How can India face AI consequentialism? - The Daily Guardian
Connect with us

Legally Speaking

How can India face AI consequentialism?

AI consequentialism is not a new phenomenon in the making. The concept is quite simple. In a research paper published in May this year, entitled ‘On Consequentialism and Fairness’, the notions of consequentialism with respect to AI ethics have been beautifully discussed.




Should a robot be an inventor?
Should a robot be an inventor?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Consequentialism is not a new phenomenon in the making. The conception is quite simple. In a research paper published on May 8, 2020, entitled “On Consequentialism and Fairness” in Conceptual Analysis, the notions of consequentialism with respect to AI Ethics, have been beautifully discussed by the authors. The paper tries to show that consequentialism is a linear area of development, where its cones and sides can have blurs and sharpness. Nevertheless, consequentialism is an important doctrine in the philosophy of ethics in the West, which India with utmost humility, must never ignore. The author, therefore, intends to discuss what can be consequentialism, its problematic behaviour with regards to adopting a policy on AI Ethics, and how can India overcome it. The reasons behind the need of India’s potential to overcome consequentialism in AI is because of the political role of disruptive technology in our lives, and the lack of aesthetic understandings of the West of the East, especially India and China. The article therefore is a generic insight on the same development and its problems. 

How did Consequentialism Transform in the West and what did India learn from it? Consequentialism in general is about the politics, aesthetics and naturalization of consequences in any frame of reference. Whatever be the subject, it is the art and science of consequence which drives various considerations behind the subject. The theory of consequentialism has its basis in the theories of Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Peter Singer & Derek Parfit. Theories of consequentialism can also be sought in Newtonian physics and Galilean relativity. In the coming centuries, amidst the First and Second World Wars, the political, scientific and social transformation of consequentialism has been lucrative & impressive. Considering the same development, what can be sought from Alan Turing’s ‘Polite Convention’ (also known as the Turing Test in his work “The Imitation Game”) to Nick Bostrom in the 21st Century, it is clear that the West has been proficient in adapting and practicing how consequentialism works. There can be many political references to the art of consequentialism, some of which can be American Exceptionalism, Israeli-Russian masochism, Chinese strategic secular realism. The cultural ethos of India also is based on these contours, and can be seen in the political and historical tenets of the phenomenon known as Indian Idealism. Vivekananda, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, Gandhi, Ambedkar and even former PM Nehru have showered their own manifestations of ‘idealism’, which can be based on Indic, western or any credentials possible. It’s therefore not necessary to agree with every tenet and idea of the Indian schools of thought. However, one of the most emerging school of thought, which is looked upon by many people, is the Indic school of thought, comprising the Vedic-Historic approaches towards the conceptions of libertarianism, conservatism, secularism & capitalism – the four most important aspects of political contemporaries in the 21st century. The transformation of these 4 tenets of political and economic thought in India would shape how the Government of India would consider the role of AI in governance. The Responsible AI Draft proposed by NITI Aayog is a learned culmination of the values regarding AI Ethics with its own reservations kept in the Indian scenario. This draft, which was disclosed to the public in July 2020, is in lines with the AI Commitments rendered by the Pax Americana bloc, especially the US, the EU/ NATO/Council of Europe members, Singapore and the UK. Interestingly, even this draft espouses a reasonable coverage of consequentialism and constitutional morality with practical examples and models. This at least shows that India is committed to learn and adapt with the international standards over disruptive technologies. However, considering the Apps Ban procured by the Government as a significant example, it is not unreasonable to infer that actions like these also reflect a confusing image as to what can be the preventive measures that investors should adopt to affirm confidence for technology related investments in India in the coming years. 

