PROSTITUTION: LAW & ANALYSIS - The Daily Guardian
Connect with us

Legally Speaking

PROSTITUTION: LAW & ANALYSIS

Simran Bhaskar

Published

on

The word ‘prostitution’ derives from a Latin word called prostituere means to expose publically. It basically means providing sexual favors in return of money. Like other forms of violence it is generally committed against women by men. Moreover, the transgender community often goes unnoticed when we pin point the wrongs of the system of prostitution in India. Prostitution in India and across the globe makes billions in profits mostly by taking advantage of socially and economically vulnerable people.

The main cause of prostitution arises due to the orthodox Indian Society which sees women as an object or a commodity. Prostitution is also prevalent in caste system where marginalized women are often sexually exploited and left to rot in the degraded system. Lack of sex education, kidnapping and abduction are some cause for prostitution.

LAWS RELATED TO THE PROSTITUTION

According to the Indian Penal Code, prostitution in it’s broader sense is not really illegal per se but there are certain activities which constitute a major part of prostitution are punishable under certain provisions of the act:

1. Soliciting services of prostitution at public places

2. Carrying out prostitution activities in hotels

3. Being the owner of a brothel

4. Pimping

5. Indulge in prostitution by arranging a sex worker

6. Arrangement of a sexual act with a customer

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA) defines prostitution as sexual exploitation or abuse of a female for monetary purposes and a prostitute is the person who gains that commercial benefit. This act was passed in 1956 and is also referred as SITA. This law essentially states that prostitutes are allowed to commence their trade in private but they cannot carry their business in public. As per the act, the clients can be arrested if found guilty of engaging in a sexual act in public.

A woman cannot indulge in commercial sex within 200 yards of a public place. Sex workers cannot be put under the ambit of the existent labour laws considering how distinguished their profession is but they have all the rights of any given Indian citizen and are entitled to be rescued and rehabilitated if they want.

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1986 is an amendment of the original act. As per this act, the prostitutes are to be arrested if they are found soliciting their services or seducing others. Further, call girls are prohibited in making their phone numbers public. They can be punished for 6 months along with penalties if found doing so.

Clients indulging with a sex worker within the area of 200 yards of a public space can be imprisoned for maximum of 3 months with fines. In case, someone is found indulging in a sexual activity with a minor then, he/she can be jailed upto 10 years. Pimps and similar people who live from the income made by a prostitute are guilty as well. For that matter, if an adult man lives with a prostitute he can be regarded as guilty.

If he cannot prove himself to be innocent, he can face imprisonment between 2-4 years. SITA (1956) which was further amended to ITPA (1986) is an important law as according to the preamble of the act, the purpose of the act was to give effect to the Trafficking convention.The preamble refers to the law as An act to provide in pursuance of the International Convention signed at New York on the 9th day of May 1950, for the prevention of immoral traffic in women and girls, enacted by Parliament in the Seventh Year of the Republic of India.

The constitutionality of ITPA was challenged in the landmark judgement of The State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Kaushalya. The facts enumerated in this case are that a few of the prostitutes were asked to be removed from their place in order to maintain the decorum of the city of Kanpur.

The High Court of Allahabad made the pronouncement that section 20 of the act abridged the Article 14 and sub clauses (d) and (e) of the Article 19(1) of the Indian constitution. The Act was held to be constitutionally valid as there was an intelligible difference between a prostitute and a person causing a nuisance.

The Act is also in consonance with the object sought to be achieved ie. maintaining order and decorum in society. The act focuses on achieving a public purpose to maintain the decorum and morality in the society and to rescue the fallen women and girls and provide them with rehabilitation and opportunities to the fallen victims so that they can become decent members of the society. The act seeks to criminalize the prostitution essentially and empowers the central government to form special court for trial of the offences under this act.

Article 2 of the Convention, the Parties to the Convention further agree to punish any person who: keeps or manages, or knowingly finances or takes part in the financing of a brothel; knowingly lets or rents a building or other place or any part thereof for the purpose of the prostitution of others.

