MARCH 2021 Volume IV ALL INDIA LEGAL FORUM CREDITS:- • Patron-in-Chief: Aayush Akar • Editor-in-Chief: Shubhank Suman • Senior Manager: Vrinda Khanna, Nandini Mangla • Manager- Deepanshu Kaushik • Researchers: 1. Praveen Parihar 2. Tania Maria Joy 3. Santhosh Murugan 4. Yamini Mahawar 5. Aini Borah 6. Deepanshi Gupta 7. Fazila Fahim 8. Ishika Sharma 9. Padma Priya 10. Rishika Mahajan 11. Sneha Bachhawat 12. Uma Bharathi • Editors 1. Shubh Jaiswal 1 IN THE ISSUE LEGAL NEWS except in circumstances where his release will bring him in association with any Court sets aside Juvenile Justice Board order, grants Bail to Juvenile in Theft known criminal or expose him to moral, Case physical or psychological danger, or the release would defeat the ends of justice. “There is no sufficient material on record to show that the appellant/child will come into the association with any known criminal as the full particulars of the criminal with whom the delinquent appellant is likely to come into association with,” the special court said, adding that the JJB had erred in 22-3-2021 not releasing the juvenile on bail. Special Court earlier this week The Court further said that the child in set aside the order of a Juvenile conflict with law would get the benefit of A Justice Board (JJB), which had Section 12 (1) of the Act, which contains denied bail to a 17-year-old boy on the the principles for bail. apprehension that he may come in contact The N M Joshi Marg police had booked with anti-social elements. four youngsters, including the teen, for The Court granted bail to the minor, who allegedly robbing a shop early last year at had spent over 3 months in jail in a theft Phoenix mall in central Mumbai & stealing case, even as the adult co-accused in the an iPhone along with Rs 700. The teen was case were released on bail. apprehended on December 1, last year. The special court said that the JJB had not The 17-year-old had told the JJB that the appreciated the provisions of the Juvenile allegations are false, as the shopkeeper had Justice (Care & Protection) Act while not been able to give any proof of the rejecting his bail application. iPhone being stolen. It added that as per provisions of the Act, His mother had also submitted that she was every child is entitled to be released on bail ready to take his responsibility. The JJB had 2 rejected the 17 year old’s first bail plea in the amount already charged shall be January after an evaluation as per the Act. refunded, credited or adjusted. It had said that the child should be The apex court refused to interfere with the continued to be kept at the observation Centre's and the Reserve Bank of India home for his own safety & prevent him (RBI's) decision to not extend the loan from coming in contact with anti-social moratorium beyond 31 August last year, elements saying it is a policy decision. A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan said that The JJB had also rejected his bail plea the top court cannot do judicial review of twice. The adult accused arrested in the the Centre's financial policy decision unless case, however, were granted bail with the it is malafide and arbitrary. court observing that the police had recovered the iPhone & the cash alleged to The apex court said it cannot interfere with have been stolen. the government's decision to fix priorities for relief during the pandemic which has SC rules no compound, penal interest to be charged during Loan Moratorium affected all across the country and the period, denies further extension government has been under severe financial constraints. The bench said this in its verdict on a batch of pleas filed by various trade associations, including from real estate and power sectors, seeking extension of loan moratorium and other reliefs in view of the pandemic. 23-3-2021 The RBI had on 27 March last year issued the circular which allowed lending n Tuesday, in a relief to institutions to grant a moratorium on borrowers, the Supreme Court payment of instalments of term loans O directed that no compound or falling due between 1 March, 2020 and 31 penal interest be charged during the six- May, 2020, due to the pandemic. Later, the month loan moratorium period announced moratorium was extended till 31 August last year amid the COVID-19 pandemic and last year. In its verdict, the top court said that from various steps taken by the 3 government, it cannot be said that the as to why waiver of interest was not even Centre and the RBI have not considered the contemplated and only payment of relief for the borrowers. instalments was deferred. The bench said it cannot strike down a Giving an illustration, it had said that in policy decision merely at the behest of case of State Bank of India alone, waiver of petitioners on grounds that the other view is six months' interest would completely wipe possible and the other decision could be out over half of the bank's net worth which more beneficial. While refusing to go into has accumulated over nearly 65 years of its the financial policy decision taken by the existence. government, the bench said it is not open It had pointed out the sector-specific relief for the court to embark upon judicial review measures taken by the government for the of policy decision merely at the behest of small and mid-sized business/MSMEs petitioners. including from sectors such as restaurants It said that complete waiver of interest is not and hotels. The Centre has promulgated possible as it will have huge financial emergency credit-linked guarantee scheme implications. The apex court had reserved (ECLGS) of Rs 3 lakh crore providing its judgement on the batch of pleas on 17 additional credit at lower rate of interest, December last year. with 100 per cent government guarantee and no fresh collateral, it had said. The Centre had earlier submitted before the top court that if it were to consider waiving The scheme has been extended with higher interest on all the loans and advances to all financial limits to twenty seven COVID-19 categories of borrowers for the six-month impacted sectors including restaurant and moratorium period announced by RBI, then hotel sectors, it had said. On 27 November the amount foregone would be more than last year, the top court had asked the Centre Rs 6 lakh crore. to ensure that all steps be taken to implement its decision to forego interest on If the banks were to bear this burden, then eight specified categories of loans paid up it would necessarily wipe out a substantial to Rs 2 crore in view of the pandemic. and a major part of their net worth, rendering most of the lenders unviable and The eight categories of loans are MSME raising a very serious question mark over (Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises), their very survival, it had said. The Education, Housing, Consumer durable, government had said this was a main reason 4 Credit card, Automobile, Personal and been kept under check as no cash is Consumption. collected. Bonds can be purchased only through cheque or DD, he said. Supreme Court reserves Order on Electoral Bonds, but expresses concern Senior Lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi, who over their possible misuse represented the Election Commission, said that the EC it is not opposed to these bonds but raised concerns over its anonymity. The plea has been filed by the Association For Democratic Reforms (ADR) seeking to stop fresh sale of electoral bonds from April 1 till the Supreme Court decides on their 24-3-2021 validity. n Wednesday, the Apex Court The NGO sought an urgent hearing stating reserved its order on a plea of a that the sale of fresh electoral bonds should non-governmental organisation O be stopped till the Supreme Court decides seeking a stay on the sale of fresh electoral the three pending pleas challenging the bonds ahead of state assembly elections in electoral bond scheme 2018 which grants West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Assam anonymity to donors of political parties. & the union territory of Puducherry. An electoral bond is an instrument in the However, the 3-Judge bench, headed by CJI nature of a promissory note or bearer bond SA Bobde, expressed concerns over the which can be purchased by any individual, possible misuse of these bonds & asked the company, firm or association of persons Centre to examine it. provided the person or body is a citizen of "If a political party gets ₹100 crore worth India or incorporated or established in bonds what is the control over the use of India. The bonds are issued specifically for these bonds for illegal activities or purposes the purpose of contributing of funds to outside political agenda?" the bench posed political parties. a question. In its PIL, the ADR had sought that the Attorney General KK Venugopal, amendments carried out to the Finance Act representing the Centre, said that after the be struck down. This lack of transparency electoral bonds scheme was launched in in the accounts of all political parties was 2018, black money in election funding has cited as the ground by ADR to oppose this 5 scheme. These donations enjoy 100% tax "Respondents are directed to maintain exemption as they need not be reported to status quo regarding the supply of water to the Income Tax department either, the Delhi", ordered the apex court bench.