration and passage, Women and Child Development minister Maneka Gandhi today said that the legislation was “compassionate” and comprehensive in nature. “We may not be able to do anything about the juvenile convict in the Nirbhaya case but we can deter many other boys,” she said. However several parties, including the NCP, CPM and the DMK, pushed for referring the Bill to a select committee, arguing that further examination was required to decide whether the age for punitive action should be reduced to 16 years from the current 18 years. Anu Aga (Nominated member) also demanded that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for examination as lowering the age of a juvenile from 18 years to 16 years will be a step in backward direction and would be considered a knee-jerk reaction only. Left parties staged a walkout after the Chair declined CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury’s request to send the Bill to a parliament select committee for further examination.“Today you are demanding the juvenile age to be reduced from 18 to 16 what if tomorrow a 15-year old commits a horrendous crime,” Yechury said before leading the walkout from the House.  The Bill will now be sent to the President for his assent whereupon it will become the law replacing the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. Salient Features of the Bill: Offences committed by juveniles have been categorized as: (i) heinous offences (those with a minimum punishment of seven years of imprisonment under IPC or any other law), (ii) serious offences (carrying three to seven years of imprisonment), and           (iii) petty offences (below three years of imprisonment). Under the Bill, juveniles between the ages of 16-18 years can be tried as adults in cases of commission of heinous offences, irrespective of date of apprehension. Any 16-18 year old, who commits a lesser, i.e., ‘serious offence’, may be tried as an adult if he is apprehended after the age of 21 years. In all other cases, juveniles will get a maximum of three years in institutional care, as determined by the JJB. In case of heinous offences, if a juvenile is apprehended before 21 years of age the JJB will conduct a preliminary inquiry. This will determine his mental/physical capacity to commit an offence and an understanding of its consequences. The JJB will then pass an order that recommends: (i) interventions like counseling or community service; (ii) staying at an observation home for a temporary or long-term period; or (iii) refer the juvenile to a Children’s Court to determine whether to try him as an adult. A Children’s Court is a Sessions Court notified under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. The Child Welfare Committee (CWC) set up under the Bill will determine institutional care for children in need of care and protection. They will be composed of a chairperson and four other members who shall be experts on matters relating to children. At least one of the four members will be a woman A child who is found to be in need of care and protection shall be brought before a CWC within 24 hours. Subsequently, a Social Investigation Report is required to be prepared within 15 days. After assessing the report, the CWC may recommend that the child be sent to a children’s home or another facility for long term or temporary care, or declare the child as free for adoption or foster care. The Bill prescribes penalties for cruelty against a child, offering a narcotic substance to a child, and abduction or selling a child. The Central Adoption Resource Agency will frame regulations on adoption. Adoptive parents should be physically and financially sound. A single or divorced person may adopt a child. A single male may not adopt a girl child. The Bill also provides for inter-country adoption. Institutions for child care having a valid registration under the 2000 Act will continue to be recognized. Other institutions are required to be registered within six months of this Act coming into force. The registration is valid for five years and needs to be renewed. Inspection committees will inspect these institutions and registration may be cancelled if they do not meet the prescribed criteria. Critics of the Bill have however flagged certain issues with the Bill as passed by the Rajya Sabha. There are differing views on whether juveniles between the age of 16 and 18 years should be tried as adults in ‘heinous cases’ and ‘serious offences’ if they are apprehended only after the age of 21 years. It has been pointed out in some quarters that this provision is not in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as ratified by India. The Parliamentary Standing Committee in its report had observed that the Bill violates the UNCRC as it differentiates between children below 18 years of age. The UNCRC states that signatory countries should treat every child under the age of 18 years in the same manner and not try them as adults. There are also apprehensions that this clause which differentiates between juveniles depending on the nature of the offence, may not satisfy the requirements of Article 14, 20(1) and 21 of the Constitution. Yet another anomaly of the Bill is that the penalties prescribed under the Bill are not in proportion to the seriousness of the crime committed. For example, a person giving a child a tobacco product or liquor attracts a higher term of imprisonment and fine than a person who engages in child trafficking.Highlights of the Bill
® The Bill replaces the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000. It addresses children in conflict with law and children in
need of care and protection.
® The Bill permits juveniles between the ages of 16-18 years to be tried as
adults for heinous offences. Also, any 16-18 year old, who commits a
lesser, i.e., serious offence, may be tried as an adult only if he is
apprehended after the age of 21 years.
® Juvenile Justice Boards (JJB) and Child Welfare Committees (CWC) will
be constituted in each district. The JJB will conduct a preliminary
inquiry to determine whether a juvenile offender is to be sent for
rehabilitation or be tried as an adult. The CWC will determine
institutional care for children in need of care and protection.
® Eligibility of adoptive parents and the procedure for adoption have
been included in the Bill.
® Penalties for cruelty against a child, offering a narcotic substance to a
child, and abduction or selling a child have been prescribed.                                                  Key Issues and Analysis
® There are differing views on whether juveniles should be tried as
adults. Some argue that the current law does not act as a deterrent for
juveniles committing heinous crimes. Another view is that a
reformative approach will reduce likelihood of repeating offences.
® The provision of trying a juvenile committing a serious or heinous
offence as an adult based on date of apprehension could violate the
Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (requiring that laws and
procedures are fair and reasonable). The provision also counters the
spirit of Article 20(1) by according a higher penalty for the same
offence, if the person is apprehended after 21 years of age.
® The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires all signatory
countries to treat every child under the age of 18 years as equal. The
provision of trying a juvenile as an adult contravenes the Convention.
® Some penalties provided in the Bill are not in proportion to the gravity
of the offence. For example, the penalty for selling a child is lower than
that for offering intoxicating or psychotropic substances to a child.
® The Standing Committee examining the Bill observed that the Bill was
based on misleading data regarding juvenile crimes and violated
certain provisions of the Constitution.                                                                                            A juvenile or child is a person less than 18 years of age. Under Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the
minimum age at which any person can be charged for a crime is seven years. The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 addresses children who are in conflict with law and children in need of care
and protection.2
 The Act was brought in to adhere to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC) which was ratified by India in 1992. As a signatory, India is required to undertake all appropriate
measures to ensure the rights of children with regard to juvenile justice, care and protection, adoption, etc.
As per 2011 census data, juveniles between the ages of seven to 18 years constitute about 25% of the total
population.3 According to the National Crime Records Bureau
(NCRB), the percentage of juvenile crimes as a proportion of total
crimes has increased from 1% to 1.2% from 2003 to 2013.
4

