Search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are capable of blocking all contents infringing Indian laws, including those relating to pre-natal sex determination technologies, claims the Union Govt in an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court

The Union Government on Friday informed the Supreme Court through an affidavit that search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft were capable of blocking all contents infringing Indian laws, including those relating to pre-natal sex determination technologies.

The affidavit has been filed in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by Sabu Mathew George, who said the search engines violated Indian laws by displaying pre-natal sex determination ads.

In its affidavit, the Ministry of Communications and Technology has stated that the “search engines have the relevant technology and deep-domain knowledge and expertise to block/filter the words/phrases/expressions and sponsored links, which are violative of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act.” The Act prohibits determination of the sex of a foetus.

Yahoo logo

The Ministry contended that the search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft were intermediaries, as defined under the Information Technology Act, and hence they had statutory obligations to perform due diligence and block all contents that breached Indian laws.

It pointed out that the search engines used an algorithm to rank search results on web pages and that it was used as a marketing technique for the entities to gain higher page ranking against a key word search.

Since there was a limited technical know-how in the country to decode such algorithm and disable search of contentious key words, the Department of Electronics and Information Technology found it difficult to block the information based on the key word search results, which could include unlawful information.

“Such blocking/filtering on keywords or advertisements can be effectively and regularly done only by the search engines as they have access to their respective mathematical algorithms all the time,” claimed the ministry. The Ministry has further contended in its affidavit that Google, Yahoo and Microsoft should be asked by the court to provide details of measures adopted by them to block keywords and sponsored links violative of the PC-PNDT Act.

The PIL is likely to come up for hearing before the Apex Court shortly.

Sunanda Pushkar's case reflects badly on the functioning of our criminal justice system : Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon

Founder director of the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru and the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, Prof. Dr. N.R.  Madhava Menon found fault with the Delhi Police for the ‘snail’s pace’ at which it moved to register a FIR in Sunanda Pushkar's case. 

File Picture: Prof. Dr. N.R. Madhava Menon

Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon also criticized the plan of Delhi Police to send the viscera samples of Pushkar abroad for further examination. 

"Now Delhi Police is saying that the forensic examination needs to be done abroad. Though, we have the capacity, it was not done properly. Even the All India Institute of Medical Sciences took one year to come out with a result. It is such as serious offence," said Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon on the sidelines of the inaugural ceremony of 155th anniversary celebrations of Indian Penal Code conducted by the Directorate of Prosecution, Government of Kerala, in Kochi on Saturday.  

"It is not the personality involved. But it shows the way criminal justice is moving at a snail's pace even in the case of such a serious offence. It reflects badly", he added. 

Addressing public prosecutors on the Indian Penal Code(IPC) and criminal justice at the function, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon stressed the point that the IPC demands a total revamp for ensuring speedy delivery of justice.

"We keep on amending rape law making it very difficult. We have noxious pieces of legislations. If the wife dies within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances, the husband is guilty of murder. Shashi Tharoor could have been guilty of murder on the face of it. Even a FIR was not registered in one year. It is a test case of how our criminal justice system functioning", Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon said. 

Contempt of Court : Single Judge of the Kerala High Court doubts the correctness of the Division Bench Judgment in Jyothilal's case; directs the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for the same to be heard by a Bench of an appropriate strength

A Single Judge of the Kerala High Court on Friday has doubted the correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench in K.R. Jyothilal v. Mathai M.J

In Jyothilal's case (supra),  a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court led by the then Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, Dr. Manjula Chellur had directed the Single Bench to refer matters pertaining to contempt to the Division Bench. It was also held that the contemnor need not appear until a notice is given by the Division Bench.

 The Division Bench in Jyothilal’s case had further opined that, “The learned single Judge is required to hold a preliminary enquiry, only to find out whether there is or not a prima facie case. He shall not take cognizance in the matter. He directs the matter to be posted before the Division Bench only if he finds that there is a prima facie case.”

Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu has sought a review of the Division Bench judgment while hearing a contempt petition filed by M.P. Verghese, Asst. Professor at Model Engineering College, Thrikakara, "by a Bench of an appropriate strength" as determined by the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court.

  
In the case before Justice Naidu, the petitioner Prof. M.P. Verghese, through his counsel Adv: S. Subash Chand had averred in his petition that the contemnor, Prof. Devassia, the Principal of the College had effected recovery from his pay and allowances in flagrant violation of the interim order passed by the High Court of Kerala. Justice Naidu found that there was gross contempt  and wanted the contemnor to be present in Court in person. However the same was opposed placing reliance on the dictum in Jyothilal's case [2014 (1) KLT 147]. 

