Allahabad High Court 1. Attempt Made By Centre To Justify Delay In Deciding Representation, Amplifies Bureaucratic Red-Tapism In Movement Of Files: Allahabad HC Quashes NSA Detention Order [Mohhammad Sazid v. Superintendent, District Jail, Lucknow & Ors] Pulling up the Centre and the State Government for their delay in deciding the representation made by the detenue, a...
Allahabad High Court
1. Attempt Made By Centre To Justify Delay In Deciding Representation, Amplifies Bureaucratic Red-Tapism In Movement Of Files: Allahabad HC Quashes NSA Detention Order [Mohhammad Sazid v. Superintendent, District Jail, Lucknow & Ors]
Pulling up the Centre and the State Government for their delay in deciding the representation made by the detenue, a division bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Jaspreet Singh quashed the detention order passed under the National Security Act after opining that Centre's attempt to justify the delay amplifies Bureaucratic Red-Tapism in movement of files.
"From the perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the Union of India, it indicates that an attempt has been made by the Central Government to justify the delay in deciding the representation. In paragraph 5 (a) to 5 (d) various dates have been mentioned which only indicates the movement of file from one desk to the other which only further amplifies the bureaucratic/redtapism in the movement of the files, without considering that the issue of detention is a priority and the matter should have received prompt attention," the Court said.
A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Rajendra Kumar issued a notice, inter alia, to Uttar Pradesh Government and Waqf Board seeking removal of all the encroachments (allegedly) raised in the shape of religious constructions as Graves, Mazaars or Mosque constructed or created within the area of Alfred Park popularly known as Amar Shaheed Chandrasekhar Aazad Park.
The plea alleges that for the last few years, the members of the Muslim community in their usual manner of capturing the land for their religious purposes are trying to construct a mosque within the parking area and some artificial Mazars (graveyards) have been created at the instance of fundamentalists and the patronage of the Waqf Board.
3. UP Local Polls- Allegations Against BJP Creating Pressure On Candidates, Allahabad HC Directs Election Commission To Ensure Fair Polls [Anita v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. & Ors]
A Bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Saurabh Lavania directed the State Election Commission of Uttar Pradesh to ensure free and fair elections to be conducted of Zila Panchayat Chairpersons in the State.
The Counsel appearing for the Petitioner had alleged that immense pressure was being exercised on the candidates, their relatives and agents so as to influence the elections in favour of the private opposite party who is affiliated with the ruling party of the State.
4. Hooch Tragedies In Uttar Pradesh: Allahabad High Court Seeks Reply On Plea For CBI Enquiry Against Police & Excise Department [Satendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.]
A Division Bench of ACJ Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari issued notice on a petition seeking CBI/ NIA enquiry against Police and Excise department of the UP Government in wake of recent hooch tragedy in Aligarh, that allegedly claimed over 50 lives. It has granted two weeks' time to the Standing counsel to seek complete instruction in the matter.
The Petitioner has alleged that the concerned authorities have failed to control the menace of illicit liquor trade, particularly in rural areas, causing death of several persons all over the State from time to time. He has cited incidents from the districts of Aligarh, Ambedkarnagar, Prayagraj, Pratapgarh and Barabanki where more than 150 persons died and several villagers have been admitted in hospitals due to consumption of illicit country liquor.
5. "Ossification Test At A Belated Stage Of Age Of Accused Cannot Be Conclusive To Determine Him As Juvenile On Date Of Incident" [Kiranpal @ Kinna v. State Of UP & Ors.]
A division bench of Justices Pradeep Kumar Srivastava and Sunita Agarwal observed that an ossification test at a belated stage after the advancement of age of the accused or convict cannot be conclusive so as to determine him as a juvenile on the date of the incident. Setting aside the order of determination of age passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, the Court observed thus:
"The ossification test at a belated stage after advancement of age of the accused/convict cannot be conclusive to determine him as a juvenile on the date of the incident, as the evidence afforded by radiological examination is no doubt a useful guiding factor for determining the age of the person but is not of a conclusive and incontrovertible nature and it is subject to a margin of error."