During the same period, 16-18 year olds accused of crimes as a
percentage of all juveniles accused of crimes increased from 54%
to 66 %. The types of crimes committed by juveniles in the 16-18
year age group vary as seen in Table 1.
Over the years, courts have looked at various cases regarding
juveniles committing crimes under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000,
and have recommended reviewing the Act with regard to issues
related to implementation of the Act, stringent penalties, etc.
5, 10
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014
was introduced in Lok Sabha on August 12, 2014 to address
crimes committed by juveniles, children in need of protection, their rehabilitation and adoption processes, etc.  Children in Conflict with Law
· Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) will be constituted in each district to deal with children in conflict with law.
They will consist of a Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate and two social workers, including a woman.
· Offences committed by juveniles are categorized as: (i) heinous offences (those with minimum punishment of
seven years of imprisonment under IPC or any other law), (ii) serious offences (three to seven years of
imprisonment), and (iii) petty offences (below three years of imprisonment). A juvenile cannot be given life
imprisonment without the possibility of release or death penalty.
· Under the Bill, a juvenile in conflict with law can be required to spend a maximum of three years in a special
home or fit facility. However, juveniles in the age group of 16-18 years may be tried as adults in certain
cases. Any person who is between the ages of 16-18 years and has committed a heinous offence may be tried
as an adult, irrespective of date of apprehension. Also, a juvenile between 16-18 years of age who has
committed a serious offence and apprehended after the age of 21 years, may be tried as an adult.
· In all other cases, juveniles will get a maximum of three years in institutional care, as determined by the JJB.
· In case of heinous offences, if a juvenile is apprehended before 21 years of age the JJB will conduct a
preliminary inquiry. This will determine his mental/physical capacity to commit an offence and an
understanding of its consequences. The JJB will then pass an order that recommends: (i) interventions like
counseling or community service; (ii) staying at an observation home for a temporary or long-term period; or
(iii) refer the juvenile to a Children’s Court to determine whether to try him as an adult.
· A Children’s Court is a Sessions Court notified under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act,
2005. For the purposes of this Bill, once a juvenile is referred by a JJB to a Children’s Court it will
determine whether to try him as an adult or else recommend counseling, stay at observation home, etc.
Children in Need of Care and Protection
· Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) will be constituted in each district to deal with children in need of care
and protection. They will be composed of a chairperson and four other members who shall be experts on
matters relating to children. At least one of the four members will be a woman.
Table 1: Juveniles between 16-18 years
apprehended under IPC
Crime 2003 2013
Burglary 1,160 2,117
Rape 293 1,388
Kidnapping/abduction 156 933
Robbery 165 880
Murder 328 845
Other offences 11,839 19,641
Total 13,941 25,804
Note: Other offences include cheating, rioting, etc.
Source: Juveniles in conflict with law, Crime in
India 2013, National Crime Records Bureau.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014 PRS Legislative Research
April 20, 2015 - 3 -
· A child who is found to be in need of care and protection shall be brought before a CWC within 24 hours.
Subsequently, a Social Investigation Report is required to be prepared within 15 days. After assessing the
report, the CWC may recommend that the child be sent to a children’s home or another facility for long term
or temporary care, or declare the child as free for adoption or foster care.
Offences and Penalties
· The offence of assaulting, abandoning, abusing, or willfully neglecting a child will attract a punishment of up
to three years of imprisonment and/or a fine of one lakh rupees. The penalty for employing a child for the
purpose of begging will lead to an imprisonment of up to five years and a fine of one lakh rupees.
· A person who gives a child an intoxicating or narcotic substance will be liable for imprisonment up to seven
years and a fine extending up to one lakh rupees. The penalty for selling or buying a child for any purpose
will be imprisonment up to five years and a fine of one lakh rupees.
Other Provisions
· Adoption: The Central Adoption Resource Agency will frame regulations on adoption. These regulations
will be implemented by state and district agencies. Prospective adoptive parents should be physically and
financially sound. A single or divorced person may adopt a child. A single male may not adopt a girl child.
The Bill also provides for inter-country adoption.
· Registration of institutions: Institutions for child care having a valid registration under the 2000 Act will
continue to be recognized. Other institutions are required to be registered within six months of this Bill
coming into force. The registration is valid for five years and needs to be renewed. Inspection committees
will inspect these institutions and registration may be cancelled if they do not meet the prescribed criteria.Type a message