The Aesthetic Transformation of AI Consequentialism and the Indic Way

 AI Consequentialism is a transformative phenomenon, and the Indic transcendence towards the same can be effective based on how India sees the constructive and substantive roles of the four tenets in politics, economics and society, which are – secularism, libertarianism, capitalism and conservatism. There are special reasons as to why only these 4 tenets are important in the road to the Indic way. First, all of the four tenets have international considerations, and can be utilized by a state by transforming it in clear coherence with the geographic, cultural and civilizational aspects of the state and its people. Israel for example is a Jewish state, but its proceduralism, like the UK (which is technically not a secular state due to the monarchy) – can be secular. Libertarianism and Conservatism are binary political ideas, undoubtedly. However, their role is significant because both of them have intersectional cohesion when it comes to the implementation of solutions. The problems of today, where global progressivism (Democratic Socialism and Cultural Marxism) and global conservatism (revisionism, civilizational intransigence & cultural relativism) are prevalent today also shows the need that the libertarian voice and considerations have either been ignored or have been marginalized into socialistic ideals, which is cancerous for any liberal democracy. Former US President Ronald Reagan & the former British Prime Ministers Thatcher, Cameroon and Blair believed in neoliberalism – which paved for a liberal, rules-based international order. The shortcomings of the order and technology politics which we see today, whether in the case of Brexit or the role of China in controlling the future of technology stems from the very issue that certain state actors, like China, Russia, DPRK and even the US until Donald Trump believed that they can control the future of technology. Israel, India, the EU, African Union member-states and even ASEAN countries were correct on their path that they cannot control how politically relevant technology can be. In fact, even if India’s policy considerations are thawing out from the Non-Aligned Movement faster than before, it is possible that most of the countries will now shape technology politics through protectionist, neoconservative and neorealist measures, and India will join them. Thus, we already have the background for the Indic way to come in and transform how can India seek AI Consequentialism.

 Let us begin with Secularism. Secularism itself is a fluid concept, and a better term that defines harmony and respect for religious freedoms stems from the idea of organic secularism. The Vedic methodology towards people who practice other faiths has never been antagonistic, considering Sanatana Dharma/Hinduism as a natural religion. Issues related to religion-centric violence do not hold water as they are social and individual problems, and not ideologically related. Therefore, India must learn from the thinkers and the schools of thought within the Indic literature to accommodate Organic Secularism as a replacement to civic nationalism, which was alleged by some jurists and scholars as the conception of the Constituent Assembly members. Organic Secularism can gain much higher validation that a model of secularism that is based on ethnocentric and Western-Mediterranean values because the role of technology would be assumed not through the lens of identity politics, which eventually ethnocentric models of secularism lead to in post-colonial states from Bangladesh to Nigeria. Even the neoconservative/classic liberal view towards the US Constitution must not be limited to the SCOTUS judgments on Secularism, because the comment on the separation of church from state by Thomas Jefferson is based on a premise that there was such an intermingled connection at the first place. The United States, unlike the Europeans, the Turks and the British, has been an open-ended state, which endorses religious freedoms at all levels. The Judeo-Christian view, which was biblical, has now transformed into American Exceptionalism. Despite anti-Semitism, Hinduphobia, Islamophobia, Jewish hatred and even White Supremacy, the US has retained its considerations as a stable and reasonable secular state, where the contours of exceptionalism do not sideline religious freedoms. Instead, the same is protected, whether of any identitarian origins. India can learn from American exceptionalism, and focus on the idealistic, all-comprehensive annals of Dharma and utilize the conceptions of Sanatana Dharma to transform the social aisles of morality, ethics, strategic parity and constitutionalism in matters related to technology politics, diplomacy and constitutionalism. Considering the beautiful resemblance of constitutionalism India can seek between the Constitution of India, 1950 and Shrimad Bhagavad Gita, it is possible that the Dharmic understandings of Organic Secularism in India can be utilized to cater, weaponize and stir the social, political and strategic causes of technology, and so, artificial intelligence. The second and third tenets, that is – Libertarianism and Conservatism – can be approached via the Indic way. It is true that the origins of classic liberalism and modern conservatism in Europe cannot be applied directly in the 21st Century due to obvious reasons. However, as Simon Anholt pointed out in his book “The Good Country Equation”, anything which nationalized, even propaganda, may or may not be internationalized that wide. This is the difference between global progressivism, an amalgamation of Cultural Marxism and Democratic Socialism & Libertarianism. Black Lives Matter, for example, as a cause, and not as an organization, is a reasonable cause. However, the involvement of the Chinese in the BLM rioting and the activities of revisionist vandalism in the US, the UK and EU states in the name of decoloniality shows that global progressivism, which actually misused the moderate behaviour of neoliberalism and global capitalism, is now being challenged in Europe and the US, in starters. There is no doubt that neoconservatism also needs to be transformed and limit itself from religious evangelism, whether of any kind, in the West, the Middle East and Asia. Thus, it is a global need that Libertarianism and Conservatism come up as a joint political phenomenon and school of thought, where dissent, support and considerations towards political actions are incrementally and reasonably assessed. India therefore can effectively transform libertarianism-conservatism since the Indic civilization, and the Indic school of thought actually focuses on some sort of idealistic virtues. The significant problems which can come in when it comes to adapting tech are related to (a) the kleptocratic and restrictive approaches towards rule of law and constitutional morality; (b) the philosophizing and selective application of comparative constitutional jurisprudence on civil liberties; and (c) the lack of harmony of ideological viewpoints when any judicial review, administrative reform or parliamentary action is put in course. India needs to overcome these issues through better background reforms. The Government of India at least has started the initiative via the works published by NITI Aayog on AI Ethics. 

