Legal Digest: Teaching how to respond to police queries isn’t an antinational activity

Case 1:Nothing anti-national about educating individuals on how to respond to police queries

In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court recently acquitted a member of Popular Front of India of the charges of anti-national activities on the ground that he was teaching others how to respond to police interrogation and otherwise to be legally aware.

The Court found nothing objectionable in this as the coaching did not incite violence or other crimes against others or the country.  In addition, of course the Constitution itself empowers one not to self-incriminate by remaining silent or otherwise.  

Case 2: Child lifting is a crime that deserves harsh action like hospital license cancellation 

The Supreme Court on April 15, came down like a ton of bricks on the UP government for being a silent spectator and on the Allahabad high Court for granting bail to a child lifter too readily and too easily.  The bail seeker was paid ₹4 lakh for lifting a new-born from a hospital.  Obviously, such a blatant crime that rends the hearts of the biological parents could not have been perpetrated without the connivance of the hospital staff.

The Apex Court in a slew of directions has ordered state governments to cancel the licenses of such derelict hospitals. This is a welcome initiative.  Organ harvesting is rampant in India. This too should lead to cancellation of license.  Hospital staff colluding with anti-social elements is like fence eating the crop.  

Case 3: If artistic then copyright protection but if functional then design protection

The Supreme Court this week laid down a framework to distinguish between artistic works eligible for copyright protection under the copyright law and industrial design eligible for protection under the Designs Act. Quite often there is a conflict between the two.

The Apex Court was hearing appeal by Cryogas Equipment Private Limited and LNG Express India Private Limited against the Gujarat High Court verdict saying it was a copyright matter which enjoys a longer protection vis-à-vis protection for industrial rights. If the purpose is creativity and artistic work then it is a copyright matter but if it is a mundane and recurring design for industrial production on commercial scale then it ceases to be a copyright matter and gets into the domain of industrial design.  

Case 4: Logo for footwear can’t be an imitation of logo for motorcycle 

In H-D U. S. A., LLC vs. Vijaypal Dhayal, owner/ proprietor of Red Rose Industries, the Delhi High Court permanently restrained the respondent from using Harley Davidson’s logo for its motorcycles though the respondent was not a motorcycle manufacturer but only a footwear manufacturer. To be sure, the petitioner was also manufacturing among others footwear but that was not the clincher. The clincher was the principle that nobody should ride piggyback on someone else’s trademark.  

Case 5: Recovery officers can be sent to prison for playing ball with borrowers 

The Madras High Court recently punished an officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, with a 5-year imprisonment for what is picturesquely called ‘match fixing’. He deliberately undervalued the auction property so that his colluder could buy the property for a song with spoils suitably shared. 

The one done in by such match fixing was the borrower who had defaulted in repaying banks. If his property was realistically valued, the auction proceeds would have been more and possibly enough to pay off his entire dues to the bank. This kind of collusion is often witnessed when an official enjoys discretionary powers like the Commissioner of income tax having the power to slap penalty for tax evasion in a range between 100% to 300% of the tax evaded. 

“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” as the saying goes. To this, one might add: discretionary power is the most dangerous of all. A commissioner, for example, may initially threaten a 300% penalty, only to reduce it to 100% later — with the “savings” in penalty discreetly shared between him and the tax evader.

—The author, S. Murlidharan, is a Chartered Accountant and legal expert who provides commentary on and interprets important court rulings and judgments. The views expressed are his own.

Read the previous Legal Digest columns here

(Edited by : Unnikrishnan)