Bowing to mounting public pressure in the backdrop of the release of the juvenile convict in the Nirbhaya case which had led to an unprecedented public outrage, Rajya Sabha passed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2015 which had been hanging fire in the House for the last many months. Under the new law, juveniles between the ages of 16 to 18 years can be tried as adults in ‘heinous cases’, thereby fulfilling one of the main demands of those who had been seeking changes to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. With Nirbhaya’s parents Asha Devi and Badri Singh in attendance (they were seated in the visitors’ gallery to watch the proceedings) Rajya Sabha today finally took up the matter for discussion and passage. The Bill had been pending consideration of the Elders for the last 7 months after it had been passed by the Lok Sabha on May 7, 2015. Moving the Bill for consideration and passage, Women and Child Development minister Maneka Gandhi today said that the legislation was “compassionate” and comprehensive in nature. “We may not be able to do anything about the juvenile convict in the Nirbhaya case but we can deter many other boys,” she said. However several parties, including the NCP, CPM and the DMK, pushed for referring the Bill to a select committee, arguing that further examination was required to decide whether the age for punitive action should be reduced to 16 years from the current 18 years. Anu Aga (Nominated member) also demanded that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for examination as lowering the age of a juvenile from 18 years to 16 years will be a step in backward direction and would be considered a knee-jerk reaction only. Left parties staged a walkout after the Chair declined CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury’s request to send the Bill to a parliament select committee for further examination.“Today you are demanding the juvenile age to be reduced from 18 to 16 what if tomorrow a 15-year old commits a horrendous crime,” Yechury said before leading the walkout from the House.  The Bill will now be sent to the President for his assent whereupon it will become the law replacing the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. Salient Features of the Bill: Offences committed by juveniles have been categorized as: (i) heinous offences (those with a minimum punishment of seven years of imprisonment under IPC or any other law), (ii) serious offences (carrying three to seven years of imprisonment), and           (iii) petty offences (below three years of imprisonment). Under the Bill, juveniles between the ages of 16-18 years can be tried as adults in cases of commission of heinous offences, irrespective of date of apprehension. Any 16-18 year old, who commits a lesser, i.e., ‘serious offence’, may be tried as an adult if he is apprehended after the age of 21 years. In all other cases, juveniles will get a maximum of three years in institutional care, as determined by the JJB. In case of heinous offences, if a juvenile is apprehended before 21 years of age the JJB will conduct a preliminary inquiry. This will determine his mental/physical capacity to commit an offence and an understanding of its consequences. The JJB will then pass an order that recommends: (i) interventions like counseling or community service; (ii) staying at an observation home for a temporary or long-term period; or (iii) refer the juvenile to a Children’s Court to determine whether to try him as an adult. A Children’s Court is a Sessions Court notified under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. The Child Welfare Committee (CWC) set up under the Bill will determine institutional care for children in need of care and protection. They will be composed of a chairperson and four other members who shall be experts on matters relating to children. At least one of the four members will be a woman A child who is found to be in need of care and protection shall be brought before a CWC within 24 hours. Subsequently, a Social Investigation Report is required to be prepared within 15 days. After assessing the report, the CWC may recommend that the child be sent to a children’s home or another facility for long term or temporary care, or declare the child as free for adoption or foster care. The Bill prescribes penalties for cruelty against a child, offering a narcotic substance to a child, and abduction or selling a child. The Central Adoption Resource Agency will frame regulations on adoption. Adoptive parents should be physically and financially sound. A single or divorced person may adopt a child. A single male may not adopt a girl child. The Bill also provides for inter-country adoption. Institutions for child care having a valid registration under the 2000 Act will continue to be recognized. Other institutions are required to be registered within six months of this Act coming into force. The registration is valid for five years and needs to be renewed. Inspection committees will inspect these institutions and registration may be cancelled if they do not meet the prescribed criteria. Critics of the Bill have however flagged certain issues with the Bill as passed by the Rajya Sabha. There are differing views on whether juveniles between the age of 16 and 18 years should be tried as adults in ‘heinous cases’ and ‘serious offences’ if they are apprehended only after the age of 21 years. It has been pointed out in some quarters that this provision is not in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as ratified by India. The Parliamentary Standing Committee in its report had observed that the Bill violates the UNCRC as it differentiates between children below 18 years of age. The UNCRC states that signatory countries should treat every child under the age of 18 years in the same manner and not try them as adults. There are also apprehensions that this clause which differentiates between juveniles depending on the nature of the offence, may not satisfy the requirements of Article 14, 20(1) and 21 of the Constitution. Yet another anomaly of the Bill is that the penalties prescribed under the Bill are not in proportion to the seriousness of the crime committed. For example, a person giving a child a tobacco product or liquor attracts a higher term of imprisonment and fine than a person who engages in child trafficking.

2015 Important Judgements

As 2015 is going to end soon and we are about to see the dawn of 2016, it is the apt time to have a relook at what all we did this year. For humans living in legal world, viz. Lawyers, reporters and Law student, it is apt time to re look at what Supreme Court said this year. What new interpretation of law did the Apex Court offer and what Law has been struck down? We at Live Law, have reported almost all the important Judgments delivered by the Supreme Court this year and twenty five most important Judgments can be read here :-

1. NJAC held unconstitutional (Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs. Union of India) Within a year of both houses of Union Legislature passed much awaited National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act by 4:1. Justices J S Khehar, MB Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel declared the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act unconstitutional while lone minority, Justice Chelameswar upheld it. The judgement rendered by five judges runs over 1000 pages.