These offences mentioned in the convention and none of these laws mentions that a victim of the prostitution can be a offender. The purpose behind this was to punish the actual offenders who are involved in procuring, enticing or trafficking anyone for the purpose of the prostitution. The original international treaty aimed at prohibition and discouragement of any sort of sexual exploitation, thus stopping the trafficking of the persons into the prostitution.

However, it does not prohibit prostitution or commercial sex work by individual out of their consent and freedom. In India, ITPA does not directly prohibits the prostitution nor does it criminalizes it in its whole sense. Although, there are many provisions which discriminate against the sex workers and in fact, punishes them. The following sentences detail the main features of SITA: Section 2(f) defined prostitution as the act of a female who offered her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire…

According to this definition, there is no mention of men or trans community. This establishes the punishment for upto 3 months for a woman who engages in prostitution within the 200 yards of the public place.

There is a discriminatory sentencing provision in the law where a woman can be imprisoned for upto one year, whereas, for the same offence, a pimp could only be imprisoned of upto 3 months. The biggest drawback about the law is that it only focuses on the street prostitution and other forms of prostitution were left without being acknowledged. Also, there is a very minimal punishment for the ‘middlemen’ of the industry. The closed door prostitution is somewhat inferred to be allowed but the law does not prescribe any legal safeguards or regulations and responsibilities for the protection of the sex workers.

The main problem with this provision is that it looks at the prostitution as immoral and indecent which is hampering the decorum of the society. However, the fact remains that engaging in sex work with precautions and regulations do not constitute any sort of harm on any individual.

Further, the only reason why prostitution is referred as something immoral and the sex workers are regarded as indecent solely because of how sex is a major taboo in our society and demand and supply of sex in a regulatory manner is something to be looked down upon.

The Indian society cannot digest the reality of the sexual violence happening because of the existent norms related to sex present in the society and people believing and continuing to thrive on these norms. The fact that the act tries to criminalizes the acts leading to the prostitution expresses the discomfort of the law at facing the real issue and makes the temporary and half hearted amendments in combating the issue.

A PROPOSED AMENDMENT IN 2006

There was a proposal made in 2006 to amend the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act . The amendment bill basically removes the provisions that penalize prostitution by soliciting clients. This proposal recommends enhanced punishment and an increased fine amount. It intends to criminalize the act of visiting a brothel for the purpose of sexual exploitation of trafficked victims with imprisonment of at least three months or a fine of Rs. 20,000 which has not been criminalized in the Act.

The bill constitutes authorities at the center and state level to combat trafficking. The term trafficking in persons has been defined with a provision for punishing any person who is guilty of the offence of trafficking in persons for the purpose of prostitution.

Article 21 of Indian Constitution The article states the protection of life and personal liberty. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.

In the case Budhadev Karmaskar v State of West Bengal

In this case, it was held that the sex workers are human beings and should be treated with humanity and dignity. Nobody is entitled to physically assault them.The judgement also highlighted the problems faced by the sex workers and their plight. Court is of the view that these women are compelled to indulge in prostitution not out of choice or pleasure but merely out of economic and social causes.

The court directed the central and state government to enroll the sex workers in vocational and technical courses and open rehabilitation centres for the better job opportunities for them. Immoral Traffic (Prevention)Act has incorporated Section 21 as a rule for the State Government to establish and maintain the protection homes and the houses should be regulated and licensed by them. There should be an adequate authority for investigation of the application for the protection homes. These licenses were temporary and non transferable. The state has powers to make ancillary rules in respect of license, management and maintenance of these homes or ancillary matters by virtue of section 23 of the act.

Article 23(1) also declares that traffic in human beings and the beggar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with the law.

The issue of human trafficking is tackled in the IPC as well which prohibits the trafficking of women and girls into a forceful area of prostitution and have prescribed harsh punishments on the offenders. The IPC ennumerates that anyone who buys or sells or obtains the possession of anyone under the age of 18 years for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse.. or for an unlawful or immoral purpose.. or knowing it to be likely that such person will at any age be employed or used for any such purpose.. or knowing it to be likely that such person will at any age be employed or used for any such purpose.. is to be imprisonment for upto 10 years.

