BulletinBoardBulletinBoard – February 7, 2019 (Linking of PAN with Aadhaar is mandatory: SC and more)

Linking of PAN with Aadhaar is mandatory: SC 

The Supreme Court (“SC”) in the case of Union of India v. Shreya Sen has reiterated that the linking of PAN with Aadhaar is mandatory and that the vires of Section 139 AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was tested in the case of Justice (Retd.) K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and Ors. (“Aadhaar case”)

The SC opined that Section 139 AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not violative of the right to privacy as it passed the triple test laid down in the Aadhaar case. The triple test is as follow: (i) existence of a law; (ii) a ‘legitimate State interest’; and (iii) such law should pass the ‘test of proportionality’.

Quick Views:

  • The order of the SC in this case is in line with its finding in the Aadhaar case where the constitutional validity of Section 139 AA of the Income Tax, 1961 was upheld. The provision having been upheld, the law laid down by it must be followed.

 

Provision of POSH Act is available in addition to other available legal remedies: J &K HC

In the case of D.B. Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court (“Court”) has held that the provision of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”) are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law in force.

In this case, the petitioner had sought the quashing of the FIR filed against him on the ground that the proceedings against him was already underway under the provisions of the POSH Act, therefore, the police did not have jurisdiction to file the FIR.

The Court opined that the POSH Act under Section 28, explicitly mentions that the provision of the POSH Act are not in derogation of any other law. Consequently, the petition for quashing of FIR by the petitioner was dismissed.

Quick Views:

  • The POSH Act under Section 28 explicitly provides that the provisions of the POSH Act are not in derogation to any other law in force. Further, it must be noted that the provisions of POSH Act seek to address sexual harassment against women only in the workplace, while the general penal code deals with offences against women of all kind, whether working or non-working.

 

Delhi HC seeks the Central Government’s response in an application seeking implementation of order banning sale of medicines online

The Delhi High Court (“Court”) has sought a response from the Centre on an application which seeks implementation of the order seeking to ban sale of medicines online. Four e-pharmacies have been impleaded in the matter to stop them from selling medicines on their portal.

The application was part of the petition filed late last year that sought to restrain e-pharmacies from selling medicines online. The application claims that lakhs of medicines are being sold online through e-pharmacies in direct violation of the right to life available under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

 

Quick Views:

  • While the interim order banning the sale of medicines online is still in force, the response of the governments to implement such order has been wanting.  A law in force will only be effective if it is implemented in its letter and spirit.

 

 

Disclaimer: This post has been prepared for informational purposes only. The information/or observations contained in this post does not constitute legal advice and should not be acted upon in any specific situation without seeking proper legal advice from a practicing attorney.

Disclaimer

As per rules of the Bar Council of India, advocates are not permitted to solicit work or advertise. By clicking on the “I agree” button below and accessing this website, the User acknowledges that by accessing this website (www.gamechangerlaw.com):