The fourth tenet, Capitalism, does not require much justification, because the American view of capitalism has few shortcomings, such as corporatism and big government, which are a part of the ethnocentric oversight of MNCs, NGOs and governmental, multilateral and intergovernmental bodies affiliated or associated with the US and the Council of Europe member-states. Since, India focuses on reformed multilateralism, and can catalyse welfare policies in a reasonable way, it is strictly important that the Government ends all the archaic and restrictive means of economic marginalization, and repeat the 1991 moment. The moment of reforms in Labour Law and agricultural economics has already been achieved through the legislations passed in the past weeks, and this development is certainly reasonable. More or less, there are significant examples of the involvement of Indian diplomats, companies and start-ups, where in most cases, India has avoided corporatism, ethnocentrism and kleptocracy. Nevertheless, reforms and implementation can be cyclic, and the Indian state is therefore at least capable if not efficient right now, to bring effectiveness. In the information age, it is the state that takes a back seat and ensures more. 

An Indian Approach Towards AI Consequentialism 

AI Consequentialism is a transformative phenomenon, and the Indic transcendence towards the same is approachable. Let us understand what stems out of AI Consequentialism, and how those principles can be democratized in application. There are certain important conceptions in the field of AI Ethics and Social Sciences that have emerged in the coming times. Some of them, connected to the emerging nature of AI Consequentialism are:

 • Responsible AI 

• Algorithmic Accountability

 • Algorithmic Justice

 • Algorithmic Policing 

• Human-centered AI All these popularized conceptions have stemmed their origins from the US and Europe. Some of the common problems that these conceptions do have are – 

(a) they are too materialistic and lack practical application;

 (b) the conception of responsibility is too much marginalized to limited actors despite recognizing the fact that AI is influenced by omnipresence and the multiplicity of actors;

 (c) the conception that the multiplicity of actors in case of AI would be reasonable does not mean to marginalize the substantive thickness and structure of human rights or civil liberties enforcement because over clustering of human rights conceptions causes greater problems for law enforcement agencies and juries & the usage of old principles of civil and criminal liabilities is transformed into kleptocratic formulations; most of them are ideologically biased and untrue: their definitions are unsettling and they are central to political subversion and ethnocentrism; Now, considering India, it is important to gather incremental anthropological research to draw out solutions and contours to these common problems.

 Starting with the idea of Responsible AI, it is well-reasonable within the ambit of NITI Aayog to understand that there are no generalist solutions to recognize an autonomous ambit of AI. However, combating the ethnocentric approach of Responsible AI is impossible unless the Indic way of idealism and commitment does not fall into the trap of indoctrination. Instead, a better solution is to prevent any obscuration, focus on incremental and constructive inferential research, educate the cultural, aesthetic, identitarian, social and individual realities of AI and its influence, by balancing the perils of experience and developing superstitions and their normalization. The reason is that if any anthropological development is encultured as a tradition, which even AI can foster, in horizons like lifestyle, social media, economic cycles and global capitalism, then if on a chronological basis, the very aspect and reason behind the foresight and control of exercise of that custom/tradition is not acutely determined and self-regulatory for the individual, community or organization, then it is clear that the rupture and degeneracy of traditions and customs can easily lead to the development of superstition and judgementalism. Companies misuse AI Ethics and fund infotainment propaganda for the same purpose. India can learn from its civilizational maturity and articulation to prevent any radical enculturation of AI solutions in the social and economic forum of the sub-continent. Similar issues come up with algorithmic policing and algorithmic justice, because the difference between the two is that while the former is more related to the explanability and lack of fluidity cum coherence of algorithms to real scenario and their interventionism and aberrations made, the latter needs strong, and highly experienced definitive considerations, where non-elected representatives cannot participate at multilateral levels, and without a whole pack of consultations, education beyond basic standards of awareness, avoidance of fearmongering and judgementalism & pedagogy to enculture constructive enquiry – neither of the two conceptions can be appropriately retained. 

