Design a site like this with
Get started

S.R. Batra And Anr. v. Smt. Taruna Batra (2006)

FACTS:- The Respondent, Taruna Batra married Amit Batra on 14th April 2000. After their marriage, the Respondent started living with her husband in the house of Appellant no. 2 (Amit Batra’smother). Amit Batra filed a divorce petition against the Respondent and the Respondent countered by filing a First Investigation Report (FIR) under Section 406, 498A, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Respondent’s father-in-law, Appellant no. 2 (mother-in-law), sister-in-law were arrested by the police and were granted bail after 3 days. Respondent moved to her parent’s residence due to the divorce dispute with her husband.In the present dispute, the Respondent alleged that when she tried to enter the house of Appellant no. 2 the main entrance was locked. So, she filed a suit for a mandatory injunction so that she can enter the house of Appellant no. 2, which was also the house she stayed at after her marriage. The appellants in defence stated that the Respondent along with her parents forcibly broke open the locks of Appellant no. 2’s house and that terrorized them, so for some time, they stayed in their office. The Appellants also stated that Amit Batra had shifted to his own flat before the litigation between the parties had started.


● Whether the Respondent has any rights against the Appellant no. 2’s house?

● Whether the Appellant no. 2’s house is a ‘shared household’?

● Whether the Respondent can claim for an alternative accommodation against the Appellants?

JUDGEMENT & ANALYSIS:- The Supreme Court of India pronounced its judgement on 15thDecember 2006. The court held that the wife has rights only against her husband and not against her father-in-law or mother-in-law. In this case, the house in questions belongs to Appellant no. 2, who is the mother-in-law of the Respondent and not her husband, therefore, she has no rights over that house. Further, the Respondent cannot claim a mandatory injunction against the Appellants because she was not in possession of Appellant no. 2’s house as she moved to her parents’ house.Appellant no. 2’s house cannot be a ‘shared household’ of the Respondent, therefore she cannot claim a right to residence in the household in questions because the household in question neither belongs to her husband, nor was taken on rent by her husband, nor belongs to the joint family of which the husband if a family member, rather it is an exclusive property under the name of Appellant no. 2 who is the mother-in-law of the Respondent. The claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the in-laws or other relatives. The Appellants being the in-laws of the Respondent, she cannot claim an alternative accommodation.

CONCLUSION:- The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal of the Appellants, set aside the impugned judgement of the High Court of Delhi and the order of Senior Civil Judge, finally dismissing the injunction application of the Respondent.

Live-in relationship partner can claim to be legally married wife

On 23rd June 2021 the Kerala High Court consisting of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Kauser Edappagathdeclared in the case Rajeeve v. Sarasamma & Ors that a female partner in a live-in relationship cannot have a better claim than a legally married wife.The case came from an appeal from the decision of the family court wherein the marital status of the woman was in question. The facts of the case were that Mr.S.Reghunathan, an employee of South Western Railways, died while in service. After his death, the appellant as well as the first respondent claiming themselves to be his legally wedded wife came forward and raised rival claims before the Railways for his service benefits.The original petition was filed under Section 7 (b), (c) and (d) of the Family Courts, Act, 1984 to declare the marital status of the respondent as the wife of late Reghunathan.

To prove a valid marriage under the Hindu law, the evidence regarding the performance of marriage as required under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act must be brought on record. Section 7 speaks of solemnization of marriage with customary rites and ceremonies.The respondent was able to provide evidence of her marriage with late Reghunathan. The appellant was unable to provide evidence for her marriage. Thus, the family court accorded the status of legally wedded wife to the respondent. The counsel for the appellant assailed the decision of the court and argued in the High Court that it had failed to appreciate the documentary and oral evidence of solemnization of marriage. Moreover, he argued that “ Law presumes in favourof marriage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously even if the direct evidence of marriage, if any, is unsatisfactory.”

The Kerala High Court rejected the claims of the appellant and held that “It is true that the parties to a live-in relationship or non-formal relationship who have lived together for an extended period of time could be brought within the purview of laws relating to maintenance and domestic violence and could be considered as husband and wife for the said limited purpose. But, parties to such a relationship cannot have a better claim than a legally married wife.”