The Court appointed Dr. K.P. Satheesan, senior advocate as amicus curiae to assist the Court in the matter. Adv: S. Subash Chand and Dr. K.P. Satheesan, Senior Advocate both submitted that the implication of, and powers conferred on Courts of Record under Article 215 of the Constitution were not considered in Jyothilal's case and the power of the Single Judge to drop proceedings by accepting the apology of a Contemnor was not considered in its correct perspective in Jyothilal's case. In similar circumstances, a judge of the subordinate judiciary conducting a preliminary enquiry before making a reference to the High Court has been authorised by at least 2 rulings of the Division Bench to summon the alleged contemnor in person in Court. 
 

 Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu held that, “It is not to be forgotten that independence of the judiciary has an insegregable and inseparable link with its credibility. Yet, it is a matter of statutory interpretation, and a fortiori, the dispensation of justice, that has made me come to a conclusion, despite my humble endeavour to reconcile Jyothilal’s case with the regulatory regime of contempt jurisprudence as practiced in this court that, Jyothilal(case) is irreconcilable in terms of statutory scheme and precedental parameters fixed by the Supreme court. It thus requires consideration by a Bench of appropriate strength as determined by the Chief justice.”  

Welcoming the reference order, Adv: S. Subash Chand, counsel for Prof. M.P. Verghese told the 'Kerala Law Review' in an exclusive conversation that he hoped that the ruling in Jyothilal's case will be reconsidered by an appropriate Bench so as to restore the legal position that existed prior to Jyothilal's case.

Kerala High Court orders payment of compensation by the Government to a woman over its botched sterilisation campaign

In a judgment rendered earlier this week, the Kerala High Court has ruled that the government should pay compensation for 'failed' sterilizations carried out as part of its free population control campaign. 

Kerala High Court at Ernakulam

A Division Bench comprising of Justice Thottathil B Radhakrishnan and Justice Babu Mathew P Joseph ordered a compensation of Rs 1,23,000 to be paid to a woman who gave birth after undergoing sterilization.

The Court said: "Though it would have been natural for economically and, therefore, socially marginalized couple, which led the plaintiff (woman) to offer herself for sterilization, it cannot be ignored that she was induced by the government propaganda. When one undergoes sterilization assuming that it is a foolproof method, the failure of the procedure--not amounting to medical negligence--would fall under the state's liability in the context of balancing the equations between fundamental duties, directive principles of state policy, and fundamental rights." 

The High Court was considering an appeal filed by the state government against the judgment passed by Sub-court, Irinjalakkuda  to pay Rs 74,800 as compensation to a 33-year-old woman who gave birth to her fourth child after sterilization. In May 2008, the one-and-half-year-old boy died due to cardiac problems. In her petition, the woman said her son's fate was due to the unwanted pregnancy.

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage owing to severe and/or insuperable incompatibility does not amount to cruelty, holds the Bombay High Court, dismissing a husband's plea for divorce owing to her wife's constant visits to pubs

The Bombay High Court has held in a recent judgment that irretrievable breakdown of marriage owing to severe and/or insuperable incompatibility does not amount to cruelty, and cannot be a ground for securing a decree of divorce.

Bombay High Court

A Division Bench comprising of Justices Vijaya Kapse Tahilramani and Anil Menon was considering the husband's bid to get divorce end his 20-year-old marriage on grounds of cruelty alleging that his wife, a businesswoman and resident of Pedder Road, liked to visit pubs and neglected their child and they had fights during their honeymoon. The couple have been living apart for the past 16 years.

The Family Court before which the husband had filed his petition for divorce dismissed the same in 2012, following which he had approached the Bombay High Court by way of appeal.

The Bench, dismissing the appeal filed by the husband held "At best, evidence shows insuperable incompatibility between the parties falling short of cruelty. Be that as it may, irretrievable breakdown of marriage owing to severe and/or insuperable incompatibility does not amount to cruelty and as such no relief can be granted."

"As far as visits to discos and pubs are concerned, it has come in the cross-examination that they both visited discos and pubs even during the period of courtship," the judges said, pointing out that the man also admitted that he had not complained to anyone about the fights during their honeymoon.

With regard to the other allegations, the HC said that the few "incidents highlighted by the husband over a period of four years of co-habitation do not, in our considered opinion, amount to mental cruelty". Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the High Court said, "Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty and it's only when the petulant behaviour reaches such an extent that married life becomes intolerable that cruelty can be proved."

The High Court however said that the wife, who runs her family's business and owns properties, had refused to divulge her income, which led it to conclude that she had substantial income of her own. It partly set aside the family court's order asking the husband to shell out Rs 50,000 as monthly maintenance from 2002. Instead, the judges ordered staggered amounts—Rs 30,000 per month till 2004, Rs 40,000 from 2005-09 and Rs 50,000 from 2009.