The concept of humancentric AI can be transformed and rejuvenated by the Indian philosophical take towards human anatomy, the cyclic connect between mind, body and soul & the constructively optimistic enculturation of AI into better, responsibly foreseen and stronger surroundings, at an aesthetic level. Similarly, algorithmic accountability can very well be established, but through avoiding the misuse of technocratic measures in a legal system. Considering the administrative conditions of the Indian state, it is highly recommended that no top-to-down absolutist approaches are established. Thus, deputizing and federalizing the implementation of the NITI Aayog’s proposals would certainly be of great help and use. Thus, in order to make that happen, trust as a credential and currency of purpose here – must be reflected through the intermingled network of feedback & experience backed by explanability & the resistant tolerance towards any sort of disruption that the collectivist and all-connective behaviour of AI infrastructures can cause in the near decades. Some of the recommendations made can be the initial ways to encourage ideas and solutions, but we must realize that the Indian state and its civilizational philosophy has not focuses on ends-centric, linear and mundane time frames of solutions, which means that the process of replenishment is more of a collective transformation & transition of the social order and civil society. It is important that Indian idealism should be not subject as a scapegoat towards any indoctrination of superstitious, ethnocentric or impractical diplomatic strategies. 

Abhivardhan, Chairperson & Managing Trustee, Indian Society of Artificial Intelligence and Law & Chief Executive Officer, Internationalism. 

The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.

For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.

Legally Speaking




The Gauhati High Court in the case Jugitawali Pawe v State of Assam and 15 ors observed and quashed a resolution expressing no-confidence in the petitioner – the President of a Gram Panchayat, as a result of which she as removed from office. It was stated that it is as per the citing no compliance with Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, reading with Rule 62 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995.

It was preferred by the petitioner to the materials available on record to argue that one of the members of the Gaon Panchayat, the respondent. The respondent voted against the petitioner and had given birth to her third child the previous year. Moreover, by virtue of Section 111(2)(a) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, reading with Rule 62 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995, the petitioner stood automatically disqualified on the date of voting. Following, which her vote was taken by passing No-confidence motion.

It was prayed by the petitioner in the plea for setting aside the impugned resolution and for issuance of a direction to restore his client back in the office. Thereafter, to initiate fresh proceedings, liberty should be granted to the respondent, following the due process.

It was agreed by the Counsel representing for the respondent that the said member of the panchayat had been disqualified but retained on the ground that the disqualification would have no bearing on the petitioner’s case, as the impugned resolution was passed before the declaration of petitioner disqualification.

In the present case, It was noticed by Justice Suman Shyam the member had voted against the petitioner and without her vote. The petitioner would not have been ousted from office. Justice Shyam also found no dispute about the fact that the member had incurred disqualification under the law prior the date of adoption of the impugned resolution. Justice Shyam found it unnecessary to delve into other aspects of the matter which includes the procedural formalities for declaring the member a disqualified candidate.

It is observed that the impugned resolution was declared to be vitiated and liable to be set aside. Further, the Court restored the petitioner to the office of the President of the Bongalmara Gaon Panchayat with immediate effect and it was stated by the court that the order will not stand in the way should the authorities or any member of the Gaon Panchayat propose a fresh motion of “no-confidence” against the petitioner and the due process of law needs to be followed.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Halt DDA’s demolition action against jhuggis in Nizamuddin’s Gyaspur area, orders Delhi High Court

As per the JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015 and the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, the residents who can establish their residence prior to 01.01.2015 are eligible for rehabilitation under the JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015.



plea in Delhi High Court seeking repatriation of 56 pregnant nurses

The Delhi High Court in the case Manoj Gupta & Ors. v. DDA & Ors observed and has ordered status quo on the Delhi Development Authority’s proposal to demolish jhuggi clusters in city’s Gyaspur area in Hazrat Nizamuddin. The vacation bench comprising of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed in the petition filled by the residents and the court granted an interim relief.

It was ordered by the court status quo till July 11, the next date of hearing.

The bench orally remarked that a ten-day delay in demolition won’t make a difference but if today it is demolished and later, we come to know that they were entitled, who’s going to… the bench will consider it on July 11, 2022 but in the Meanwhile, some protections are entitled them. Adding this, Status quo be maintained. If since 1995, they have been there, heavens won’t come down if for 10 more days they are protected.