On the issue of legitimacy of children, the court held that Section 7(1) read with Explanation (e) of Family Courts Act implied that only a suit for a declaration ‘as to the legitimacy of any person’ was within the family court’s jurisdiction. Legitimacy presupposes a valid marriage. This cannot be stretched to adjudicate upon legitimacy of any person born in a live-in relationship.


Meaning –In order to understand the meaning of the word let’s divide it into two parts first administration which means management and second justice that means the quality of being just. Justice consists of impartiality, integrity or rightness. Administration of Justice is generally divided into parts –Administration of Civil Justice and Administration of Criminal justice According to Salmond the main function of the administration of justice is the protection of Individual rights, enforcement of laws and punishment of criminals.Advantages of Administration of Justice –-Uniformity and certainty-Everyone is expected to know what the law is and there is no scope for arbitrary action .Judges are also compelled to give the order according to the law settled in country.-Impartiality-Judges are required to treat everyone same before the eye of law unless a specified differentiation has been mentioned in the law.-Regulation –As the law is known to the citizen it enables them to regulate their conduct in accordance with it  b. Theories of Punishment –-Deterrent theory-According to Salmond the deterrent aspect of punishment is  necessary .As the object of this kind of punishment is not only to stop the wrongdoer from repeating the crime again but also to set an example before the public that if they are going to do such acts than they might face same consequences .This will help them make a decision before committing any crime .Here the word DETER means to abstain from doing any wrongful .Basically it will aware the people of society.-This theory consists of 3 major components 1.Severity –It indicates the degree of punishment. 2. Certainty-It means making sure that punishments must be given whenever the crime is committed. 3. Celerity –The punishment must be given as soon as possible so that ithas more effect to deter crime.-Preventive Theory –This theory’s objective is to prevent the wrongdoer from committing the crime again. Deterrent theory aims at giving warning to the society at large whereas preventive theory’s objective is to stop the wrongdoer from committing the crime. The aim of this theory is to prevent crimes that can be done when the criminal activities of the wrongdoer is checked. This can be done by disablement.Criticism-That the preventive punishment has the undesirable effect of hardening first offenders or juvenile offenders when imprisonment is the punishment by putting them in the association of harden criminals.-Reformative Theory –This theory believes in reforming the criminal. It basically wants the criminal to change them from within. Wrongdoer should be given a chance to live life like normal human being after serving the punishment. The wrongdoer during the term of imprisonment should be taught some kind of craft or skills so that when they come out they should be able to live a different and better life.Criticism –This theory anticipates better framework and offices in Jail and also not everyone in that jail can be changed  like bad –to-the bone lawbreaker.-Retributive theory – This was called the theory of vengeance. It is based on small doctrine namely the doctrine of Lex talionis which means an eye for an eye .This theory however ignored the fact that always having retributive approach will make the society very rebellious .All though it has some good points that it act as a strong deterrent, helps in giving moral justice to the victim and establishes the feeling of trust within the society .-Compensatory theory of Punishment –This theory believes that punishment should not only be to prevent further crime but it should also exist to compensate the victim who suffered the harm. All other theory talks about the wrongdoer but in this theory it talks about the how the victim can be benefited.


Penal Liability –In order to be held liable for a criminal activity it has to be prove beyond reasonable doubt that all these elements were present –1.Person under section 11 of IPC –Person is defined in section 11 of IPC which includes Company, association or body of persons whether incorporated or not .The word also includes artificial and juridical person as well as the natural person. In order to qualify as a crime a person must commit it. 2. Mens Rea-This can be explained in various forms; a guilty mind, a guilty or Wrongful purpose,                criminal intent, guilty knowledge and wilfulness all constitute the same thing that mens rea. Every crime requires mental element and that is considered as the fundamental principle of criminal liability. This display specific intent by the accused for the commission of the crime for which he is charged 3.Actus Reus – The third essential element of a crime is actus reus. In other words some act or illegal omission must have taken place in pursuance of guilty intention. There are two types of Actus reus first is commission and the second one is an omission. The commission is as a criminal activity that was the result of voluntarily body movement. This describes a physical Activity that harms a person or property. Against human body includes physical assault, murder, hurt, grievance, hurt etc & property includes theft, decoity, extortion etc.The omission is another form of Actus reus as an Act of criminal negligence. Without a guilty act, there can be no crime and no suit for damages can arise. An act alone does not make a crime, however, and both the intention of the person and the act itself.4.Injury –Under section 44 of the IPC that the injury should be caused to another person or to society at large .The injury is defined as any harm illegally caused to any person in body , mind , reputation or property by another person .