The IPC identifies cross border trafficking into prostitution and provides that whoever imports into India from any country outside India any girl under the age of twenty one years with the intent that she may be, or knowing it to be likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

The provision related to rape under IPC also applies to the rape of a brothel inmate. The IPC defines the rape as an act of sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, without her consent or with her consent but under threat or fear od death or injury, or with her consent when she is not aware about the consequences of her consent or with or without consent when she is under 16 years of age.

The minimum punishment for rape is 7 years of imprisonment under IPC. These provisions are applicable to the brothel owners, brothel staff, and customers when they engage in sexual intercourse with minors or with women who are forcefully kept in the brothels.

Problems with the Indian laws and their purpose:

The main problem with these provisions are that the outlook towards prostitution is as something immoral and indecent and something which is hampering the decorum of the society. However, the fact remains that engaging in sex work with precautions and regulations do not constitute any sort of harm on any individual. Further, the only reason why prostitution is referred as something immoral and the sex workers are regarded as indecent solely because of how sex is a major taboo in our society and demand and supply of sex in a regulatory manner is something to be looked down upon.

The Indian society cannot digest the reality of the sexual violence happening because of the existent norms related to sex present in the society and people believing and continuing to thrive on these norms. The fact that the act tries to criminalizes the acts leading to the prostitution expresses the discomfort of the law at facing the real issue and makes the temporary and half hearted amendments in combating the issue.

Another main aspect of Indian laws related to the prostitution which goes unoticed is that these laws do not acknowledge that it is not only women who are victims of sexual exploitation but it is men and transgender people who suffer with sexual violence, exploitation and oppression.

LEGALISATION OF PROSTITUTION

There have been a lot of discourse regarding giving the legal status to the prostitution in India. It is observed that it is best to regulate the prostitution since, the chances of its abolishment are negligible. Various countries like Canada, France, Germany, Denmark, Wales etc. have regulated and legalized the prostitution.

In Germany, in fact the profession is not only legal but taxed as well where the brothels are allowed to advertise and send job offers through HR companies. Germany had also passed a latest legislation in 2016 which purposed at protect prostitutes by requiring the permit for all prostitution trades and a prostitute registration certificate.

This sort of system where the profession is regulated and the safeguards of the sex workers are taken into consideration, it tends to do less harm to the sex workers and better implementation of laws protects the system from abuse and exploitation. These sex workers are not only exposed to dangerous sexual transmitted diseases like HIV AIDS but they also, suffer from police brutality,dip in income, harassment etc. In 2009, Supreme Court itself suggested the prostitution to be legal.

Here are the following reasons for which prostitution should be legalised:

1. Legalisation of prostitution will protect the minors from being vulnerable to the sexual exploitation. There are almost around 10 million children who are pushed into prostitution, worldwide. Child prostitution is a bitter reality of almost all the countries but in Asia and South America, the situation is worse. Strict regulations in the industry can ensure the prohibition of the minors from the system.

2. Regulated health check ups of the sex workers will ensure the curbing of the sexual transmitted diseases specially, AIDS which is just so common among the sex workers. Adequate birth controls will ensure unwanted pregnancies and curbing of other health hazards. Regular health check ups and strict guidelines will ensure the cleaner and hygienic working conditions. A compulsory provision of condoms will also, be beneficial for the sex workers and the customers both.

3. Legalization of the prostitution will enhance and upgrade the system. There will be a removal of middlemen and pimps from the system and the sex workers will have more wage earning and the criminal and exploitative factors would be reduced to negligible.

4. It will reduce the sexual violence, rapes and other sexual assaults as people will resort to a legal and an easier alternative to satisfy their sexual urges. An example of Queensland can be taken where the region experienced 149% increase in rape rate after the closing of brothels.

CONCLUSION

Prostitution in India constitutes around 8.4 billion dollar business. Legalizing and taxing the process will be like an incentive for the government. Rights of the workers will be protected. Even though, the sex workers do not come into the ambit of usual labor laws still, they should get all the rights of a citizen and a laborer.

