In this roundup of Court Judgements, we look at the Supreme Court’s observations & directions about how the State should provide a safe atmosphere for women to work, and not restrict them from doing so, about how prior criminal history, conduct, and behaviour in jail, and possible danger to society of convict should be considered for premature release, that appeal against NCDRC’s order in the SC prior to commencement of 2019 Consumer Act does not require 50% pre-deposit, and that provisions under RERA would prevail over that of SARFAESI in case of conflict between the two. SC: The state should provide a safe atmosphere for women to work, and not restrict them from doing so In Hotel Priya, A Proprietorship vs. State Of Maharashtra, the appellants either owned or operated restaurants or bars where orchestra performances are common (referred to as Orchestra bars). Earlier, they had challenged certain conditions imposed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, under Licensing and Performance for Public Amusement including Cabaret Performance, Melas and Tamashas Rule, 1960 framed under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 before the High Court of Bombay including the cap on the number of artists that can perform and the number of women artists on stage. As per the conditions, The appellants had claimed that the conditions were a violation of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India that guarantees equality before the law and entitles every individual to practice any profession. However, the High Court rejected the petition stating that the Commissioner had acted well within the power to do so. The appellants stated that there was no rationale behind the numerical division of equal gender participation in the orchestra band since the performance would depend on the band/group and what they wish to perform. Further, this division does not allow the participation of transgender persons. Not convinced with the State’s justification that such restrictions were necessary for the public interest to promote the welfare of women, prevent human trafficking in women, and their exploitation, the bench of justices KM Joseph and S Ravindra Bhat stated that the State should provide a conducive environment for women to work in, and not restrict them from working. It stated that the order seemed to be the product of a stereotypical view that women who perform in bars and establishments, like the appellants, belong to a certain class of society and the cap directly transgressed the fundamental rights of the performers as well as the license owners. The Bench nullified the order and allowed the appeal stating that “the condition imposing a gender cap as to the number of women or men, who can perform in orchestras and bands, in bars licensed under the Rules, 1960 and other allied provisions, is void. While the overall limit of performers in any given performance cannot exceed eight, the composition (i.e., all-female, majority female or male, or vice versa) can be of any combination.” SC: Prior criminal history, conduct and behaviour in jail, and possible danger to society of convict should be considered for premature release In Sharafat Ali vs. State of UP & Anr, the petitioner was convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2005. After undergoing imprisonment for 17 years, 9 months and 26 days, he applied for premature release. However, his application was rejected by the State government taking into consideration the records of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police which stated that the possibility of resentment on the victim’s side cannot be ruled out if he is released prematurely. Also, the order stated that the petitioner had an “extremist nature” and there was possibility of him committing an offence again. The Supreme Court bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath observed that the order passed by the State government contained only general observations such as resentment of the victim’s side which is general to all offences of murder. It did not contain anything specific to the petitioner, as to whether he possessed any other criminal history, his conduct and behaviour in jail which would give a picture on whether he would pose a danger to society if released. Noting this, the Supreme Court Bench set aside the State’s order and called for reconsideration of the petitioner’s application for premature release, as per the policy in 2005 when he was convicted. The Bench added that the application must be considered fresh, and the order must consider relevant facts and circumstances such as the convict’s prior criminal history, conduct, and behaviour in jail after being convicted, possible danger to society, etc.