6. Journalist Isn't Expected To Dramatize Horrifying Incident & Make News By Putting His Actor In Danger Of Death [Shameem Ahmad v. State of UP]
A Bench of Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav observed that a journalist is not expected to dramatize a sensational and horrifying incident and make news by putting his actor in a pitiable condition in danger of death. It observed thus while denying bail to a journalist who allegedly tempted a person (since dead) that if he would try to commit suicide in front of the Legislative Assembly building, by making a video of him, he will telecast the same on television.
Regarding the role of a Journalist, the Court also remarked: "The journalist keeps an eye on the anticipated or sudden events happening in the society and brings them to the information of all the people through various news media without any tampering, this is his business."
7. Can't Take Cognizance Of Rape Accused Willingness To Marry Victim While Hearing Bail Plea: Allahabad High Court [Kamil v. State of UP & Anr.]
A Single Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal declined to take into account the statement of a Rape accused that he was willing to marry the rape victim while hearing his bail plea. Importantly, the said that it was estopped from taking cognizance of any such compromise (between the rape accuse and victim) once the statements of the victim are read, as recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
"Notwithstanding the sentiments of the victim, as has been held by Supreme Court in the case of Aparna Bhat and Others vs. State of M.P. and Anothers; 2021 CRI. L. J. 2281, this Court is estopped from taking cognizance of any such compromise once the statements of the victim are read, as recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate and therefore, bail application fails and is dismissed," the Court observed.
8. Fraudulent Withdrawal Of Money from Rtd. Judge's Account- "Police Not Serious To Control Such Fraudulent Activities": Allahabad High Court [Neeraj Mandal @ Rakesh v. State of UP]
Hearing a matter wherein money was fraudulently withdrawal from the bank account of a Judge (retired), a Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed that the police authorities are not making serious efforts in controlling these types of fraudulent activities. The Court expressed its displeasure "with the efforts being made by the police authorities with regard to fraudulent withdrawal of money prevailing around the district as well as the state level".
With this, the Superintendent of Police (Cyber Cell) Lucknow was directed to file his personal affidavit mentioning therein the number of F.I.R.s registered around the State of U.P. within a year, the current status/progress of investigation, the amount of fraudulent withdrawals, the money recovered to the victim and the efforts being made to control these type of fraudulent activities.
9. 'Arnab Goswami & Amish Devgan' Judgments Won't Apply When Separate FIRs Filed In Separate Incidents Under Same Offence: Allahabad HC [Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State Of UP & Ors.]
A Bench of Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Ajai Tyagi ruled that where for separate incidents, involving in same cognizable offence, separate FIRs have been registered, the Apex Court's Judgments in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami and Amish Devgan won't apply. The observation was made while hearing a matter of a person accused of cheating around 3 lacs persons involving around Rs. 4,000 crores which resulted in separate first information reports being filed on different dates and in reference to different transactions against him.
The High Court noted that the Apex Court decided following points in those cases: (i) one incident giving rise to more than one cognizable offence cannot result in the separate FIR for each cognizable offence involved therein; (ii) one incident may result in several FIRs but subsequent FIR, after the first, is to be treated as a statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C.
However, the Court distinguished the present case while noting that "In the instant case, each FIR is registered by a different person and in regard to the separate incident with him and accordingly, it was registered separately, thus the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony or even in the case of Amish Devgan would not apply."
A Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Vikas Srivastava reserved an order on a plea moved by Umar Gautam, who is accused of being part of a nationwide religious conversion racket. seeking restriction on the media from misreporting & making premature statements in relation to their case. It the Counsel for the Petitioner: "Press has the right to report. Have you read Justice Chandrachud's Judgment of Supreme Court?"