  1. Stages of crime –

1.Intention –Intention is the first stage in the commission of crime. It is the mental element that is required for the commission of crime .It is the direction of conduct towards objects chosen. But at this stage the accused is not prosecuted as it is very difficult to prove the guilty mind of a person.2.Preparation – This is the second stage in the commission of crime .It means to arrange the necessary resources for the execution of intentional criminal act. ntention and preparation alone are not enough to constitute a crime.3.Attempt –An attempt is direct movement towards the execution of crime after the preparation of the plan .According to law the person is guilty of an attempt of an offense if there act is more than simply preparatory to the commission of an offence 4.Accomplishment – This is the last stage in the commission of an offence is its accomplishment or completion. If accused succeeds in his attempt to commit the crime, he will be guilty of the complete offence if fails than guilty of the attempt only.


Section 53 –The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this code are-Death-Imprisonment for life -Imprisonment –Rigorous and Simple-Forfeiture of property -Fine Capital Punishment – It is the punishment wherein the accused is executed to death after he/she has been found to be guilty of a criminal offence in accordance to the appropriate legal process.The 35th Law Commission report said, “having regard, however, to the conditions in India, to the variety of the social upbringing of its inhabitants, to the disparity in the level of morality and education in the country, to the vastness of its area, to the diversity of its population, and to the paramount need for maintaining law and order in the country at the present juncture, India cannot risk the experiment of abolition of capital punishment.”Apex court in case Bacchan Singh v State of Punjab, observed that death sentences can only be awarded in the rarest of rare cases. Than in case Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab, expanded the finding laid down in Bacchan Singh. Hereunder are certain observations made by the court:

  • Death sentence can only be awarded in case of gravest of culpability
  • Circumstances of the offender must be taken into consideration before pronouncing a death sentence
  • Death sentence can only be imposed when awarding life imprisonment does seem to be adequate for the crime committed by the offender.
  • Before ruling in favour of the death penalty, both, mitigating and aggravating factors must be considered and doing so according to full weightage to the mitigating factors.
  1. Imprisonment -This is a punishment wherein the accused is confined in a penitentiary. There are two kinds of imprisonment rigourus and simple .
  2. Levying of penalty -The imposition of fine or penalty has been prevalent since the inception of tribal system in the civilisation. In the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State the Apex court had opined that “payment of fine brings home the sense of responsibility in a surer fashion than even short terms of imprisonment in some case.” The Indian Penal Code and several other Indian statutes have affixed levying of fine as an alternative as well to the main punishment.
  3. Forfeiture of property- Forfeiture of property has been provided by the Indian Penal Code and it was even prevalent in ancient India. However, the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1921 repealed Section 61 and 62 which imposed the punishment awarding for forfeiture of property. Yet, there exist certain provisions in the current IPC which provide for forfeiture of property as a punishment:  Section 126 – Committing depredation on territories of power at peace with the Govt of India, Section 127 – Receiving property taken by war or depredation mentioned in Sec.125 and 126 of I.P.C.,  Section 169 – Public servant unlawfully buying or bidding for a property.


  1. Mistakes of Fact- Section 76 excuses a person from criminal liability who is bound by law to do something and thereby executes it, or who in good faith, due to a mistake of fact believes that he is bound by law and so does it. Mistake as a mitigating factor refers to the rule that when a person who is not aware of the existence of the relevant facts or has mistaken them, commits a wrongful act, he neither had an intention to commit it nor were the consequent unlawful results foreseen by him. Hence his trial must commence on the fiction of the facts as were mistakenly believed by him and not in accordance with how they actually are. However, Section 79 exempts a person who owing to a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law, believes that his actions are justified by law. It is important to note here that protection under Section 76 and 79 are only applicable to mistake of facts and not to mistake of law which is based on the Common law maixm, “ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat” which means ignorance of fact excuses, ignorance of law does not excuse. The underlying objective of the rule says that everyone is expected and presumed to know the law. Hence, ignorance of such things which everyone is duty-bound to know cannot absolve a person by justifying his ignorance on the particular subject matter
  2. .Judicial Acts – Section 77 and 78 renders safeguards to judges and their ministerial staff, who are acting as judicial officers to execute the orders of the judges. The underlying objective of this Section is to ensure that the judges should discharge their duties independent of fear of any consequences. The entire idea behind this concept is to protect public policy. In the case of Ram Pratap Sharma v. Dayanand a judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court while addressing the members of the Bar, began criticizing the govt policies and its ineffectiveness in operation of the administration. Some members of the Bar wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of India, stating that the speech of the judge was not appropriate and hence actions be taken against him. A notice of contempt was issued to the signatories of the letter by the Punjab & Haryana High court.