In a society, where prostitution has been an age old profession and is continuing to flourish as a business area, it will be ignorant to put a blind eye on it and pretend the non existence of the system and its flaws. Decriminalizing the sex work with proper rules and regulations and making it legal will ensure a better life for sex workers with better wages, health security and protection.

Not only this but as a society, it will be a progressive step which shall eliminate many social evils from the society like child prostitution, rape etc. Sex trade is a very evident reality of our country and by recognizing it as a legitimate profession with certain rules and safeguards all the involved parties can receive guaranteed benefits. A better and inclusive legal framework and implementation of all the safeguard methods will only cater to the betterment of the society.

Legalisation of prostitution will protect the minors from being vulnerable to the sexual exploitation. There are almost around 10 million children who are pushed into prostitution, worldwide. Child prostitution is a bitter reality of almost all the countries, but in Asia and South America the situation is worse. Strict regulations in the industry can ensure the prohibition of the minors from the system.

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

SC Collegium Recommends elevation of Justice Prasanna B. Varale as Karnataka HC Chief Justice; Recommends New CJs For Orissa, J&K

Published

on

Supreme court

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended elevation of Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Bombay High Court Judge as the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court.
Justice Prasanna B. Varale was born on 23rd June, 1962 and enrolled as an Advocate on 12th August, 1985. He also served as a lecturer in Law at Ambedkar Law College, Aurangabad from 1990 to 1992 and as the Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court Bench at Aurangabad and also as an Additional Standing Counsel for Union of India.
On July, 18., he was elevated to the bench at Bombay High Court.
The Supreme Court Collegium also recommended to elevate of Orissa High Court Judge, Justice Jaswant Singh, as its Chief Justice.
Justice Singh was February 23, 1961 and was enrolled as an Advocate in 1986 in Haryana. In April 1988, he moved to Chandigarh and held the posts of Assistant Advocate General, Deputy Advocate General, Senior Deputy Advocate General and Additional Advocate General, in the office of Advocate General, Haryana, since March 1991.
On December 5, 2007., he was elevated as a Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court and on 8th October, 2021., he was transferred to the Orissa High Court.
The Collegium also J&K High Court’s Judge, Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey to take charge as the Chief Justice.
Justice Magrey was born on 8th December, 1960 and enrolled as Advocate in the year 1984. However, he remained as standing counsel from 1986 onwards for various State instrumentalities and was appointed as Additional Advocate General in February, 2003. In September 2009, he was appointed as Senior Additional Advocate General.
On 8th March, 2013., he was appointed as Permanent Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Transfer Of 3 Judges To Bombay, Jharkhand & Tripura High Courts

Published

on

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended transfer of three Judges in its meeting held on 28th September, 2022 in the following manner:
The transfer of Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra from Uttarakhand High Court to Jharkhand High Court
Justice Mishra was born on December 29, 1961 and has obtained his LL.B. degree in 1987 and in February 1999 joined as Additional District & Sessions Judge. However, he worked as District & Sessions Judge, Sundergarh, Dhenkanal, Special Judge (CBI), Bhubaneswar and has joined as Registrar General of Orissa High Court.
On October 7, 2009., he was elevated as Judge of the Orissa High Court and was transferred to the Uttarakhand High Court on October 11, 2021. Between December 24, 2021 and June 28, 2022, he served as the Acting Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court.
The transfer of Justice K. Vinod Chandran from the Kerala High Court to Bombay High Court
Justice K. Vinod Chandran was born on April 25, 1963 and has started his law practice in 1991. Also, he served as a Special Government Pleader (Taxes) of the Government of Kerala from 2007 to 2011. In November 2011, he was sworn-in as Additional Judge of Kerala High Court and was appointed as a Permanent Judge with effect from June 24, 2013.
The transfer of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh from Jharkhand High Court to Tripura High Court
Justice Singh was born on 7th July, 1965 and got enrolled as an advocate at Patna in 1990. On 24th January, 2012., he was elevated as an Additional Judge of Jharkhand High Court and was confirmed as permanent Judge on 16th January, 2014. Presently, he is holding an additional charge as Executive Chairman of Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Kerala High Court Directs Union Health Ministry And Department of Pharmaceuticals To File Response: Patents On Life Saving Drugs