 2. Yakub Memon midnight hearing [Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra] The year 2015 witnessed a rare event of the Apex Court opening its gates for hearing an urgent Writ petition. Yakub Memon’s final plea before the Apex Court was heard in Court Room 4 which was opened for an unprecedented 90-minute hearing that started at 3.20 AM and ended a little before dawn. The Bench comprising Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Amitava Roy and Justice P.C. Pant agreed and observed that granting further time was not necessary in the present case. The bench said the execution was “inevitable” after rejection of the mercy petitions. Yakub was executed the very next day on his birthday.

3. Section 66A IT Act struck down [Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India] Netizens also had a good year with Supreme Court striking down Section 66A of Information Technology which was viewed as ‘draconian’ by many. The Apex court bench comprising of Justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman held that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right.”

4. No compromise in Rape cases [State of MP vs. Madanlal] After a couple of High Courts allowed mediation to take place between the Rape Victim and the Accused, the Supreme Court in a strong worded judgment held that in a case of rape or attempt of rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of. The Supreme Court accordingly ruled out mediation in such cases. Apex Court bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant observed “any kind of liberal approach or thought of mediation in this regard is thoroughly and completely sans legal permissibility.”

5. Unwed mother can become sole guardian of a child [ABC vs. State (NCT of Delhi)] In a landmark judgment, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Vikramajit Sen held that an unwed mother in India can apply to become the sole guardian of a child, without giving notice to the father of the child and without disclosing his identity. The Court also directed that if a single parent/unwed mother applies for the issuance of a Birth Certificate for a child born from her womb, the Authorities concerned may only require her to furnish an affidavit to this effect, and must thereupon issue the Birth Certificate, unless there is a Court direction to the contrary.

6.Uphaar Verdict [Sushil Ansal vs. State through CBI]  A verdict which perplexed many this year was the Apex Court ruling on Ansal brothers. 18 years after a massive fire at a theatre in New Delhi’s posh Green Park area snuffed out 59 lives, the Supreme Court let off cinema owners Sushil Ansal and his brother Gopal Ansal merely asking them to pay a fine of Rs 30 Crore each to the government within three months.

7. Award Compensation to the victim of crime [Manohar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan] In a significant ruling, The Supreme Court held that the Court while sentencing an accused, the court should not only strike a balance between needs of the society and fairness to the accused, but also should award compensation to the victim of crime. The bench comprising of Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel said that “The court has to give attention not only to the nature of crime, prescribed sentence, mitigating and aggravating circumstances to strike just balance in needs of society and fairness to the accused, but also to keep in mind the need to give justice to the victim of crime

8. Section 364A IPC awarding death penalty not unconstitutional [Vikram Singh vs. Union of India] The Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal by a death row convict, and held that Section 364A awarding death penalty as a possible punishment, for kidnapping any person threatening to cause death in order to compel Government or any other person, to pay ransom, is not unconstitutional. Three Judge Bench of Justices T.S. Thakur, R.K. Agrawal and Adarsh Kumar Goel examined the background of the Section 364A and held that it was enacted for the safety and security of the citizens and the unity, sovereignty and integrity of the country.

9. States cannot unilaterally grant remission [Union of India vs. Sriharan] In a setback to seven life convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case which includes four Sri Lankans, will remain in Vellore Central Prison in Tamil Nadu, as a five judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the Tamil Nadu government headed by J Jayalalithaa could not have unilaterally granted them remission.

10. Minimum Edu Qualification rule for Panchayat elections upheld [Rajbala vs. State of Haryana] Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act 8 of 2015), which introduced the minimum educational qualification for candidates to contest the panchayat elections. The Bench consisting of Justice Chelameswar and A.M.Sapre held that both the rights namely “Right to Vote” and “Right to Contest” are not fundamental Rights but only constitutional rights of the citizen.

     11. Women can be manager of a Joint Family [Shreya Vidyarthi vs. Ashok Vidyarthi] The Apex court bench comprising of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and N.V. Ramana held that, though a women could not be treated as Karta of a joint family, she can be a manager of a joint family, in some particular circumstances. The bench also held that the expression ‘Manager’ can be understood as denoting a role distinct from that of the Karta from that of the Karta.

. 12. Complete Departmental inquiries within six months [Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi] In a ruling which will have significant impact in service law, the Supreme Court of India has asked every employer, State and Private, to conclude departmental inquiry proceedings within six months. The court opined that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavour to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit.

 13. RBI also under RTI [Reserve Bank of India vs. Jayantilal Mistry] Coming down heavily on the Reserve Bank of India (RBI for short) for depriving information under the RTI Act, 2005 in the name of fiduciary relationship between itself and the banks, the Supreme Court has in a landmark decision declared that RBI does not place itself in a fiduciary relationship with the Financial institutions because, the reports of the inspections, statements of the bank, information related to the business obtained by the RBI are not under the pretext of confidence or trust.

14. Acid Attack Victims in disability list [Parivartan Kendra vs. Union of India] The Supreme Court has directed all the States and Union Territories to consider the plight of Acid Attack victims and take appropriate steps with regard to inclusion of their names under the disability list. Apex court bench of Justices M.Y. Eqbal and C. Nagappan said that State shall upon itself take full responsibility for the treatment and rehabilitation of the victims of acid attack as per the Guidelines provided in Laxmi vs. Union of India.

15. Writ petitions maintainable against ‘deemed Universities’. [Dr. Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University] Opining that the term “authority” used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12, the Supreme Court held that an aided educational institution like government institutions discharge public function by way of imparting education to students and therefore they are amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

16. No politician photos in Govt Ads [Common cause vs. Union of India] A Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice P.C. Ghose has restrained ruling parties from publishing photographs of political leaders or prominent persons in government-funded advertisements.