In reply to the letter, the members of the Bar stated that the letter was sent not with the purpose of vile and ill-will, but only with good faith. Moreover, there had been no publicity regarding the same. Also, the intention was to create a privileged communication regarding the inappropriate conduct of the judge and with a view to upholding the dignity of the court. Further, the immunity to a judge by virtue of Section 77 is not only with regards to the power exercised under judicial authority, but also acts done by him in the application of judicial authority which he reckons in good faith was authorised to him by law.

  1. Accident and misfortunes –Section 80 and section 81 

Section 80 exempts a person from criminal liability if the act was done without any criminal intent or knowledge and the accident occur while doing a lawful  act. Also the act must have been committed with due care and caution. The entire idea is not to impose on person criminal liabilities because the acts which he did was not only unintentional but also the results were so little expected that it came as a surprise. The act leading to the injury was neither negligent nor wilful and occurred in the ordinary course of things. Section 81 basically provides immunity to those accused persons who did an act which was although evil, was committed in order to avert a bigger evil.Under section 81 it covers two important elements-Necessity knows no law and Necessity overcomes the law. Here it is worthwhile to notice the difference between section 80 and 81. Section 80 contemplates the absence of criminal intention and criminal knowledge as well. However, Section 81 contemplates the absence of criminal intention alone. Immunity under Section 81 is only stipulated under such situations wherein the accused committed an offence without any trace of criminal intent and in good faith in order to avoid or prevent other harm to a person or property.


The government informed that due to non-compliance of the new IT Rules, Twitter in India has lost the legal protection, therefore will be liable of any unauthorized content use on it’s platform. The loss of such protection may lead to Twitter being prosecuted for content posted by any user on the platform under relevant section of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.This new battle between the government and social media platforms came into force when new Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules were notified by the government, which were needed to be done for enjoyment of the legal protection within the three months of the notification or on before 25 May 2021.

However, twitter has expressed its view at the time when new rules were formed last month that such actions are a potential threat to the freedom of expression. When twitter did not do anything for compliance,the government earlier this month had given twitter a stern “LAST NOTICE” to fall in line.Union IT Minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad stated that Twitter had deliberately chosen not to comply with the new IT Rules which are required to be complied by the intermediary according to the guidelines given on 25th February, thus it was justified that legal protection of twitter was taken away. Further, stated that despite the fact that Twitter was given multiple chances to comply with the new IT rules, it did not take any actions.In addition, the Minister emphasized on the sensitive nature of India as a country, where any statement even a small spark put on such a social media platform can cause a fire referring to the incident happened in UP, which is one of the reasons why the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules were formed and notified. While justifying the government action, the minister further stated, “It is astounding that twitter, which portrays itself as the flag bearer of free speech, chooses the path of deliberate defiance when it comes to the Intermediary Guidelines”.

Therefore, Twitter does not have an intermediary status in India due to non-compliance of the New Information Technology Rules from May 26 2021. The result of the new development is that any charges against the blogging site for alleged unlawful content it will not be an intermediary but treated as a publisher and will be held liable under any Law, including IT Act, or any penal laws in India.

Union of India v Sriharan and ors (writ petition no. 48 of 2014)

LifeSentence andRemissionFactual Background:The petitioner has challenged a letter issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu to the Secretary, Government of India wherein the state of Tamil Nadu proposed to set aside the sentence of life imprisonment and to release the respondents convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. The respondents were originally imposed with a death sentence but the same court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The issued letter by the state govt. of Tamil Nadu resulted in this writ petition.


