Daily Legal Updates for Law Exams: 23rd November 2021

1. Andhra Pradesh Government Decides To Withdraw 'Three Capitals' Law

• The Andhra Pradesh Government has decided to withdraw three capitals proposal and has decided to repeal the Laws paving way for three capitals of Andhra Pradesh.

• As per media reports, the Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Subrahmanyam Sriram has informed the High Court about the decision of the Government to take back the contentious laws.

• This decision of the Andhra Pradesh Government would mean that the A. P. Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Act 2020 and Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development (Repeal) Act 2020 would be taken back.

• The State Cabinet has decided to keep Amaravati as Andhra Pradesh state's capital.

• Essentially, these Acts propose the formation of three capitals for the state. The Acts intend to develop Amaravati, Visakhapatnam, and Kurnool as the legislative, executive and judicial capitals respectively.

• The Acts were challenged in the High Court by farmers and the matter is presently being heard before the High Court.

• Before the Court, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the farmers, argued that around 33,000 families of Amravati had given up their land for capital development, and now, they have no sustainable means of livelihood.

• Significantly, he had also argued that the power to make/decide upon the capital is of parliament under Article 3 and 4 of the Constitution as fixing of new capital is constituent power of the parliament under these articles.

• Referring to the 2014 Act, Senior Advocate Divan contended that the Parliament intended to make one capital for the State [Act uses the term 'a capital'], however, he said that this necessarily doesn't mean only one capital, but the Act of 2014 intended to create a capital city for the state of Andhra Pradesh.

 Source: Bar & Bench

2. Civil Court Cannot Declare Orders Passed Under Urban Land Ceiling Act As Illegal Or Non Est: Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court held that the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

• Civil court cannot declare, orders passed by the authorities under the ULC Act, as illegal or non est, the court said.

• In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit against a notification under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 on the ground that the possession was not taken, before the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 came into force. This suit was decreed by the Trial Court. The appeal and thereafter the second appeal was dismissed against this Trial Court judgment.

• In appeal before the Apex Court, the defendant contended that the plaintiff has not questioned the orders passed by the competent authority declaring the land as surplus land and that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of ULC Act.

• The court noted that the land in question is in the Urban Agglomeration and covered by the ULC Act, 1976.The court also found that the possession of the land was not only taken but same is utilised for a public purpose. In this context, the bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy said.

• The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is a self-contained Code. Various provisions of the Act make it clear that if any orders are passed by the competent authority, there is provision for appeal, revision before the designated appellate and revisional authorities. In view of such remedies available for aggrieved parties, the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, stands excluded by implication. Civil court cannot declare, orders passed by the authorities under the ULC Act, as illegal or non est. More so, when such orders have become final, no declaration could have been granted by the civil court

• It was contended that, if the suit filed as prayed for is not maintainable, this Court can mould the relief by issuing appropriate directions. In this regard, the bench, while allowing the appeal said:It is trite principle that where the suit is filed with particular pleadings and reliefs, it is to be considered with reference to pleadings on record and the reliefs claimed in the suit only.

 Source: Bar & Bench

3. Sameer Wankhede Vs Nawab Malik Defamation Suit- "Public Have Right To Examine And Comment On Actions Of Public Officials, After Reasonable Verification Of Facts": Bombay HC

• Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik has raised very important issues concerning the acts and conduct of NCB officer Sameer Wankhede who is a public official, the Bombay High Court said in its detailed order refusing ad-interim relief in the defamation suit filed by Dhyandev Wankhede.

• The court refused to temporarily restrain Malik from making public statements or social media posts against NCB's Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede and his family.

• Justice Jamdar held that for a public official to make out a case for damages, he must prima facie show the defendant failed to reasonably verify facts.

• "The public have right to examine and comment on actions of public officials. However, as held by the Supreme Court it has to be done after a reasonable verification of the facts….In case of public officials right to privacy or for that matter remedy of action for damages is not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to discharge of official duties. It is to be established that such publication is totally false and that the same has been done without reasonable verification of the facts," the court held.

• The court noted Malik's counsel's arguments that evidence produced by the Minister has helped the government machinery to take corrective steps and a vigilance inquiry is now pending against him. Malik alleged that despite being born a Muslim, Wankhede entered the Indian Civil Services under the category of Scheduled Caste.

• The court thus held:

1. "Reputation being an inherent component of Article 21, it should not be allowed to be sullied solely because another individual can have its freedom. Therefore, the balance between the two rights needs to be struck.

2. "Reputation" of one cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of the other's right of free speech.

3. Right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone". A citizen has right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education among other matters.

4. None can publish anything concerning these matters whether truthful or otherwise without citizen's consent.

5. However, publication concerning the aforesaid aspects becomes unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records including Court records. This is so as once a matter becomes the matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes legitimate subject for comment by press, media and others.

6. In case of public officials right to privacy or for that matter remedy of action for damages is not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to discharge of official duties. It is to be established that such publication is totally false and that the same has been done without reasonable verification of the facts.

 Source: Bar & Bench