Allahabad High Court 1. Magistrate Meeting BJP Leader In Chamber No Ground To Transfer Case: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Transfer Plea [Himanshu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh] The High Court rejected a plea to transfer a case to another court on the ground that the Magistrate presently hearing the case had met a Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) leader in his chamber. Justice...
Allahabad High Court
1. Magistrate Meeting BJP Leader In Chamber No Ground To Transfer Case: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Transfer Plea [Himanshu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh]
The High Court rejected a plea to transfer a case to another court on the ground that the Magistrate presently hearing the case had met a Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) leader in his chamber. Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar observed that just because the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) met a political leader, it cannot be the sole ground for transferring or withdrawing a case from a particular court.
A PIL plea has been moved in the Allahabad High Court challenging the 'Sugam Darshan' system in the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Banaras, UP, which provides for 'VIP' (Very Important Person) mode of 'darshan' on payment of some amount.
The plea has been moved by one Gajendra Singh Yadav, a law student averring that this system allows any person to become 'VIP' on payment of some amount and thereby discriminates against similarly situated people with not so much money.
3. UP Govt Appoints (Retd.) Allahabad HC Judge Led Commission To Probe Into 'Lakhimpur Kheri Violence'
Uttar Pradesh Government has appointed a single-member judicial commission comprising retired Allahabad High Court judge Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava to probe into the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence. Issuing an order in this regard, the UP Government has asked the Commission to complete the inquiry into the matter and submit a report within a period of two months.
Importantly, in the recent violent incident of Lakhimpur Kheri, a total of 8 people died, four of whom were mowed down by a vehicle allegedly being driven by the son of Union Minister and BJP MP Ajay Kumar Mishra.
4. Remove All Encroachment Including Mosque, Mazar In Chandrashekhar Azad Park Within 3 Days: Allahabad HC To UP Govt [Jitendra Singh Vishen & Anr. v. State Of U.P. And 9 Others]
The High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to remove, within three days, all the encroachments including Graves, Mazaars or Mosque constructed or created within the area of Alfred Park popularly known as Amar Shaheed Chandrasekhar Aazad Park (in Prayagraj).
The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Piyush Agarwal referred to Apex Court's ruling in Allahabad Ladies Club Versus Jitendra Nath Singh and others (2007) 11 SCC 609, to direct the authorities that all illegal encroachments in the park that came up after 1975 should be demolished within two days.
5. Allahabad High Court Berates Its Registry For Not Listing Pleas Challenging Uttar Pradesh 'Anti Love Jihad' Law As Scheduled [Saurabh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another]
The High Court berated its registry for not listing two pleas challenging the Uttar Pradesh 'Anti-Love' Jihad [U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act] which were scheduled to be heard today. The Court castigated the registry while hearing a plea filed by one Saurabh Kumar, challenging the law when the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Piyush Agrawal noted that two other pleas, filed earlier on similar lines, were not listed as scheduled.
6. Bikru Encounter- "Dare Devil Manner Of Incident Leaves Much To Be Said": Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Gangster Vikas Dubey's Maid [Smt. Rekha Agnihotri v. State of U.P]
The High Court denied bail to the maid of Slain Gangster Vikas Dubey, Rekha Agnihotri for allegedly aiding and instigating her husband and other accused persons in the killing of eight policemen in Kanpur's infamous Bikru encounter last year. She allegedly instigated Vikas Dubey's men to do the policemen to death and she is stated to have been atop a house adjoining Vikas Dubey's, during the entire course of the brutal assault.
A letter petition has been moved before the High Court seeking CBI probe into the recent violent incident of Lakhimpur Kheri in which a total of 8 people died, four of whom were mowed down by a vehicle allegedly being driven by the son of Union Minister of State for Home Affairs and BJP MP Ajay Kumar Mishra.
The plea moved by Swadesh NGO and Prayag Legal Aid Clinic through advocate Gaurav Dwivedi avers that the State Government of Uttar Pradesh failed to Secure the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India of the deceased persons.
8. Rape/POCSO Cases- "Send DNA, Other Reports To Concerned Authorities Within 15 Days As Per Govt Circular": Allahabad HC To DGP [Mahfuj v. State of U.P]
The High Court directed the Director-General of Police to ensure that the report regarding the articles recovered or taken into custody while investigating a POCSO case Act or DNA reports etc. in rape cases must be communicated to the concerned District Authorities within 15 days. The Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh issued this direction in view of the Government's 2018 circulars and thereby noting that in a number of cases, the directions contained in Circulars were not being complied with.
9. "Even Permanent NRIs Can Become PM/CM In India": Plea In Allahabad High Court Against Representation Of People Act, Reply Sought [Lok Prahari v. Union of India and Anr.]
A plea has been moved before the Allahabad High Court challenging the constitutional validity of 3 provisions of the Representation of the People Act,1950 contending that they are violative of Articles 14 and 326 of the Constitution of India. Hearing the plea, the bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I today issued notice and sought a reply from the Election Commission of India and the Union Government and listed the matter for further hearing on October 18.