Umar Gautam, who himself converted to Islam from the Hindu faith, has been accused of converting 1,000 persons in U.P. and allegedly got many of them married to Muslims. He was arrested last month by the UP police Anti-Terror Squad (ATS) on the charges of mass conversion of people into Islam through inducements such as marriage, job and money, and mental pressure. Further, he filed the instant plea before the Allahabad High Court challenging the leaking of sensitive and controversial information about himself and prohibiting the untrue reports from being published/ televised in the print and TV media.
The Secretary of the Gareeb Nawaz Masjid Committee, Mohammad Anees and a Barabanki (UP) resident named Mohd. Naeem have approached the High Court seeking quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) registered against them by the Uttar Pradesh Police. The FIR in question was registered against them & news portal, The Wire and its two journalists, who are associated with the Portal for their report on the alleged Gareeb Nawaz Mosque illegal demolition (Ramsanehighat, Barabanki) issue in Uttar Pradesh.
The FIR names Mohammad Anees, secretary of the mosque committee, and Mohammad Naeem, one of the local residents, as in the video, The Wire journalists were seen speaking to them. The FIR had been lodged on the basis of a complaint lodged on a complaint filed by Mahendra Singh. It alleges that the Journalists, intentionally, to spread 'animosity in society' and 'disturb communal harmony, uploaded the video on Twitter regarding the legal demolition of an 'illegal building" (mosque).
Other developments:
- Man Allegedly Goes Blind Due To COVID Vaccine: Allahabad HC Directs DM To Decide On Wife's Representation Seeking Compensation
- Allahabad High Court Refuses Relief To 3 Interfaith Couple Citing Non-Compliance Of UP Love Jihad Law
- VC Hearing Appearance: "Advocate Lounging On Bed, Lady With Face Pack On Unacceptable": Allahabad HC Asks Bar Not To Be 'Casual'
- Gangajal As COVID Cure: Allahabad High Court Issues Notice To ICMR On Plea Seeking Lab Research Of Phage Therapy Through Ganga Water
- "Anti-Social Activity": Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Man Who Allegedly Raped, Posted Woman's Obscene Snaps On FB & Dared That Law Won't Saver Her
- Allahabad High Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Immediate Covid-19 Vaccination Drive For Prisoners
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Bench of Justice M. Ganga Rao recently observed that it is the constitutional duty of the State to protect the faith of the devotees, to prevent ill-feelings among them for non-performing daily pujas and Nitya nivedyam. The Court further said that it is the bounden duty of the State Government to see that the temple premises should not be inundated due to leakage and seepage of water.
2. Non-Payment Of Dues Affects Right To Dignity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Seeks Report On Financial Status Of State [CK Yarram Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh]
A Bench of Justice Battu Devanand sought a report on seemingly 'pathetic' financial status of the State Government along with reasons for non-payment of dues to two private contractors in relation to works carried out by them for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department. It observed that such non-payment violates the right to life and dignity of the Petitioners and is thus violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
"In the considered opinion of this Court, it is nothing but depriving the petitioners and their family members for survival, to make payments to their employees/workers, to make payments to the material they procured and for the interests they have to pay for the debts in respect of execution of works. Due to this situation, petitioners' respect and dignity in the society will be destroyed. As such, the petitioners right to life with respect and dignity will be defeated which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the Court observed.
Latest Update: The matter has been disposed of as the dues were cleared.
Bombay High Court
1. 'Unfettered Powers To Executive': Journalist Nikhil Wagle Challenges IT Rules in Bombay High Court
Senior Journalist Nikhil Wagle has filed a PIL in the Bombay High Court challenging the recently notified Information Technology (Guidelines for intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 issued under the Information Technology (IT) Act. Wagle has alleged that the Rules provide "unfettered powers to the executive to direct the intermediaries to delete or modify or block the relevant content and information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in their computer resource for public access."
