Daily Legal Updates for Law Exams: 25th May 2022

1. Permanent Lok Adalats have both conciliatory and adjudicatory powers: Supreme Court 

• A Bench of Justices DYChandrachud and PS Narasimha held that while dealing with a case, Permanent Lok Adalats have to first try to settle the dispute, and only if there isn't any agreement between the parties can it proceed to decide the matter on merits.
• "Only if the parties fail to reach an agreement on the fifth step, can the Permanent Lok Adalat proceed to the final step and decide the dispute on its merits," the judgment stated.
• The Court was hearing a plea challenging a judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated March 6, 2021, by which it was held that the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) doesn't have adjudicatory powers.
• While dealing with the case, referred to the provisions of the Legal Services Act, 1987 under which the Lok Adalats and also the PLAs are constituted and their functions and roles are defined.
• While deciding the appeal against this verdict, the Supreme Court said that the High Court's findings were incorrect. Distinguishing between the powers of a Lok Adalat and a Permanent Lok Adalat, the Court said,

"The Act indicates that there are similarities between Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats:

• they can both attempt conciliation proceedings with the parties before them and can pass awards recording the terms of settlement agreed upon by the parties
• in doing so, they are both bound by principles of justice, equity, fair play, and other legal principles and

(iii)    their awards, deemed to be decrees of courts, will be final and cannot be challenged in an appeal. Yet, despite these similarities, there are crucial differences under the statute," the judges noted.

• It was further held that despite the similarities in power, the PLA has wider powers than the Lok Adalat. If there isn't any settlement arrived at between the parties, the PLA should still make attempts to settle the dispute and even help in drafting the terms of settlement, the Court noted. If the party present before the PLA does not agree or if the absent party does not respond in a sufficient period of time, only then can the PLA adjudicate the dispute on its merits under Section 22-C(8) of the Legal Services Act, it held.

2. Press reports not enough to take judicial action: Delhi High Court refuses to entertain PIL for action against doctors' strike

•   The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking disciplinary action against doctors who go on strike.
• A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta observed that the petitioner had only relied on a few news reports which are not sufficient to take judicial action.
• The body against whom action is sought to be taken is not defined or identified, the Court added.
• The plea was filed by an organization, People for Better Treatment (PBT) through advocate Sachin Jain.
• It argued that frequent ‘doctors’ strikes’ were causing enormous pain and suffering to patients and were in resulting in the deaths of people requiring immediate treatment.
• Therefore, the plea said that the National Medical Commission should be directed to take disciplinary action against doctors.
• It also sought a direction to adopt stringent and necessary measures to prevent doctors’ strikes in the future and widely publicize that if they go on strike, action will be taken against them.
• The bench agreed that there is no doubt that the strike by doctors or people involved in professions servicing the public at large greatly affects them and that in the case of doctors, the impact would be more grave as it may put the lives of people in jeopardy.

3. Three Additional District Judges were dismissed by Allahabad High Court on corruption charges

 The Allahabad High Court has dismissed three Additional District Judges from service on charges of corruption.

• According to sources, the following officers from the Uttar Pradesh judiciary were found guilty of judicial misconduct on corruption charges:

1. Ashok Kumar Singh VI, Additional District & Sessions Judge;
2. Himanshu Bhatnagar, Additional District & Sessions Judge;
3. Dr. Rakesh Kumar Nain, Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

• Ashok Kumar Singh joined as an Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghazipur on March 28, 2001, and was made the Additional District and Sessions Judge on July 4, 2015. He has remained under suspension since July 11, 2015.
• Himanshu Bhatnagar was appointed to judicial service as an Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) on March 19, 1996, and assumed charge as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ballia on April 16, 2021.
• Rakesh Kumar Nain joined the service on August 11, 1999. He was serving as the Special Judge (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), Siddharth Nagar since April 15, 2021.
• After due consideration, the court dismissed the three officers from service with immediate effect.
  

  Source: Bar & Bench
  

  =======================
  

  To help you out in your exam preparation, we suggest you take a free trial of CLAT 2023: A Comprehensive Course. Crack CLAT 20233 & Reach Your Dream NLU! So, why wait? 

  CLAT 2023: A Comprehensive Course

  Start Free Trial Now!

    
  Thanks
  Download the BYJU’S Exam Prep App Now. 
  The most comprehensive exam prep app. 
  #DreamStriveSucceed