Bombay High Court
1. Ambani Terror Scare Case: Dismissed Cop Sachin Waze Approaches Bombay High Court For House Custody
Sachin Waze, dismissed assistant police inspector and prime accused in the Ambani terror scare case, has approached the Bombay High Court seeking house custody for his post bypass recovery after the special court refused him relief. A bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sarang Kotwal granted the National Investigation Agency one week's time to file a reply to Waze's plea under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Calcutta High Court
1. West Bengal Speaker Moves Supreme Court Against HC Order On Mukul Roy's PAC Chairmanship: AG S.N Mookerjee Informs Calcutta HC [Ambika Roy v. The Speaker, West Bengal Legislative Assembly and Ors]
Advocate General S.N Mookerjee informed the Calcutta High Court on Thursday that West Bengal Speaker Biman Banerjee had approached the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court on the challenge to the appointment of TMC MLA Mukul Roy as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. On June 17, a disqualification petition had been moved before the Speaker by BJP MLA and Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari against Mukul Roy on the grounds of defection under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
2. Investigation Is Being Misdirected': Calcutta HC Takes Suo Moto Cognisance Of Alleged Misappropriation Of Amphan Relief Materials [Swapan Kumar Karmakar v. State of West Bengal and Ors]
The Calcutta High Court last week took suo moto cognisance of alleged misappropriation of relief material pertaining to Amphan 2020. The Court was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by one Swapan Kumar Karmakar alleging embezzlement of government sanctioned Amphan related relief material. In the instant case, an authorised truck containing the logo of the Government of West Bengal, Disaster Management Civil & Defence Department had been intercepted by the police authorities and subsequently Amphan cyclone related relief material was recovered by the police authorities.
3. Political Overtones Cannot Be Brushed Aside': Calcutta HC Stays Proceedings Against BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari, Brother In Tarpaulins Theft Case [Suvendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal]
The Calcutta High Court on Monday ordered a stay on all further proceedings in a case of alleged tarpaulin theft against Leader of Opposition in West Bengal Assembly Suvendu Adhikari and his brother Soumendu Adhikari. The Court was adjudicating upon a petition filed by Suvendu Adhikari and his brother Soumendu, seeking quashing of an FIR registered by Contai police in which they and three others have been accused of stealing tarpaulins from the civic body's godown on May 29.
4. Narada Case : Calcutta HC Directs CBI Official To Appear Before WB Speaker For Submitting Chargesheets Against MLAs Without Prior Consent [Satendra Singh v. Hon'ble Speaker of the W.B. Legislative Assembly, Biman Banerjee & Anr]
The Calcutta High Court on Monday directed.an officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to appear before the Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly at 4 pm on Monday itself pursuant to the summons issued to the CBI regarding charge sheets filed against legislators in the Narada scam case. The Speaker had summoned senior CBI and Enforcement Directorate officers to appear on October 4 at 1 pm in order to explain why no permission had been taken from his office before submitting charge sheets against legislators of West Bengal.
5. Total Casual Attitude Of State In A Serious Matter': Calcutta HC Comes Down Heavily On WB Govt For Not Processing Compensation For Victims Of
Post Poll Violence [Anindya Sundar Das v. Union of India and other connected matters]
The Calcutta High Court on Monday took on record the status report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) pertaining to the investigation of cases related to murder, rape and crime against women that had allegedly taken place post the declaration of the West Bengal assembly elections in May 2021. The Court vide order dated August 19 had specified that the CBI investigation would be court monitored.
Delhi High Court
1. Cruise Ship Drug Case: Delhi High Court Asks Media Houses To Show Restraint While Reporting Matters Under Investigation [Arjun Jain v. News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority & Ors.]
In relation to the ongoing Cruise Ship Drug case, the Delhi High Court asked all media houses to exercise restraint and strictly comply with the directions issued by the Bombay High Court for media coverage of ongoing criminal investigations. The Court also agreed to examine the sufficiency of existing guidelines for news reporting done by media outlets, especially during ongoing criminal investigations.
The development comes in a petition moved by a Delhi based event organizer Arjun Jain, aggrieved by certain media reports from India Today channel over his alleged involvement in the case, despite no summons issued to him by Narcotics Control Bureau.
2. Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Review Plea Against Dismissal Of Plea Seeking Declaration Of Talaq-ul-Sunnat As Unconstitutional [Reshma v. Union of India]
The High Court issued notice on a review petition challenging an order dismissing a plea seeking to declare the "assumed absolute discretion" of the Muslim husband to give divorce (talaq-ul-sunnat) to his wife at any time without any reason or advance notice to her, as arbitrary, anti-shariat, discriminatory and unconstitutional. Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh posted the matter for further hearing on January 12.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Extends Life Of Interim Orders Till October 22
Justice Mukta Gupta if the High Court granted bail to one Mohd. Bilal, who had been in custody since June 2020, in a riots case after observing that the videography conducted by the Police to keep a watch on the people protesting does not show his presence.
"In the said video recording, the deceased Mudassir is seen standing with the mob, and is also seen falling down after receiving the projectile. However, in the video recording clip of 35 seconds which is focussing on the mob, petitioner is not visible…One fails to understand that while the videography was going at the spot, why videography of only 35 seconds when Mudassir got injured was captured and it did not have any videography prior thereto or thereafter, for the reason the same would have captured all the people around the place of occurrence," the Court said.
4. Greater Presumption Against Highly Educated Persons Carrying Large Quantities Of Narcotics: Delhi HC Denies Bail In NDPS Case [Sonia Shamrao Naik Gaonkar v. Narcotic Control Bureau]
The High Court denied bail to a woman in a case concerning the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Act, after observing that there is a greater presumption being an educated person that carrying large quantities of narcotics is a crime.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said: "An uneducated person may claim no knowledge of the substance found in his/her possession and may raise a defense of the substance being planted on them but being a highly educated person, there is greater presumption that carrying large quantities of narcotics is a crime and that it would entail consequences in law which could be harsh and irrevocable."
5. Delhi High Court Refuses To Issue Notice To Rahul Gandhi In Plea For Action Over Tweet On Rape Victim Identity [Makarand Suresh Mhadlekar v. Rahul Gandhi & Ors.]
