MP HC questions legality of law officer appointments, influencers retract Dettol claims, and Tamil Nadu drops SC plea in TASMAC case.
DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (09 APRIL 2025)
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT SEEKS STATE RESPONSE ON ALLEGEDLY UNLAWFUL LAW OFFICERS’ APPOINTMENT
CASE NAME: OBC Advocates’ Welfare Association v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has sought a response from the State over alleged irregularities in appointing law officers without public notice, violating the 2013 notification. The petition challenges the legality of the appointments and the Advocate General’s role in undermining OBC reservation, demanding inquiry and action against the process.
LEGAL PROVISION
- February 2013 Notification: Governs the procedure for appointing law officers in Madhya Pradesh.
- Section 6, MP Reservation Act, 1994: Provides penal provisions for misrepresentation or adverse conduct affecting reservation.
- Constitutional Mandate: Equality before law (Article 14), Fair opportunity in public appointments (Article 16).
- Advocate General’s Conduct: Questioned under professional ethics and accountability in public office.
SOURCE: Madhya Pradesh High Court
DETTOL ROW: INFLUENCERS AGREE TO REMOVE CONTENT, DELHI HIGH COURT AWAITS FORMAL COMPROMISE
CASE NAME: Reckitt Benckiser India vs. Dr. Manjot Marwah & Ors.
Influencers Raj Shamani and Dr. Manjot Marwah told the Delhi High Court they will remove content criticizing Dettol. The Court awaits a formal settlement under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. Reckitt Benckiser alleged the podcast made misleading claims about Dettol’s safety. Influencer Ritik Chaturvedi has also withdrawn related posts.
LEGAL PROVISION
- Order 23 Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Enables recording a lawful compromise in civil suits.
- Section 3(b)(i), Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940: Defines “drug,” under which Dettol qualifies as a licensed antiseptic.
- Defamation & Disparagement: Civil liability for false, harmful claims affecting brand reputation.
- Intermediary Platform Compliance: Social media platforms were directed to act per the settlement terms.
SOURCE: Delhi High Court
TAMIL NADU WITHDRAWS PLEA TO TRANSFER TASMAC CASE FROM MADRAS HC TO SUPREME COURT
The Tamil Nadu government withdrew its Supreme Court plea seeking the transfer of ED vs. TASMAC case from the Madras High Court. The top court advised the State to pursue the matter locally, stating privacy and search protocols must be scrutinized there first, while rejecting allegations of forum shopping.
Legal Provisions
- Section 6, Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 – Enforcement Directorate’s powers of investigation.
- Article 226, Constitution of India – Jurisdiction of High Courts.
- Right to Privacy (Puttaswamy Judgment) – Raised in context of seizure of electronic devices.
- ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) – Not provided, raising concerns about due process.
- Section 482, CrPC – For quashing unlawful proceedings (invoked in similar matters).
- Supreme Court judgments – 1956 judgment cited on search and seizure legality.
Source: Madras High Court
Also Read: DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (08 APRIL 2025)