Published

on

The Kerala High Court while taking serious note in the case XXX v. Union of India of the unaffordability of a life-saving patented medicine for breast cancer, the Court directed a competent officer of the union health ministry and the department of pharmaceuticals for filing their response on the issue within a month.
A direction has been issued by the Court after noting that the matter had to be taken up at the higher level.
The bench of Justice V.G. Arun observed and has warned that if the counter is not filed within the stipulated time, the court would be constrained to proceed with the case based on the “uncontroverted averments in the writ”.
During the hearing, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) and the Controller General of Patents, Patent Department, Standing Counsel T.C. Krishna submitted that the situation to invoke Sections 92 and 100 for compulsory license of the patented drug as sought for in the petition and was not prevalent as of present.
Further, it was asked by the counsel that how far the court could interfere in this case, since the plea had sought that the drug be made available at a reasonable price. Adding to it, he questioned that weather the Court could suggest what a ‘reasonable price’ would be to the government.
In response to the question, it was clarified by advocate Rahul Bajaj that cancer was not part of the list of the notifiable diseases list issued by the Central Government.
The Amicus Curiae, Advocate Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde submitted that the authority to take decision under Section 92 or Section 100 of the Patent Act ought to be of the Joint Secretary level as the Assistant Patent Officer could not decide whether the issue falls within the government realm or not.
It was also argued by the Amicus that the legal question which has been raised could be decided by the Court.
Further, it was submitted by Amicus that the counter Affidavit that had been submitted by DPIIT and Patent Department suffered from certain drawbacks for not addressing whether reasonable discretion had indeed been exercised in the instant case or not.
The Counsel appearing for the respondent refused while stating that the government has to take the decision in this regard, before the Patent Department could go ahead with compulsory licensing or any other such measure.
Representing an intervenor, Advocate Bajaj pointed out that the right to health in Indian and International spectrum includes within its ambit the right to life-saving medicines, as well. Hence, it was submitted by the counsel that the issue could not merely be looked into from a policy lens alone, but that it is a rights-based issue in itself.
The Court on 16.09.2022., had taken a suo motto cognizance of the issue of unaffordability of patented life-saving medicines, in light of the death of the petitioner who had espoused this cause having not been able to afford the Ribociclib drug for the treatment of her breast cancer.
Accordingly, the court posted the case for the next hearing on 2nd November 2022.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Allahabad high court: Not mandatory to summon lower court record before deciding state’s plea for grant of leave u/s 378(3) crpc

Published

on

The Allahabad High Court in the case State of U.P. v. Vakil S/O Babu Khan observed and has held that it is not mandatory for the High Court to summon the lower court record in every case before deciding the State Government’s application for grant of leave to appeal against an acquittal order as provided under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C.
It stated that section 378 Cr.P.C. provides for filing of appeal in case of acquittal by the State and sub-section 3 of Section 378 Cr.P.C. contemplates for grant of leave for the entertainment of such appeals filled.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed and has stated that it is for the High Court to decide on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case that whether the application filled for grant of leave requires the perusal of the lower court records or not.
However, the court was of the view that though the right of the appellate court to summon the lower court record in an appropriate matter always subsists and it is not necessary for the High Court to call for the lower court records for consideration of an application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C., in every case or as a matter of routine.
The Court also referred to the Apex Court’s ruling in the case of State of Maharastra Vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008) 9 SCC 475, wherein it was observed that the High Court while exercising the power to grant or refuse leave must apply its mind and considering where a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised and not whether the order of an acquittal would or would not be set aside.
It was observed that the court also took into account sub-section 2 of Section 384 Cr.P.C. which provides that before dismissing an appeal, summarily, the Court may call up for the record of the case. Thus, the court noted that non-summoning of the lower court records in an appeal against conviction is not fatal and that the use of the expression ‘may’ in sub-section (2) clearly suggests that the power to summon the record is only an enabling provision and as shall it is not to be read.
Further, the court stressed that every appeal is not required to be admitted inasmuch as leave must not necessarily be granted in every matter and the exercise of power in that regard is dependent before the Court upon a prima facie assessment of the material placed so as to ascertain whether the appeal raises arguable points or not.
Subsequently, the Court came to the conclusion that it is not mandatory for the High Court to summon the lower court record in every case before deciding the application for grant of leave under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C.
It was added by the court that the right of the appellate court to summon the lower court record in an appropriate matter always subsists and It is for the High Court to decide on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case that whether the application for grant of leave requires the perusal of the lower court records or not.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