The High Court today refused to issue notice to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on a plea seeking action against him for allegedly disclosing sensitive details and publishing photographs of family of 9 year old victim allegedly gang-raped and murdered in Delhi Cantt area.
The Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh also refused to issue notices to National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the Commissioner of Delhi Police, who are also arrayed as Respondents in the matter.
6. Everything Is Going On, You're Opening Ram Leelas': High Court Tells Delhi Govt Over Prohibition On Herbal Hukkahs Amid Covid-19 [Breathe Fine Lounge And Bar v. GNCTD]
The High Court expressed its unhappiness over Delhi Government's stand in the plea challenging prohibition on sale and serving of herbal hukkahs in restaurants and bars amid Covid-19. Justice Rekha Palli was hearing the pleas challenging an order of the Joint Commissioner of Police, prohibiting sale and service of herbal hukkahs in restaurants and bars. The Court said that it was unable to appreciate the stand of the Delhi Government as it was expected that the GNCTD would reconsider the matter in light of the order issued by Delhi Disaster Management Authority dated August 3, 2020.
7. Delhi High Court Refrains From Issuing Notice On Plea Against Ban On Firecrackers In National Capital [Rahul Sanwariya v. State]
The High Court on refrained from issuing notice on a petition challenging the Delhi Government's decision of imposing a "complete ban" on storage, sale and bursting of all kinds of firecrackers in the national capital, during Diwali.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh deferred the hearing after being informed that the Supreme Court is examining a related matter. "Let us wait for what guidance the Supreme Court is giving," the Bench remarked while adjourning the hearing to October 22.
8. Police Filing POCSO Cases At Behest Of Minor Girl's Family Who Oppose Her Romantic Relationship A 'Trite & Unfortunate Practice': Delhi High Court [Pruduman v. State GNCTD & Anr.]
The High Court expressed concern of the "unfortunate practice" of police filing POCSO cases at the behest of girl's family who object to her romantic involvement and friendship with young boys. "Consensual sex has been in legal grey area because the consent given by minor cannot be said to be a valid consent in the eyes of law...The rigor of the law is therefore being misapplied and subsequently misused," observed Justice Subramonium Prasad while granting bail to a 21 year old man accused in the case.
9. S.125 CrPC- Father Not Absolved From Maintaining Children Merely Because Mother Is Also Earning: Delhi High Court [Urvashi Aggarwal & Ors v. Inderpaul Aggarwal]
The High Court has observed that in households where women are working and are able to sufficiently maintain themselves, it does not automatically absolve the husband of his responsibility to provide sustenance for his children. The observation was made in connection to revision of maintenance order passed by the High Court under Section 125 of CrPC. Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that a mother cannot be burdened with the entire expenditure for raising and educating the children.
10. "State Can't Discriminate Adversely": Delhi Court On Head-Phone Facility Being Given To Only One Prison Inmate For Attending Judicial Proceedings [Directorate of Enforcement v. Raj Singh Gehlot]
While an accused was observing proceedings in a PMLA case using a headphone, a Delhi Court questioned the conduct of jail authorities for not providing similar facilities and privileges to other inmates who are attending court proceedings via video conferencing.
The development came when Raj Singh Gehlot, owner of the Gurugram-based Ambience Mall, was attending the proceedings in connection with a money laundering case against him for allegedly siphoning off the loan amount and diverting funds in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy.
11. Delhi HC Deprecates Practice Of Filing Affidavits Without Proper Signatures Of Deponent, Attestation By Oath Commissioner Without Deponent's Presence [KBT Plastics Pvt Ltd v. Rajendra Singh]
The Delhi High Court has deprecated the practice of filing affidavits without proper signatures of the deponent and attestation of the same by Oath Commissioner without deponent's presence.
Justice Pratibha M Singh said: "The practice of filing affidavits without actual/proper signatures of the deponent, the ld. counsel identifying the same in spite of the deponent not having signed in front of him, and the Oath Commissioner attesting the affidavit without the deponent being present, ought to be deprecated."
12. Plea In Delhi High Court Says Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facilities Can't Be Established On Private Lands [International Human Rights Council v. Union of India]
The Delhi High Court issued notice on a petition against establishment of Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facilities in the national capacity on private lands.
"Functioning of CBMWTF is a heavy-duty facility which needs to strictly comply with environment protection norms for safeguarding the public health and climate change. Hence, the said activity cannot be delegated to a private entity, when the statutory rules does not envisage the same," the plea states at the outset.
Also Read: Delhi Falling Down By Leaps & Bounds': High Court On Municipal Corporations' Failure In Discharging Duties
13. Courts Must Play Doctor & Save Rights From Demise Before They Are Extinguished': Delhi HC Grants Bail To Man Incarcerated For 12 Yrs In 2008 Serial Blasts Case [Mohd. Hakim v. State]
The High Court has granted bail to a man incarcerated as an undertrial for over 12 years in connection with 2008 serial blasts case after observing that Courts must play doctor and save constitutional rights from demise before they are extinguished.
Justice Anup J Bhambhani and Justice Siddharth Mridul observed thus: "Courts must not play coroner and attend to legal or constitutional rights only after they are "dead". Instead, we must play doctor, and save such rights from demise before they are extinguished."
14. Banned Chinese Apps, Not Sale On Another Platform': Centre Tells Delhi High Court In Plea Against Sale Of Shein Products On Amazon [Anantika Singh v. Amazon India & Anr.]
The Central Government has informed the Delhi High Court that its order banning the use of 59 Chinese mobile applications amid security concerns does not preclude the companies from selling their products in India through another e-commerce platform.
The development comes by way of an affidavit filed by the Centre before a Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh in a plea against sale of products belonging to Chinese apparel brand Shein on e-commerce platform Amazon.
15. Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Vires Of Civil Defence Act [Faruk Khan v. GNCTD & Anr.]
The Court issued notice on a petition challenging the vires of the Civil Defence Act, insofar as it allegedly gives unchecked power to the Controller of Civil Defence Corp to discharge any member from the service, without assigning any reason.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh has asked the Centre and the Delhi Government to file its repose in the matter by 29 November.
16. Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report From Registrar Of Central Govt Industrial Tribunal On Upgradation Of Infrastructure For Holding VC Hearings [Abdul Majid And Ors v. Employees State Insurance Corporation And Ors.]
The Court has sought status report from Registrar of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) on upgradation of infrastructure for holding VC hearings in the Tribunal.
Justice Pratibha M Singh said that the infrastructure ought to be upgraded to ensure that whenever CGIT reopens, the facilities required to conduct full-fledged online hearings are ready.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan told the Delhi High Court that the PM CARES Fund satisfies all the criteria for being declared as "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution and that even functionaries like Vice President of India and Cabinet Ministers are under an impression that it is a Government Fund.
The development comes in the plea seeking declaration that PM CARES Fund is "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution. This comes after the Prime Minister's Office(PMO) refused to divulge information about the Fund under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Other developments:
- "You Cannot Sit On The Application For So Long": High Court Seeks Delhi Govt's Stand On Woman's Plea Regarding Non Issuance Of Ration Card Over 8 Years
- Delhi High Court Proposes Draft Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2021; Suggestions Called Within Two Weeks
- Much Care Taken By Centre & State In Controlling Covid-19': Delhi High Court Closes Case For Monitoring Healthcare Facilities
Gauhati High Court
Hearing a plea filed regarding the ongoing eviction drive in the state of Assam and the September 23 Dholpur killing in which two civilians were killed and nearly 20 others were injured, the Gauhati High Court granted three weeks' time to State Government to file its reply and listed the matter for November 3.
The Bench of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Soumitra Saikia was hearing the plea filed by the leader of Opposition in the Assam Assembly, Debabrata Saikia, against the Assam Government's "forced eviction".
2. Specify Steps Taken Regarding Education, Social Security & Health Of Transgender Persons As Per 2019 Act: Gauhati HC To Assam, Union Govts [Swati Bidhan Baruah v. The State of Assam and others]
Dealing with a PIL involving certain grievances of the Transgender Community in the State of Assam, the High Court asked the Union and the Assam State Government to specify steps taken by in terms of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
The Bench of Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Manish Choudhury was hearing the instant PIL filed by one Swati Bidhan Baruah in 2018 raising certain grievances of the Transgender Community in the State of Assam.
3. Case Of Missing Person Sans Strong Suspicion Of Illegal Detention Can't Come Under Ambit Of Habeas Corpus Plea: Gauhati HC [Mamoni Kakoty v. The State of Assam and 6 Ors.]
The Court held that missing person cases would not come within the ambit of a habeas corpus petition (without strong suspicion of illegal detention), but such cases are required to be registered under the regular provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
The Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana was hearing a habeas corpus plea filed by one Mamoni Kakoty praying for a direction to recover her son, namely, Bhaskar Jyoti Kakoty who had gone missing since September 2016.
Expressing its concern over the working condition and the atmosphere in the Foreigners' Tribunal, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioners across the state of Assam to take immediate steps to ensure decent working conditions in the Tribunals.
Importantly, noting that the tribunals' members are required to hear cases and pass orders by sitting on a Sofa as the basic amenities such as a Chair and a Table is not available in those Tribunals, the Bench of Justice Suman Shyam issued the following order:
"The Deputy Commissioners of all the districts to take immediate steps to ensure that the minimum infrastructural facilities, so as to ensure a decent working condition in the Foreigner's Tribunal across the State wherever necessary, is put in place without further delay."
Gujarat High Court
1. "Non-Interference Would Reduce Lady Without Husband's Shelter": Gujarat HC Quashes Man's Conviction For Raping Minor Wife [Ashwinbhai @ Raj Ranchhodbhai Poyala v. State Of Gujarat]
Stressing that non-interference by the Court would reduce the lady and two children without shelter of husband/father and which wouldn't be in the interest of justice, the Gujarat High Court last week quashed the lower court's conviction order against a man for raping his minor wife.
In this case, the alleged victim (wife) had admitted that she, on her own, started living with the convict/appellant as his wife and she had even given birth to his two children. Importantly, neither she nor the convict/husband disowned the birth and paternity of their two children.
2. State Facilitating Battles Within A Religious Sect: Gujarat High Court Quashes Externment Order Passed Against Priests [Swami Satyaprakashdasji Guru Ghanshyamprasad Dasji & Anr v. State Of Gujarat & Ors.]
The Court rebuked the state government for facilitating battles within a religious sect as it quashed externment order passed against two religious priests of the Gadhada temple on account of an ongoing dispute within the Swaminarayan sect concerning temple trust elections.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay was hearing two pleas filed by the two priests of the Gadhada temple — Swami Satyaprakashdasji and Swami Ghanshyamvallabhdasji (petitioners) assailing the externment order passed against them by the Botad district authorities.
The Court partly allowed Former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt's plea seeking production of certain documents including A Summary report in relation to the trial in a 1996 case under Narcotics Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).
The documents which were not part of the chargesheet, but seized by the investigating agency during the investigation of the offence, cannot be withheld by the prosecution merely on the ground that the documents sought to be summoned are not part of the chargesheet, Justice Ilesh J. Vora observed.
The Court suspended the Life-imprisonment sentence of Ex-BJP MP Dinu Bogha Solanki who was convicted by a special CBI court in 2019 for killing RTI activist Amit Jethwa in 2010 after the activist had tried to expose illegal mining activities in the Gir forest region.