In the plea the petitioner stated that the T-Huts settlement in the area, which was stated by the authorities to vacate. It has been in existence for almost two decades and compromise of 32 jhuggis or households.

In the plea it was alleged that the bulldozers have been parked around the camp and a DDA official has orally asked them to vacate the area and it is noted that till date no proper notice have been sent to them nor has DDA conducted any survey of the area.

Furthermore, the DDA did not provide any alternate arrangement for their rehabilitation which resulted in extreme distress among the residents.

Moreover, it was admitted by the petitioner that the land in question belongs to DDA and they may seek that status-quo to be maintained at the site. It was urged that the residents should not be physically dispose or evicted from the demolition site until the survey is conducted and rehabilitation is provided to the residents as per the DUSIB policy of 2015.

As per the JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015 and the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board. The residents who can establish their residence prior to 01.01.2015 are eligible for rehabilitation under the JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015.

It is observed that in the case Ajay Maken v. Union of India, Reliance is placed on the Supreme Court decision and the High Court decision in the case Sudama Singh & Ors. v. Government of Delhi & Anr, it was held in the case that that removal of jhuggis without ensuring relocation would amount of gross violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, it was held that the agencies conducting the demolitions ought to conduct survey before undertaking any demolition.

It is submitted that these observations would apply across the board, in the entire NCT of Delhi.

Advocates Vrinda Bhandari, Shiyaz Razaq, Kaoliangpou Kamei, Jepi Y Chisho and Paul Kumar Kalai, represented the petitioner.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking




The High Court of Telangana in the case M/s S. Square Infra v. Garneni Chalapathi Rao observed and held that the place of residence of the arbitrator would not determine the seat of arbitration.

The Single bench comprising of Justice P. Sree Sudha observed and held that merely because an arbitrator residing in Hyderabad has been appointed, it does not mean that only the Courts at Hyderabad would have the jurisdiction to decide all the matters arising out of arbitration agreement.

Facts of the Case:

In the present case, after the dispute arouse between the parties, the respondent sent a letter to the petitioner for nomination an arbitrator who is residing in Hyderabad. To its said notice, petitioner replied and declined the appointment of the arbitrator for the reason that there was no dispute which required the appointment of an arbitrator.

A suit was filled by the respondent before the VII Additional District Judge Sangareddy, seeking for relief of permanent injunction. An application was filled by the petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act and the parties referred to the arbitration.

An application was filled by the respondent under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act before the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy, Subsequently, an application was filled by the petitioner for transferring the application from the Court at Sangareddy to Court at Hyderabad.

Contentions made by Parties:

On the following grounds, the petitioner sought the transfer of application.

An arbitrator residing in Hyderabad was nominated to respondent. However, only the courts in Hyderabad would have the jurisdiction to decide all the matters arising out of the arbitration.

It was stated that the nomination of an arbitrator residing in Hyderabad amounted to designating Hyderabad as the Seat of Arbitration.

On the following grounds, the respondent countered the submissions of the petitioner:

An application was filled by the petitioner under Section 8 of the A&C Act before the Court at Sangareddy. However, in terms of Section 42 of the A&C Act, only the court at Sangareddy would have the jurisdiction to decide all the matters arising out of arbitration.

Court Analysis:

The Court held that the seat of arbitration would not be decide by the place of residence of the arbitrator.

The argument of the petitioner was rejected by the court that since the respondent had initially nominated an arbitrator residing in Hyderabad, the Hyderabad Court would have the jurisdiction.

The court stated that merely because a party has nominated an arbitrator who resides in Hyderabad, the same would not designate Hyderabad as the Seat of arbitration in absence of any designation of the seat under the arbitration agreement.

It was further stated by the court that the application filled by the petitioner filled under Section 8 application before the Court at Sangareddy consequent to which the parties were referred to arbitration. Therefore, the Court would have the jurisdiction, in terms of Section 42 of the A&C Act.

The Transfer petition was dismissed by the Court.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking




plea in Delhi High Court seeking repatriation of 56 pregnant nurses

The Delhi High Court in the case Shubham Thakral Vs ITO, the Delhi bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed and remanded the matter back to the assessing officer as just 3 days’ time was granted to respond to the income tax notice.