17. Age determination of rape victim clarified [State of M.P. vs Anoop Singh] Answering with the central question as to the criteria to be adopted and applied to resolve the controversy over the age of a rape victim in the event of a discrepancy in the birth certificate and the school certificate, the Supreme Court of India has held that Rule 12(3) of the juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, is applicable in determining the age of the victim of rape, and that medial opinion can be relied on only in the absence of the documents prescribed in Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice Rules.

18. Amendment in complaint can be done [S.R.Sukumar vs. S.Sunaad Raghuram] Answering the issue whether an amendment to a complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is impermissible in law, the Supreme Court of India held that if the amendment sought to be made relates to a simple infirmity which is curable by means of a formal amendment and by allowing such amendment, no prejudice could be caused to the other side, notwithstanding the fact that there is no enabling provision in the Code for entertaining such amendment, the Court may permit such an amendment to be made.

 19. Obscene language cannot be allowed against ‘Historically respected personalities’. [Devidas vs. State of Maharashtra] The Apex Court in a significant judgment rendered held that in the name of artistic freedom or critical thinking or generating the idea of creativity, a poet or a writer cannot put into the voice or image of a “historically respected personality” like Mahatma Gandhi, such language, which may be obscene.

20. Appointment of Archakas to be made in accordance with Agamas [Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sanga vs. Government of Tamil Nadu] The Supreme Court of India, in, has held that appointments of Archakas in temples will have to be made in accordance with the Agamas, subject to their due identification as well as their conformity with the Constitutional mandates and principles. Apex Court bench comprising of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and N.V. Ramana made this observation while disposing of a batch of Writ petitions filed against Tamil Nadu Government order regarding appointment of Archakas in temple.

21. Father of deceased victim has right to appeal [Satya Pal Singh v. State of M.P] Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in held that the father of the deceased has locus standi to prefer an appeal before the High Court under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. as he falls within the definition of victim as defined under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. to question the correctness of the Judgment and order of acquittal of Accused in the Case.

22. Jat reservation unconstitutional [Ram Singh vs. Union of India] The Apex Court bench held that self-proclamation and claim of a community of backwardness based on perception of advancement of other classes to seek protection as less fortunate is not constitutionally permissible

 23. Concealing pending criminal cases by elected representative illegal [Krishnamoorthy vs. Sivakumar] Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra ruled that if any elected representative conceals information regarding pending criminal cases, his election can be set aside. The Bench observed, “Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents’ amounts to corrupt practice by the candidates. The crucial recognized ideal which is required to be realized is eradication of criminalization of politics and corruption in public life.

 24. Writs against Judicial actions by judiciary not maintainable [Riju Prasad Sarma etc. Vs. State of Assam] The Supreme Court of India in a recent made it clear that judiciary in India, acting on its judicial side cannot be considered as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, and that only when the courts deal with their employees or act in other matters purely in administrative capacity, they may fall within the definition of the State for attracting writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court also ruled that writs against the judiciary would lie against their administrative actions alone.

25. Law giving equal right to daughters prospective [Prakash vs. Phulavati ] Apex Court clarified that the law, which gave equal right to daughters in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act, is prospectively enforceable and not with retrospective effect (as held by some High Courts in the country.

The Delhi High Court admitted a Writ Petition filed by an 87 year-old person thrown out of his home by his children and forced to stay on streets or Gurudwaras. The vacation bench will hear the petition on 30th of December. The petitioner Shri Jaswant Singh a resident of West Patel Nagar, New Delhi pleaded that he dedicated and sacrificed its entire life for the uplifting and welfare of his family and in return he is being harassed by them with the sole motive of grabbing his property without making any provision for his life. The petitioner has been compelled to live either in Gurudwara in the winter season or to live at the mercy of his relatives. It is alleged that respondent-sons of the petitioner are not allowing him to enter into petitioner’s own house at West Patel Nagar, New Delhi and live there and they in connivance with some police officials have put their lock over the locked room of the petitioner preventing his lawful entry into his room. Though the petitioner lodged several complaints with the police they flatly refused to help him and simply asked him to go to civil court for it being a civil dispute. In his pleadings the petitioner alleged that respondent-sons have been openly threatening him that local police would not come in rescue of the petitioner as they have managed to keep the local police on their side. They allegedly have procured the signature of the petitioner forcibly and are further compelling him to sign the documents. The petitioner asserts that he who is the owner the of the house has every right to live with dignity in his own house particularly when he is infirm, sick, having old age diseases and has no source of income. He also submitted before the court that the respondent-sons and their family members often became rude to him in their behaviour on account of which he always suffered a lot of mental pain and agony which could not be expressed and explained in words. The petitioner’s wife died in the year 2014. The petitioner has sought issuance of mandamus directing Commissioner of Police IP Estate, New Delhi and S.H.O Police Station Patel Nagar, New Delhi to take appropriate legal action and ensure necessary protection against his respondent-sons and their family members so that petitioner may live in his own house in his old age with dignity as guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution. He also has sought for direction to hand over the entire signed blank and typed papers which have been forcibly taken by the respondent-sons and their family members from him. Advocate V.K.Anand appeared for the Petitioner.

Law Enacted in 2015

Law Enacted in 2015

1.      The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015
 The Act amends the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and replaces the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 which was promulgated on June 15, 2015.