Suspending his sentence and granting him conditional bail, the Bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice AC Joshi observed that the CBI court's judgment was based on 'assumptions and presumptions' and that the verdict was 'prima facie erroneous'
Karnataka High Court
1. Rare Genetic Disease Of Infant: Karnataka HC Lauds Centre For Swift Action, To Be Further Examined As Per National Rare Diseases Policy [Master Janish N. v. Union Of India.]
The Court expressed its happiness and appreciated the swift action taken by the Central government in providing medical attention to a one and a half-year-old boy, who is suffering from a rare Spinal Muscular Atrophy (Type 1) disease.
Justice Krishna S Dixit said "This court at this stage of proceedings expresses its happiness about the swift action taken by the Central government in the matter."
2. Kannada Language As A Compulsory Subject In Degree Courses: Karnataka HC To Consider Interim Relief Against Govt. Orders On Friday [Samskrita Bharati Karnataka Trust v. Union Of India]
Observing that "It is a sensitive issue," the Court said it would on Friday consider the prayer for interim relief sought in a petition seeking to stay the operation of two government orders, making the Kannada language as a subject compulsory for every student enrolling in a degree course in the State of Karnataka.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said "Advocate Sreenidhi appearing for the state government prays for listing the matter tomorrow, the prayer is allowed. List the matter tomorrow for consideration of interim relief."
3. 'Why Can't BBMP See Recurring Potholes In Localities Where Common Man Lives?': Karnataka High Court On Road Maintenance In Bengaluru [Vijayan Menon v. Secretary Urban Development Department]
While hearing a petition concerning poor road conditions in Bengaluru, the Court directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to ensure that quality is maintained while filling up potholes as it is noticed that the same resurface at the same spot within two to three months of filling.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, "BBMP shall also ensure that quality is maintained while filling up the potholes because it is noticed that the potholes which are filled up, again becomes a pothole, after two to three months."
4. 'Forming A Splinter Group By Coming Out From A Political Party Does Not Make Defectors A Political Party': Karnataka High Court [Pavitra & Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner/ District Election Officer]
Merely coming out from a political party and forming a splinter group will not make them a political party, the Court observed while dismissing a petition filed by former councilors of (BSP, challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner/District Election Officer, disqualifying them from membership of the City Municipal Council, Kollegal.
Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order dated September 25 said, "The contention of the petitioners is that 7 out of 9 of them have resigned and have formed a separate splinter group within the political party. This contention, I fail to countenance, for the reason that merely coming out from a political party and forming a splinter group will not make them a political party. They should either form a political party and seek recognition or show that they have joined a political party that is recognized by the Election Commission of India. It is only then the petitioners can claim that they are protected under Section 3A of the Act."
5. Injunction Applications On Passing Off And Copyright Infringement: Karnataka High Court Lays Down Guidelines For Trial Courts [ITC Limited v. CG Foods (India) Private Limited]
The Court recently laid down guidelines to be followed by trial courts to deal with injunction applications, in a pending suit, seeking relief against passing off and copyright infringement.
A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur laid down the guidelines while affirming an order dated 22.06.2021 passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Commercial Court), Bengaluru, wherein it allowed the application filed by Cg Foods (India) Private Limited, for vacating the ex-parte interim order passed earlier and refusing to grant the relief of temporary injunction on the applications filed by ITC Limited.
6. 'Rising Frauds In Aadhaar Enrollment': Karnataka High Court Asks Centre, State To Keep Vigil [Naresh Kumar R.P. v. State Of Karnataka]
The Court has refused to quash a FIR registered against a 47 years old entrepreneur, allegedly involved in illegally selling aadhaar kits and aadhaar cards.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Naresh Kumar R.P. while observing, "It is prudent for the Government of India or the State Government to have a vigil on such instances of rising cases of frauds in Aadhaar enrolment."
7. Invoking S.15 UAPA For Acts 'Likely To Strike Terror' Even In Absence Of Intention Justifiable: Karnataka High Court In Police Station Riot Case [Mr. Shaikh Muhammed Bilal v. National Investigation Agency]
The Court has said that if an act is likely to strike terror, then the absence of an intent to strike terror will not make the invocation of Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act unjustifiable.
A division bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur said, "It would emerge from sub-section (1) of Section 15 that even if the act is "likely to strike terror", the absence of "ïntent to strike terror" will not by itself make the invocation of Section 15 unjustified."
8. Karnataka High Court Issues Notice To Former HC Judge In Plea To Probe Bribe Scandal For Governor's Post [Amruthesh N P v. Inspector Of Police]
The Court has issued notice to a former judge of the court in a petition seeking directions to the police to initiate action against her for allegedly paying a bribe amount of Rs 8.50 crore, to an accused of securing the post of Governor.
A single-judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit issued the notice while hearing a petition filed by Advocate N P Amrutesh. The court said "Office objections are overruled. Learned AGA is requested to accept notice to respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Issue emergent notice to respondent No.4 ( B.S. Indrakala).
9. Manual Scavenging: Karnataka High Court Grants State Govt. 30 Days For Formulating Uniform Scheme For Grant Of Scholarship To Children Of Deceased [All India Central Council Trade Unions And Union Of India]
The Court directed the State Government to formulate within 30 days a uniform scheme in regards to the grant of scholarships to children and in terms of providing compassionate appointment to legal heirs of deceased, under the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said "The scholarship under the Act of 2013, certainly means that state government is conferred with an obligation to pay scholarship, to the children of the deceased, as it is paid by Central and State government in respect of any other schemes. The disparity in paying scholarship has to come to end and uniform policy has to be made in respect of the point of scholarship to be paid in all such cases. Therefore, the state government is granted 30 day's time to formulate a scheme in terms of the Act of 2013 in the matter of grant of scholarship, as well as in matters of compassionate appointment."