(i) Whether imprisonment for life under S.53 read with S.45 of the IPC meant imprisonment for the rest of the life of the prisoner or a convict undergoing life imprisonment has a right to claim remission and whether the principles enunciated in Swamy Shraddananda, a special category of a sentence may be made for the very few cases where the death the penalty might be reduced by the punishment of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term above fourteen years and to put that category beyond application of remission?

(ii) Whether the “Appropriate Government” is permitted to exercise the power of remission under S.432/433 of the Code after the parallel power has been exercised by the President under Art.72 or the Governor under Art.161 or by this Court in its Constitutional power under Art.32 as in this case?

(iii) Whether S. 432(7) of the Code gives primacy to the executive power of the Union and excludes the executive power of the State where the power of Union is co-extensive?

(iv) Whether the Union or the State has primacy over the subject matter enlisted in List III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India for the exercise of the power of remission?

(v) Whether there can be two appropriate Governments in a given case under S. 432(7) of the Code?

(vi) Whether suomoto exercise of the power of remission under S. 431(1) is permissible in the scheme of the section, if yes, whether the procedure prescribed in sub-clause (2) of the same Section is mandatory or not?

(vii) Whether the term “consultation” stipulated in S. 435(1) of the Code implies “concurrence”?

Reasoning and discussion:As for the first issue, the SC opined that imprisonment for life according to S.53 and S.45 of IPC means imprisonment for the rest of life of the prisoner subject to the right to claim remission, and such remission power is exercisable by the President and Governor of the state provided under Art. 72 and 161 of Indian Constitution; as also provided under S.432 of CrPC. The court holds the decision of Swamy Shraddananda‘s case as a special category of sentence, death penalty reduced to life imprisonment which is beyond the application of remission. Secondly, the court observed that S. 432 and S. 433 of the CrPC provide power to the appropriate government to suspend or grant remission, and not to the court. The decision-making power is always imposed upon the appropriate government even if the power was exercised earlier by the Governor or President under Art.161 or by the Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. Thirdly, the court analyzed the status of appropriate government; when the order of a sentence passed by the Criminal Court under any law which falls within the provision of Art.73(1)(a) of the Constitution, the appropriate government would be the central government for exercising its power of remission, suspension and commutation under S.432 and S. 433 of CrPC even if the legislature of the state is also entitled to make a law on the same subject. However, when the offender is sentenced within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned state, the state govt. would be the appropriate govt. Fourthly, the court ruled that suomoto power of remission cannot be exercised by the appropriate govt. under S.432 of the Code, it has to be initiated by the convicted person under S.432(2). The order of suspension or remission should be guided by the opinion to be rendered by the presiding officer of the Court concerned and following provision S.432(2) is mandatory. Finally, the court denotes that any situations under the sub-clauses (a) to (c) of S.435(1) fall within the jurisdiction of central govt., which is important in the process of “consultation” as a requirement of “concurrence”.

Decision:The SC held that the Tamil Nadu govt. cannot use statutory powers of remission to release the convicts of Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination without the concurrence of the central govt. As the investigation was carried by the central agency i.e. CBI, the Central Govt. will decide on the remission according to S.435 of CrPC; the Tamil Nadu govt was required to consult with the Central Govt. However, the state govt. certainly can use the power under Art.161 to commute their sentence on the grounds that there has been a change in the situation and there is a rejection of mercy petition by the Governor which was no longer relevant.