In the present case, the petitioner/assessee assailed the notice under Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order passed under Section 148A (d) for the Assessment Year 2018–19.

It was contended by the assessee that only three days’ time was granted to the assessee to respond, as against the mandatory statutory period of at least seven days. However, despite of the fact that the annexure attached to the notice gave the petitioner eight days to respond, the e-filing submission portal was closed earlier, in violation of Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act.

Furthermore, the petitioner relied on the decision of Delhi High Court, in the case of Shri Sai Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd versus ITO, the Delhi High Court in the case held that under Section 148A (b), a minimum time of seven days has to be granted to the assessee to file its reply to the show cause notice.

No objections were raised by the department/respondent to the matter being returned to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the court set aside the order passed under Section 148A (d) for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing officer was directed by the court to pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with the law after considering the reply of the petitioner, which was directed to be filed within a week.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking




The Allahabad High Court in the case Malhan and 17 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Another observed and stated that an advocate should be given such a piece of advice when there is no error apparent on the face of the record nor was there any reason why the matter be re-agitated it was finally decided.

The bench comprising of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Vivek Varma observed while dealing with the civil review application wherein the bench observed the concerned advised his client to make a chance by filling the instant review application after a period of six year.

In the present case, a civil review petition was filled along with the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963., the application was filled for seeking condonation of delay in filling the application, the application was filled with a delay of six years i.e., 1900 days.

It was stated by the applicant that the review application could not be filled due to the blockage of public transportation on account of the COVID-19 guidelines.

Moreover, the court observed that the appeals were disposed of by the Apex Court in the year 2016 and only in 2020-2021, the pandemic struck India and furthermore, it cannot be said that due to the COVID guidelines the public transportation was blocked and however, the applicant could not come to Allahabad Court to file review.

Further, it was stated that the court asked the counsel for the review applicants to explain the delay in filling the review application, to which the council gave a strange reply that the counsel had advised the clients that they must take a chance by filling this review application after a period of six years.

Following this, the Court observed:

The court noted that an advocate should not give such an advice when there is no error apparent on the face of record nor was there any other reason that when the matter was finally decided, why the matter be re-agitated.

It was stated that the court has no reason to condone the delay of six years as the same was not explained as to why this review application is filed after such an inordinate delay.

The Court opined that the lapse in approaching the court within the time is understandable but a total inaction for long period of delay without any explanation whatsoever and that too in absence of showing any sincere attempt on the part of suiter, this would add to his negligence and the relevant factor going against him.

The court observed that careless and reckless is shown by the review applicant in approaching the court and due to the condemnation of delay in the application with a token cost of Rs.10,000/, the court dismissed the application.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking




The Supreme Court in the case Sanjay versus The State (NCT of Delhi) & ANR observed and stated that in the case where personal liberty is involved, the court is expected to pass orders at the earliest while taking into account the merits of the matter in one way or other. Further, the top court observed that posting of an application for anticipatory bail after a couple of months cannot be appreciated by the court.

The bench comprising of Justice C. T. Ravikumar and the Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a June 2 SLP against the Delhi High Court in a petition filed under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for seeking anticipatory bail in a 2022 FIR, a notice is issued. It was stated that the learned APP for the state is present and accepts the notice and seeks time to file status report. The High Court in the impugned order stated that Let the status report be filed by the state prior to the next date with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The matter is to be list on 31.08.2022.

It was noted by the bench comprising of Justice Ravikumar and the Justice Dhulia that in the captioned Special Leave Petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the application for anticipatory bail moved by the petitioner, being Crl. M.A. No. 11480 of 2022 in Bail Application No. 1751 of 2022 without granting any interim protection, was posted to 31.08.2022. on 24.05.2022, the bail application was moved on.

However, the bench asserted that the bench is of the considered view that in a matter involving personal liberty, the Court is expected to to pass orders at the earliest while taking into account the merits of the matter in one way or other.

It was declared by the bench that at any rate posting an application for anticipatory bail after a couple of months cannot be appreciated by the court.

Further, the bench requested to the High Court to dispose off the application for anticipatory bail on its own merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks after reopening of the Court. Adding to it, the bench stated that if the main application could not be disposed off, for any reason, within the stipulated time, relief sought for in the interlocutory and on and on its own merits, the application shall be considered.

While disposing of the SLP, the bench directed in its order that we grant interim protection from arrest to the petitioner herein, Till such time.

Continue Reading