Kerala High Court
1. Gold Smuggling: Kerala High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Of Accused Swapna Suresh [Kumari Prabha Suresh v. Union of India]
The Court quashed the continued preventive detention of the prime accused in the gold smuggling case, Swapna Suresh under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA).
A Division Bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias CP allowed the plea filed by Suresh's mother that sought quashing of the detention order.
2. Kerala High Court Quashes GO Fixing RT-PCR Rates For Private Laboratories Across State [Accredited Molecular Testing Laboratories v. State of Kerala]
The Court set aside a Government Order which brought down the price of RT PCR tests from Rs. 1700 to Rs. 500 at all private laboratories across the State.
Justice TR Ravi also directed the State to fix a new rate for RT PCR tests conducted by the private laboratories after discussing with the owners or representatives of the labs within three weeks.
3. [Vismaya Dowry Death] 'A Grave Crime': Kerala High Court Declines To Grant Bail To Accused Husband [Kiran Kumar S. v. State of Kerala]
The Court denied bail to Kiran Kumar, the husband of Vismaya V Nair who allegedly died of suicide due to dowry harassment and domestic violence in June 2021. Justice M.R. Anitha rejected the bail application in a dowry death matter that shook the public conscience of the State.
"A fair trial is a public interest and it would outweigh the personal interest of the accused while balancing the personal liberty of the accused with the public interest. Petitioner has been charged with a grave crime of dowry death, which is a social evil."
4. Plea Before Kerala High Court Seeks Removal Of Prime Minister's Photograph From Vaccination Certificate [Peter Myaliparampil v. Union of India & Anr.]
A writ petition has been filed before the Court challenging the photograph of Prime Minister Narendra Modi being affixed on the vaccination certificates issued to the citizens upon being vaccinated against Covid-19.
Justice P.B Suresh Kumar admitted the plea and posted the matter to be taken up two weeks later.
5. Son-In-Law Has No Legal Right In Father-In-Law's Property: Kerala High Court [Davis Raphel v. Hendry Thomas]
The Court held that a son in law cannot have any legal right in his father in law's property and building, even if he has spent an amount for the construction of the building.
Justice N. Anil Kumar while dismissing a second appeal with costs, remarked as such: "When the plaintiff is in possession of the property, defendant, son in law cannot plead that he had been adopted as a member of the family, subsequent to the marriage with plaintiff's daughter and has right in the property...Residence of son in law, if any, in the plaint schedule building is only permissive in nature. Hence, son in law cannot have any legal right to his father in law's property and building, even if he has spent an amount on the construction of the building."
6. Plea Before Kerala High Court Questions Constitutionality Of Section 2 Of Kerala Apartment Ownership Act [Kent Mahal Welfare Association & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.]
A plea has been filed before the Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 2 of the Kerala Apartment Ownership Act,1983. Justice Devan Ramachandran admitted the writ petition and the matter has been posted on 11th October.
The petition moved through Advocate Johnson Gomez was preferred by the apartment owners associations under the Kent Mahal Complex and Kent Oakville, two multi-storeyed apartment buildings in the State.
7. [Sister Abhaya Murder Case] Not Happy With Petitioner's Conduct: Kerala High Court In Plea Challenging Convicts' Release On Parole [Jomon Puthenpurackal vs. State of Kerala & Ors.]
The Court warned to impose costs on the petitioner who challenged the order that released the convicts in the Sister Abhaya murder case on parole earlier this year.
A division bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Ziyad Rahman remarked: "We are not happy with the conduct of the petitioner. Every statement filed here reaches the media before it reaches the Court. If we find malafide intention behind this petition, we are warning you, we will impose costs."
Also Read: [Sister Abhaya Murder Case] Convicts Back In Jail After Parole: State Informs Kerala High Court
8. 'A Rather Unusual Situation': Kerala High Court Lists Matter After Delivering Final Judgment As An Accident Occurs At Construction [Gracious Kuriakose v. State of Kerala & Ors.]
In an unusual move, the Court listed a matter even after final judgment was delivered pursuant to an accident that set things on a different track.
Justice Devan Ramachandran while issuing the order remarked: "This is a rather unusual situation where this Court has listed this matter even after final judgment has been delivered. I am constrained to consider this matter again because of a horrific accident which has been reported on 06.10.2021, while the work, as ordered by this Court, with respect to the 'Seena Thodu' was being carried on by the Corporation of Kochi."
9. 'Not Everyone Above Poverty Line Is A Millionaire' : Kerala High Court Suggests Govt To Provide Free Post-Covid Treatment [Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. Advocate Sabu P Joseph]
The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the government's move to charge for post-Covid treatment. Considering that patients experienced graver health problems after testing negative, rather than while being Covid positive, the Court ruled that one month of follow-up treatment should be ideally provided free of charge.
A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Kauser Edappagath was considering a couple of review petitions moved by Kerala Private Hospital Association challenging the unified rates fixed by the State for Covid-19 treatment in private hospitals and charging people belonging to the APL category for post- Covid treatment.
"Not everyone above the poverty line is a millionaire," the Court remarked.
10. Why Was The Fake Antique Dealer Granted Protection? Kerala High Court Demands An Answer From Police [Ajith E.V. v. The Commissioner of Police & Ors.]
The Court questioned why police protection was granted to the controversial fake antique dealer Monson Mavunkal and demanded an answer as to why he was not taken into custody by the police despite finding valuable articles in his residence.