 It stipulates that in case of a cheque being dishonored: If the cheque is delivered for collection to the account of the payee (person who receives the cheque), the jurisdiction lies in the area of the bank branch where the payee maintains an account, or If the payee presents a cheque to a bank in any other way, the jurisdiction lies in the area of the bank branch where the drawer (person who writes the cheque) maintains an account. (Section 142(2)) It further provides that if the payee has filed a complaint against the drawer in a court with appropriate jurisdiction, all subsequent complaints against that person regarding cheque bouncing will be filed in the same court, irrespective of whether the cheque was delivered for collection or presented at a bank within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. (Section 142A) The Act also amends the definition of ‘cheque in the electronic form’. It is defined to mean a cheque drawn in electronic form by using any computer resource and signed in a secure system with digital signature (with or without biometrics signature) and asymmetric crypto system or with electronic signature, as the case may be. (Section 6) Further, the definitions of ‘computer resource’, ‘digital signature’, ‘electronic system’ and ‘asymmetric crypto system’ are amended to be the same as those assigned to them in the Information Technology Act, 2000.

 2. Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 The Act replaces the ordinance which was promulgated in December 2014.

It makes Part I of the Act, which applies to matters where the place of arbitration was India, to international commercial arbitrations as well, even if the place of arbitration is outside India. (Section 2(2)) It changes the relevant Court for all arbitration matters to the relevant High Court in case of International Commercial Arbitrations. (Section 2(1)) Besides pegging the time period for disposal of cases by a Court at one year, it also makes provision for fast track procedure for arbitration, which would necessitate rendering of an award within 6 months. (Section 29A) Another significant feature of the Act is that it provides additional grounds of contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian Law and conflict with the notions of morality or justice, in addition to the grounds already specified in the Act for setting aside an arbitral award. (Section 34 (2)) You may read: Amendment of Indian Arbitration Act: A Sigh of Relief for the Indian Arbitration Professionals and Clients! By Anil Xavier

3.The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015

 The Act replaces the ordinance which was promulgated in October 2015. It provides for creation of Commercial Courts, equivalent to district courts, which may be set up in all States and Union Territories, by the State Governments after consulting with their respective high courts. Setting up of Commercial Divisions has been made possible in those High Courts which exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction, that is, the High Courts of Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. The Commercial Appellate Division is empowered to hear appeals relating to a commercial dispute, filed in a High Court against the orders of Tribunals like the Competition Appellate Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal, Company Law Board or the National Company Law Tribunal, Securities Appellate Tribunal, and Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate tribunal. The minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts and Commercial Division is stipulated as one crore rupees.

4.The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015

The Act make provisions to deal with the problem of the Black money that is undisclosed foreign income and assets, the procedure for dealing with such income and assets and to provide for imposition of tax on any undisclosed foreign income and asset held outside India. It functions as an addition to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It applies a flat rate of 30 per cent to undisclosed foreign income or assets of the previous assessment year. (Section 3(1)) No exemption, deduction or set off of any carried forward losses (as provided under the IT Act) would apply. This would apply from April 1, 2016 onwards. It provided for a one-time compliance opportunity to persons who have any undisclosed foreign assets (for all previous assessment years) will be provided for a limited period. Such persons were permitted to file a declaration before a tax authority, and pay a penalty at the rate of 100%. The compliance window was opened from July 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015. Tax at the rate of 30 percent and penalty at the rate of 30 percent is to be paid by December 31, 2015, according to the government statement. You may read: Lok Sabha passes Black Money Bill, Jethmalani terms it totally worthless and is a kind of Amnesty Scheme by M.A. Rashid

5.The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2015 The Act amends the Citizenship Act, 1955.

 which regulates the acquisition and determination of citizenship after commencement of the Constitution. While the Act provided that any person who is/has been a citizen of Pakistan or Bangladesh or any other country which is notified by the central government will be ineligible to apply for Overseas Citizenship of India, the amendment extends this provision to cover persons whose parents/grandparents/ great-grandparents were citizens of any of the above countries. (Section 7A) The Bill also introduces a provision for registration of a person as an Overseas Citizen of India cardholder under ‘special circumstances’, even if s/he does not satisfy any of the listed qualifications. Further, it empowers the Central Government to notify that Persons of Indian Origin cardholders shall be considered to be Overseas Citizen of India cardholders from a specified date. Persons of Indian Origin enjoy fewer benefits than Overseas Citizens of India. (Section 7A (3)) The Bill provides that where a person renounces their overseas citizenship, their spouse shall also cease to be an Overseas Citizen of India (Section 7C). It also empowers the Central Government to cancel the Overseas Citizenship of India card where it is obtained by the spouse of an Indian citizen or Overseas Citizen of India cardholder, if: (i) the marriage is dissolved by a court, or (ii) the spouse enters into another marriage even while the first marriage has not been dissolved. (Section 7D (f))

 6. The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Amendment Act, 2015

 The Act amends the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The amendment act widens the definition of public premises. It also introduces timelines for eviction of unauthorized occupants. The Act stipulates 15 days for vacation of the premises, after such order is passed by the Estate Officer. This period may be extended if the Estate Officer feels there are compelling reasons which prevent a person from vacating the premises in 15 days. (Section 5 (1)) Further, if an Estate Officer receives information that a person is in unauthorized occupation of the premises, they must make an order, within seven days of receiving this information, directing persons who have occupied the premises to show cause as to why they should not be evicted. However, any delay in issuing this order will not invalidate proceedings. (Section 4 (1)) In case a period is in arrears of rent payable, the Estate Officer may order that they pay rent or damages, after issuing a notice asking the person to explain why such as order should not be made. The explanation must be provided within seven days of the notice. (Section 7(3)) The Act provides for a period of one month for disposal of an appeal from the Estate Officer’s orders. (Section 9(4))