Default Before 2014-15 FY Can’t Be Considered : Kerala HC

The amendments were made in the Companies Act inserting the provisions mandating Vacation of Directorship are valid and are not retrospectively applicable is ruled by the Kerala High Court. In the year 2018, the Government, had disqualified a huge number of persons from the directorship of the Companies to avoid sham Companies. Challenging Section 164(2)(a) and 167(1)(a) of The Companies Act, more than 200 petitions were filed. The disqualification thrust upon the petitioners for acting as Directors of companies, according to Sections 164 and 167.Section 167(1)(a) says that the office of a director shall become vacant in case he incurs any of the disqualifications specified in Section 164, and Section 164(2) deals with no person who is or has been a director of a company which has not filed financial statements or annual returns for any continuous period of three financial years or has failed to repay the deposit accepted by it or pay interest thereon or to redeem any debentures on the due date or pay interest due thereon or pay any dividend declared and such failure to pay or redeem continues for one year or more, shall be eligible to be re-appointed in other company for a period of 5 years from the date on which the said company fails to do so.The main purpose of Section 167(1)(a) is to bring responsibility in corporate governance and the provision is to make Directors of defaulting companies to continue to hold office, but at the same time to vacate them from the office of Directors in all other companies.Considering The Companies Act 2013, the petitioner argued that it has only prospective operations. Hence, we cannot apply Section 164(2) retrospectively. It was urged, that any retrospective implementation of Section-164(2) would be ultra vires. It was considered that there will be no disqualification of Directors in accordance with Section164(2) until the year 2017.Section 164 and 167 is regarded as retrospective operation. So, the petitioner’s council argued that Section 164(2)(a) would apply only prospectively. Therefore, the respondent cannot take any consideration for the period before 01.04.2017 for examining default for three consecutive years.In the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1964 SC 464] the counsel urged that when an act or conduct is made subject to penalty for the first time, then, only those acts orconduct subsequent to the enactment or amendment that can be taken into account. The Single Judge Bench of Justice N.Nagaresh held that the provisions added below under Section 164(2) and Section 167(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017 with effect from May 7, 2018 are constitutionally valid and the same being  they are clarificatory in nature,  they would apply retrospectively. However, the words “in all the companies” appearing in the provision to Section 167(1)(a) will have only prospective operation.These observations made by the Kerala High Court are similar to the decisions of Gujarat, Madras, Karnataka, Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh High Courts on the position of law in disqualification of directors under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act.The Delhi High Court has considered that in case of MukutPathak &Ors. v. Union of India &Anr., WP (C) No. 9088/2018, held that the said section can apply to failure in filing returns for financial years prior to 2014, that is the year in which the said section came into force.

Anup Bhambhani Recuses himself from hearing challenge to IT Act

Justice Anup Bhambhani, at Delhi High Court on Thursday recused himself in an urgent plea filed by different digital media companies like the wire, the quint, etc., seeking a stay on the rules after the statement made by the centre in respect to those who don’t comply by June 23 will be facing penalties.The Vacation Bench headed by Justice Bhambhani with Justice Jasmeet Singh, which was hearing the present matter, while passing an order stated, “The judge(s) will recusing from the present matter. We can place it on Monday next, subject to the orders of the Honourable ChiefJustice. The matter was heard on Monday,June 28, 2021.” Justice Subramonium Prasad andJustice C Hari Shankar will hear the matter.

The petitioners through Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, had submitted this plea against the Centre’s new IT rules. The petitioners mentioned that the Information Technology(Guidelines For Intermediaries And Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 is against the notion of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which is the main act framed as well as is against the Constitution of India. The petitioners also stated that these rules do not come within the scope of the Parent Act of 2000, as it imposes government oversight and a code of ethics. Hence, these rules are ultra vires to Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.In the present case, an urgent plea was filed for seeking a stay application of the IT Rules. On June 18, 2021, through a letter, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting stated that there must be compliance within five days from the date if not then face penalties for the same. These rules, made under Part III, sought to regulate publishers of news and current affairs.On March 19, 2021, a notice for stay on IT Rules, 2021 was issued to the Central Government by the court. Against such notice the center asked for more time so it can file a reply which is yet to be filed. Before seeking an urgent remedy of stay before the High Court, the petitioner stated that it had written several times to the government to not to insist on such compliance while the matter is sub judice. Therefore, due to violation of such rights of the petitioners guaranteed there is urgency to hea rthe matter. In addition, the matter was listed on August 4, 2021,after the last hearing which took place in May 2021, Delhi High Court, through its division bench consisting of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh, stated the matter to be “NOT URGENT”.The Ministry replied that as the HC had not stayed the rule,therefore the compliance is mandatory, on condition that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners. Delhi HC court made it clear an urgent hearing may be sought if such actionagainst the petitioners. The petitioners have asked for an interim relief from any coercive action against the media houses whohave not complied with the rules.

However, in reply to such a request, Justice Bhambani said “this is not possible as he could either hearthe matter or not,there is no middle way”.Therefore, the matter was put on June 28, 2021, which did not include Justice Bhambani.