Justice Devan Ramachandran while expressing his concern with the investigation in the matter, remarked: "We know that the 5th respondent (Mavunkal) was given the police protection. The Court should know why such protection was given. On what basis was this given, the Court must know."
11. Kerala High Court Calls For Regulative Measures For Transparent, Efficient Crowdfunding Towards Treatment For Rare Diseases [Arif v State of Kerala]
The Court yet again directed the State to design a platform to implement regulative measures for crowdfunding towards funding treatment for children affected with rare diseases.
Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar part-heard the submissions today in an elaborate hearing of a plea where the public had raised around 18 crores via crowdfunding to save a boy diagnosed with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) in the State.
12. With Advent Of Technology, Physical Presence Of Patient Not Necessary For Issuing Disability Certificate: Kerala High Court Opines Prima Facie [Sebastian Paracherry v. Union of India & Ors]
The Court while adjudicating upon a 'peculiar' case, opined that the physical presence of a person with a disability before the competent authority may not be necessary for the purpose of issuing a Certificate under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
It opined that the person's condition and medical history can be determined virtually, considering the progressions in the field of technology.
13. 'Militant Trade Unionism Still Exists': Kerala High Court Pulls Up State For Failure To Eradicate Practice Of Gawking Wages [TK Sundareshan v. District Police Chief]
The Court raised its voice against the State's failure to wipe out the practice of charging gawking charges, popularly called 'nokukooli' in Malayalam despite a ban in force and repeated strict instructions from the Court.
Justice Devan Ramachandran expressed strong disappointment over the matter: "It is without doubt that Kerala has had a history of militant trade unionism and the reputation of such continuous even today. The unfortunate result is that it is not often that our State is considered as an investor-friendly destination."
14. Attacks On Health Workers: Kerala High Court Records Appreciation For Police Over Swift Action [Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. State of Kerala & Ors]
The Court has appreciated the Police for taking swift action in the matter where a temporary nursing assistant was assaulted on her way back from duty after dark.
A division bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran and Kauser Edappagath appreciated the efforts taken by the police force in the matter: "We are certainly pleased that swift action has been taken by the police in this regard and we also commented them for a thorough search and apprehension of the accused, since going by the report, leads that pointed to them were minimal."
15. Can Bar Council Interfere In Election Process Of Bar Association? Kerala High Court To Consider [Unnikrishnan K.M v. Bar Council of Kerala]
The Court admitted a writ petition questioning the power of the Bar Council of Kerala to interfere in the election process and affairs of a Bar Association.
Advocates Unnikrishnan KM and Oliver Dantes, the President and Secretary of Kunnamkulam Bar Association approached the High Court challenging a letter issued by the Bar Council of Kerala in which it intimated that it has resolved to authorize two members to settle the dispute and also authorized them to conduct the election.
16. Communal Reservation In University Appointments: High Court Upholds Amendments To Kerala University Act [State of Kerala v. Dr. G. Radhakrishna Pillai]
The Court set aside a Single Judge's verdict quashing a notification issued by the University of Kerala on the appointment of 58 teachers treating all the posts in the categories of professors/associate professors/assistant professors in various teaching departments of the university as one category for the purposes of community reservation.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P passed the order while allowing appeals filed by the University of Kerala and the State Government against the single judge's ruling that had also quashed an amendment brought to the university statutes in this regard.
Other Developments:
- CISF Personnel Entitled To Transport Allowance If Transport Facility Does Not Cover Entire Journey From Residence To Place Of Duty & Vice Versa: Kerala High Court
- No Stipulation That Cancellation Deed Has To Be Done At The Same Place Where Trust Deed Was Registered: Kerala High Court
- Execution Proceedings Initiated Against Idol Liable To Be Set Aside When Deity/Public Temple Not Made Party To Suit: Kerala High Court
- Court Not Empowered To Grant Extension For Payment Of Purchase Money In A Decree Of Specific Performance Based On Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court
Madras High Court
1. Anti-CAA Protest- "Identification Of Persons Involved In Occurrence Not Probed Properly": Madras HC Quashes Criminal Proceedings [Ananthasamy @ Anandasamy and another v. State]
The Court recently quashed criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to an FIR filed against two persons for conducting a demonstration against the Amendment of CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) noting that the identification of persons, who were involved in the occurrence, was not properly investigated.
The Bench of Justice G. Ilangovan observed that it is common knowledge that against the Amendment of CAA, several protests, demonstrations, and agitations took across India and abroad also and that the right to protest is well recognized with the only qualification being that it should not end in any violation.
2. 'Appreciate The Seriousness Of State Gov': Madras HC Takes On Record Compliance Reports Regarding Directions Issued To Protect LGBTQIA+ Community [S. Sushma and Anr v. Director General Of Police]
The Court applauded the State government on Monday for taking prompt measures to build a more inclusive environment for the LGBTQIA+ community pursuant to its earlier directions. The Court was adjudicating upon a writ petition moved by a lesbian couple seeking protection from police harassment. In its earlier order dated August 31, 2021 the Court had issued a host of directions against police harassment, insensitive media reportage and 'conversion therapies' in matters pertaining to the LGBTQIA+ community.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed, "This Court appreciates the seriousness with which the State Government has taken up the issue seriously."