7. The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2015

The Act amends the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Act provides for application of provisions of the Principal Act to e-cart and e-rickshaw. E-kart and e-rickshaws are defined to mean special purpose battery powered vehicles of power not exceeding 4000 watts, having three wheels for carrying goods or passengers, as the case may be, for hire or reward, manufactured, constructed or adapted, equipped and maintained in accordance with such specifications, as may be prescribed in this behalf. It however exempts e-karts and e-rickshaws from Section 7(1) which stipulates that a learner’s license cannot be granted to a person unless s/he has held a driving license to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year.

8. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Orders (Amendment) Act, 2015
The Act amends Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 to modify the list of Scheduled Castes in the States of Haryana, Karnataka and Odisha and the Constitution (Dadra and Nagar Haveli) Scheduled Castes Order, 1962. The President is empowered by Article 341 of the Constitution of India to specify castes which will be deemed as Scheduled Castes through a notification, as also empowers the Parliament to include or exclude castes from the list of scheduled Castes. The Act adds the following communities to the list of Scheduled Castes: Haryana: Kabirpanthi Julaha Karnataka: Bhovi, Od, Odde, Vaddar, Waddar, Voddar, Woddar, Bovi (NonBesta), Kalluvaddar, Mannuvaddar Odisha: Dhoba, Dhobi, Rajak, Rajaka, Dom, Dombo, Duria Dom, Adhuria Dom, Adhuria Domb, Katia, Khatia, Kela, Sapua Kela, Nalua Kela, Sabakhia Kela, Matia Kela, Gaudia Kela, Khadala, Khadal, Khodal, Turi and Betra Dadra and Nagar Haveli: Chamar, Rohit The Act also updates the name Uttaranchal to Uttarakhand in this list.

 9. The Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015.

The Act amends the Insurance Act, 1938; the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972; and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999. The Act, among other things, stipulates that shareholding by a foreign company (direct and indirect) should not exceed 49% of paid-up capital of an Indian insurance company. It makes this cap inclusive of foreign portfolio investments and states that the companies should be Indian owned and controlled. (Section 2 (7A) of the Insurance Act) It also provides a separate definition for ‘health insurance business’ as the effecting of contracts which provide for sickness benefits or medical, surgical or hospital expense benefits, whether in-patient or out-patient travel cover and personal accident cover. (Section 2 (6C) of the Insurance Act) Minimum paid-up capital requirement for a person exclusively in the health insurance business has been increased from 50 crore to 100 crore. (Section 2 (8A) of the Insurance Act) It increases from 2 years to 3 years, the time period for calling into question a life insurance policy on the ground of misstatement. (Section 45 (1) of Insurance Act) The four public sector general insurance companies, presently required as per the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 (GIBNA, 1972) to be 100% government owned, are now allowed to raise capital, keeping in view the need for expansion of the business in the rural and social sectors, meeting the solvency margin for this purpose and achieving enhanced competitiveness subject to the Government equity not being less than 51% at any point of time. (Section 10B of General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972) The Act omits Section 25 of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 which restrained foreign insurers from issuing insurance policies in India without prior government permission. It empowers the IRDA to withhold a registration of a foreign insurer, in addition to the power of cancelling it, if they have been debarred by law or practice of his country to carry on insurance business. (Section 3 of Insurance Act) This provision also includes any foreign company engaged in re-insurance business through a branch established in India. It also empowers the IRDA to suspend or cancel registration wholly or in part, when the transfer or amalgamation has happened without the approval of the authority. (Section 4 of the Insurance Act)

10. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015

The Act amends the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. It adds a new Fourth Schedule to the Act, incorporating bauxite, iron ore, limestone and manganese ore as notified minerals. It also introduces the prospecting license-cum-mining lease, which is a two stage-concession granted for the purpose of undertaking prospecting operations followed by mining operations. (Section 2 (ga)) Further, it increases the mining lease period for all minerals other than coal, lignite and atomic minerals, from 20 years to 50 years. (Section 8A (2)) It provides for the creation of a District Mineral Foundation (DMF) and a National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET). The DMF is to be established by the state government for the benefit of persons in districts affected by mining related operations. The NMET shall be established by the central government for regional and detailed mine exploration. Licensees and lease holders shall pay the DMF an amount not more than one-third of the royalty prescribed by the central government, and the NMET two percent of royalty.


11. The Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015

 The Act replaced two ordinances issued by the government – the first on October 21, 2014 and the other in December, 2014, after the apex court cancelled the allocation of 214 blocks since 1993. All the 204 mines whose allocation was cancelled by the Supreme Court, are defined in the act as ‘Schedule-I coal mines’. Out of these, the 42 mines which were already producing and ready to produce coal were defined as ‘Schedule-II coal mines’. Other 32 coal mines which are at various stages of development were defined as Schedule-III coal mines. These coal mines are meant for specified end-use and the Central Government has been empowered to move mines from Schedule I to schedule-III. The new Act has provisions for allocation of coal mines through a transparent bidding process i.e. E-auction, in order to ensure the continuity in coal mining operations and promotion of optimum utilization of coal resources. The Act also facilitates E-auction of coal blocks for private companies for captive use and allots mines directly to state and central Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs). It contains provisions that propose strong measures for rehabilitation and compensation for displaced persons. It further enables sale of coal especially to small, medium and cottage industries which will increase employment & incomes in these sectors.

12. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganization (Amendment) Act, 2015

 The Act amends the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. The Bill increases the strength for the Legislative Council for Andhra Pradesh to 58 members. In doing so, it increases the number of members to be elected by members of municipalities, district boards and other local authorities to 20 members. The number of members to be elected by members of the State Legislative Assembly has been increased to 20 and to be nominated by the Governor to 8.

13. The Regional Rural Banks (Amendment) Act, 2015

The Act amends the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. It removes the 5 year limit over the responsibility of Regional Rural Banks to provide managerial and financial assistance, thus allowing such assistance to continue beyond this duration. The Act raises the amount of authorized capital of each RRB to INR 2,000 crore and states that it cannot be reduced below Rs one crore. Further, it allows RRBs to raise their capital from sources other than the Central and State Governments, and sponsor banks. In such a case, the combined shareholding of the Central Government and the sponsor bank cannot be less than 51%. Additionally, if the shareholding of the State Government in the RRB is reduced below 15%, the Central Government would have to consult the concerned State Government. The Act further states that any person who is a director of an RRB is not eligible to be on the Board of Directors of another RRB. It also adds a provision for directors to be elected by shareholders based on the total amount of equity share capital issued to such shareholders. If the equity share capital issued to shareholders is 10% or less, one director shall be elected by such shareholders. Two directors shall be elected by shareholders where the equity share capital issued to them is from 10% to 25%. Three directors shall be elected in case of equity share capital issued being 25% or above. If required, the central government can also appoint an officer to the board of directors to ensure effective functioning of the RRB. (Section 9(1) (f))

                     

14. The Warehousing Corporations (Amendment) Act, 2015 The Act amends the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962.

 It does away with the Central Government’s responsibility of being a financial guarantor to the central warehousing corporation. Accordingly, provisos to certain sections relating to the government’s responsibility of being a guarantor to the central warehousing corporation are proposed to be omitted.


15. The Payment and Settlement Systems (Amendment) Act, 2015
The Act amends the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, extending its application to a designated trade repository, or issuer, in relation to payment systems. It introduces a new provision for settlement and netting in relation to central counter parties (who is a system provider who by way of novation interposes between system participants). It states that upon an order of declaration of insolvency, dissolution or winding up in relation to a central counter party, the payment obligations and settlement instructions between the central counter party and the system participants are to be determined by the central counter party in accordance with the gross or netting procedure or any other provision of this Act. This must be approved by the RBI while issuing authorization and such determination would be final and irrevocable. This provision would override that of the Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 2013 and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. (Section 23 (5) and (6)) It introduces another provision which empowers the RBI to direct system providers of a payment system to ensure protection of funds collected from customers. (Section 23A)

16. The Companies (Amendment) Act, 2015

The Act amends Companies Act, 2013. It removes the requirement of a minimum paid up share capital amount for private and public companies. It introduces a provision stipulating punishment for contraventions for acceptance of deposits from the public. Such a contravention would now entail a minimum fine of Rs one crore and a maximum of Rs 10 crore, in addition to the deposit or interest that is due; and up to seven years imprisonment and fine between Rs 25 lakh to Rs two crore, or both, for every defaulting officer of the company. If proved that the defaulting officer of the company did so willfully, he will be liable for the offence of fraud, under this Act. The Act limits the constitution of benches of Special Courts only for the trial of offences where punishment is imprisonment of two years or more. All other offences are to be tried by a metropolitan or first class judicial magistrate. Further, doing away with the requirement of a special resolution with regard to related party transactions, the Act states that a resolution would not be necessary for transactions between a holding company and its wholly owned subsidiary whose accounts are consolidated with such holding company and have been placed before the shareholders for their approval.


17. The Constitution (One Hundredth Amendment) Act, 2015

The Act amends the Constitution of India to give effect to the acquiring of territories by India and transfer of certain territories to Bangladesh in pursuance of the agreement and its protocol entered into between the Governments of India and Bangladesh. 18. The Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015 The Act amends the Delhi High Court Act, 1996. The Bill increases the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi to INR 2 crore. Consequently, the Bill empowers the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to transfer any pending suit to a relevant subordinate court....

The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act 2015 came in to force with retrospective effect. According to the notification published in the official Gazette dated 26.12.2015 the Amendment shall be deemed to have come into force on the 15th day of June, 2015. Rajya Sabha passed the Negotiable Instrument (Amendment) Bill 2015 on 7th December 2015 . Lok Sabha had passed the Bill in August 2015. The Act will replace Negotiable Instrument (Amendment)  ordinance which was re-promulgated on 25th September 2015. The amendment makes changes in provisions relating to the territorial jurisdiction for filing Cheque dishonour Cases in the Negotiable Instrument Act. As per the Amendment The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction,— (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or (b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated. It was in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra  a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that  a Complaint of Dis-honour of Cheque can be filed only  to  the  Court  within  whose  local jurisdiction the offence was committed, which  in  the  present  context  is where the cheque is dishonored by the bank on which it is drawn. The Court clarified that the Complainant is statutorily bound to comply with Section 177 etc. of the Cr.P.C. and therefore the place or situs where the Section 138 Complaint is to be filed is not of his choosing. Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. overruled the two Judge Bench Judgment in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan  Balan  (1999) 7 SCC 510 wherein it was held that “the offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts.....