All women, married or unmarried, entitled to safe and legal abortion: SC

Published

on

All women, married or unmarried, entitled to safe and legal abortion: SC

In a landmark judgement this week, the Supreme Court held that all women are entitled to a safe and legal abortion. A bench headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said that the meaning of rape must include marital rape for the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.
The Supreme Court said that the distinction between married and unmarried women for the purposes of the MTP Act is “artificial and constitutionally unsustainable” and perpetuates the stereotype that only married women indulge in sexual activities.
The rights of reproductive autonomy give similar rights to unmarried women as those to married women, the bench held.
Insisting on a “forward-looking” approach, the Supreme Court on 7 August opined that any discrimination between married and unmarried women in respect of the medical termination of pregnancy law in India that does not allow a single woman to go for an abortion after 20 weeks violates her personal autonomy.
The top court had said that it would interpret the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act and the related rules to see if unmarried women could be allowed to abort up to a 24-week pregnancy on medical advice.
The upper limit for the termination of pregnancy is 24 weeks for married women, with special categories including survivors of rape and other vulnerable women such as the differently-abled and minors; the corresponding window for unmarried women in consensual relationships is 20 weeks.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

SEBI v/s RIL : Review Petition Admitted

The present issue relates back to certain share transactions of RIL in 1994, whereby around 12 crore equity shares of RIL were “fraudulently” allotted to its promoters and group companies.

Tarun Nangia

Published

on

SEBI v/s RIL : Review Petition Admitted

The Supreme Court in the case Securities and Exchange Board Of India vs. Reliance Industries Limited & Ors observed and has allowed for listing of the instant petition in open court.

The bench comprising of the Chief Justice Of India U.U. Lalit, Justice J.K. Maheshwari and the Justice HimaKohli observed while considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on the submissions made by the counsel in the review petition. The bench deemed it appropriate to allowe the application filled for the listing of the instant petition in open court.

Background of the Case:

The present issue relates back to certain share transactions of RIL in 1994, whereby around 12 crore equity shares of RIL were “fraudulently” allotted to its promoters and group companies. In 2020, a complaint was filled by S Gurmurthy, the regulatory initiated probe into the alleged irregularities. An opinion was sought by SEBI of former Supreme Court judge Justice BN Srikrishna twice and also the opinion of a Chartered Accountant named YH Malegam.

It was requested by the RBI for disclosure of these opinions and related internal documents. The RIL filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, when SEBI turned the request and the same was dismissed in February 2019.

A Criminal complaint was lodged by SEBI in 2020 before Special Judge, Mumbai against RIL alleging offences punishable under SEBI Act and Regulations. The same was rejected by the Court as time-barred. A revision petition was filled by the regulatory before the Bombay High Court challenging the dismissal of the complaint. However, in SEBI’s revision petition, RIL filed an interlocutory application seeking the disclosure of the documents. The High Court adjourned RIL’s application on March 28, 2022 by stating that it can be considered only along with the main revision petition. Therefore, this led to filling of the special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

On September 29, 2022., the matter was circulated in the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the court listed the review petition for next hearing on 12.10.2022.

Case Title: Securities and Exchange Board Of India vs. Reliance Industries Limited & Ors
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 250 of 2022 & W.P.(C) of 1167 of 2022.
Coram: Chief Justice Of India U.U. Lalit, Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice Hima Kohli
Date Of Order: 29th Day of September, 2022.

Continue Reading

Trending