3. Cinema Halls Must Provide Free Drinking Water If Water Bottles From Outside Are Prohibited For Security Reasons: Madras HC [G Devarajan v. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and ors]
The Court has recently observed that cinema halls must necessarily provide free, potable and pure drinking water through water coolers if people are prohibited from carrying water bottles into cinema halls for security reasons.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed, "A Cinema Hall, which seeks to prohibit carrying of drinking water inside the Cinema Hall for security reasons, must necessarily provide free potable and pure drinking water through water coolers installed inside the Cinema Halls, before such a prohibition can be enforced ... Mere availability of the drinking water would not be sufficient to enforce prohibition of carrying drinking water inside the Cinema Halls. Purified drinking water with prescribed standards must be provided, so as to satisfy the requirements ... it is to be ensured that drinking water facilities are provided all the times to the cinema goers in the Hall."
The Court reprimanded the practice of putting up posters, cutouts, banners featuring political leaders for minor functions that impede pedestrian and vehicular movement.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition wherein the petitioner had averred that a boy had recently passed away after getting electrocuted while erecting a DMK flagpole for an event.
5. 'No Plan To Kill Or Maim Maneater 'MDT 23' Tiger': TN Forest Officials Inform Madras High Court [People For Cattle In India v. Principal Chief Conservator and Ors]
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tamil Nadu informed the Court that there was no plan to kill or maim the 'MDT 23' tiger which has triggered panic for allegedly killing humans and livestock in Gudalur division of Nilgiris district.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D Audikesavalu observed, "The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests will use his best discretion to ensure that the least number of persons intrude into any forest, since the natural habitat gets destroyed the moment a large posse of humans enter any forest. However, the respondents are left free to deal with the relevant animal for its treatment and for ascertaining its conduct and behaviour."
Madhya Pradesh High Court
1. "HC Can't Order Release Of Vehicle/Property Confiscated Under Forest Act R/W MP Amendments Either Under Article 226/227 Or U/S 482CrPC: MP HC [Dilip Buidcon Ltd. v. Chief Conservator of Forest and others]
The Court observed that if any vehicle or property is involved and confiscated in forest offence, no direction for its release can be given by the High Court either under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India or under S. 482 CrPC in view of Madhya Pradesh amendments to the Forest Act 1927.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi ruled thus while relying on Apex Court's ruling in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh (2020)12 SCC 733 wherein it was held once the vehicle is confiscated under the Forest Act, it cannot be released by the direction of the High Court.
2. It Is State's Primary Duty To Ensure Uninterrupted Supply Of DNA Test Kits To Forensic Science Laboratory: MP High Court [Deepak Tomar v. State of MP and Anr.]
The Court stressed that it is the primary responsibility of the State to ensure uninterrupted supply of "consumables and standard kit" to the Forensic Science Laboratory so that DNA tests can be conducted without any difficulty.
The Bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed thus while dealing with a bail plea filed by the rape accused claiming that since the prosecutrix had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case, he was entitled to bail.
3. Assertion That Corpus Is Abducted By Unknown Miscreants Isn't Sufficient To Invoke Habeas Corpus Writ: Madhya Pradesh High Court [Smt. Chhaya Gurjar v. State of M.P. & Others]
The Court ruled that only an assertion that the corpus has been abducted by some unknown miscreants, is not sufficient to seek issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
The Bench of Justice S. A. Dharmadhikari further held that the condition precedent for instituting a writ of habeas corpus is that the person for whose release, the writ of habeas corpus is sought must be in detention and he must be under detention by the Authorities or by any private individual.
4. Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs SLSA To Make Surprise Visits to Prison Facilities To Audit The Prevailing Conditions [In Reference (Suo Motu) v. State of Madhya Pradesh]
The Court has directed the Member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority accompanied by Chief Judicial Magistrate of each district to make a surprise inspection of all the Central Jails and District Jails falling in their jurisdiction, on any day within next six weeks, and privately interview as many prisoners as they may consider necessary and submit their report to this Court about their first-hand impression about the position of the prisons in the State.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla was hearing a suo moto matter, taking cognizance of the situation of COVID-19 in prisons of the State affecting both under-trial and convicted prisoners, mainly because of overcrowding.
Orissa High Court
1. "Violation Of Constitutional Right To Life": Orissa HC Orders ₹20 Lakh Compensation In Case Of 2 Girls' Death At Anganwadi Centre [Jambeswar Naik and another v. State of Odisha and others]
The Court ordered ₹20 Lakh Compensation (ten lakh each) to the families of the two young girls (both 4-year-old) who had died in an Anganwadi Centre (AWC) operating in the premises of a Government School in the year 2012.
Importantly, the bodies of the two children were found in the waterlogged pits excavated in the premises of the School and when the bodies were sent to the local nursing home, they have declared brought dead by the doctor.
The Court said that it can't direct the State Government to separately extend financial relief to workers associated with the Durga Puja festivals and whose livelihood has been adversely affected due to COVID.
The Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice B. P. Routray was hearing a bunch of petitioners, who are the office bearers of various Puja Committees in and around Cuttack city, and broadly made two prayers before the Court.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
1. Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Transfer Of Murder Case Against Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh [Jagseer Singh Petitioner v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others]
The Court dismissed a plea seeking transfer of the murder trial against Dera Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh pending before special CBI judge, Panchkula.
The Court was hearing the plea filed by the son of the deceased Ranjeet Singh (allegedly murdered by Ram Rahim Singh), who sought transfer of the case to another CBI court in Punjab, Haryana, or Chandigarh
2. "Live-In Partners Living Lustful & Adulterous Life Sans Obtaining Divorce From Their Spouses": P&H HC Dismisses Protection Plea [Kavita and another v. State of Haryana and others]
The Court dismissed a protection plea filed by a live-in couple observing that they both are in living a lustful and adulterous life with each other without obtaining a divorce from their respective spouses.
The Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan was dealing with a plea filed by a live-in couple who submitted that they both are in love with each other for the last so many years and are in a live-in relationship for the last one month.