Therefore, the rules to be declared arbitrary, illegal, irrational, unreasonable and violative of a citizen's fundamental rights under Article 14, Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently to be struck down, he has said. In the petition filed through advocate Abhay Nevgi, Wagle also sought that the rules be declared ultra vires of the provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000. In the interim, he seeks a stay on the rules.
2. Fake Vaccine Camps Appear To Be 'State's Failure'; Don't Spare 'Big Fish' : Bombay High Court
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni observed that fake vaccine camps in Mumbai were prima facie the state's failure and asked the civic authorities about measures they plan to take regarding testing and vaccinating the 2,053 innocent people who were duped. The court further asked the State's counsel to ask the investigators to conduct a thorough investigation to ensure those playing with the lives of citizens are not spared.
"Please tell the police officers there could be big fishes involved who have not yet been identified. Investigation must be fair, proper and meaningful so that nobody is left out. Playing with the lives of citizens should be taught a lesson whoever they may be of any colour. You understand what we mean," it said while were hearing a PIL filed by advocate and activist – Siddharth Chandrashekhar – on the difficulties faced by citizens in getting the Covid-19 vaccine.
Disposing of a public interest litigation seeking relief measures for the homeless and poor persons, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Girish S Kulkarni orally observed they the homeless persons should also work the Country and that everything cannot be provided by the State.
The Court orally remarked thus: "Homeless persons should also work the Country. There is employment and livelihood provided for them under various government schemes. Everyone is working. Everything cannot be provided by the State."
In a relief to a Mumbai man caught between two health insurers on the issue of covering mental health issues in their policy, a division bench of Justices SC Gupte and MS Karnik granted a stay on the rejection of his proposal by the "new insurer" and allowed the man to approach the "existing insurer" for a suitable extension of his policy.
Observing that there was prima facie merit in the petitioner's case, the Court admitted the petition and expedited the hearing of the case "considering the nature of the controversy" and "in the interest of justice."
5. Why Wait For Centre's Approval For Door-to-Door Vaccination? Bombay High Court Asks Maharashtra Govt [Dhruti Kapadia v. Union of India]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni criticised Maharashtra's Public Health Department's stand that it would begin home vaccination on an experimental basis only after the State and Central Government approves its proposal. Based on the State Task Force Guidelines on Home Vaccination, the proposal on experimental basis is only for bedridden patients and includes strict compliance with specific conditions. The State submitted the proposal in an affidavit to the court with a rider that it would require the Centre's nod first.
Incidentally, while the Centre has time and again not only refused to come up with a door-to-door immunisation policy for the elderly, it has issued advisories to states against undertaking the same, asking them to implement their Near-to-Door jab policy instead. Moreover, it has declined BMC's proposal in the past. "Where are you getting this that approval will have to be taken from the Centre? Is it in the advisory? Did Kerala or Bihar take approval?", the bench asked.
6. Courtroom Leaking: State Has Constitutional Duty To Provide Effective Infra, Funds To Democracy's Third Pillar, Judiciary: Bombay High Court [High Court Bar Association, Nagpur v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]
A Division Bench of Justices Sunil B. Shukre and Anil S. Kilor 'reminded' the State of its constitutional duty towards providing of workable and effective infrastructure and adequate funds to the third pillar of our democracy which is judiciary. The development came in a PIL regarding the 'situation of emergency arose in the precincts of this very Court' wherein there was 'heavy leakage' from the Court ceiling of the Courtroom.
The Court was concerned with an incident wherein due to heavy rainfall outside, the Courtroom started leaking and the same was also seen inside the Courtroom CC and the video recording of such inside rainfall was also made.
7. Smoking Prevents Covid; No Higher Risk For Smokers : Tobacco Traders Claim Before Bombay High Court [Sneha Marjadi v. State of Maharashtra]
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni is hearing a plea to decide if smokers are at a greater risk of contracting Covid-19 related diseases or not and determine necessary steps the Government must take accordingly. It allowed two interim applications filed by Mumbai Bidi Tambakhu Vyapari Sangh (MBTVS) and the Federation of Retailers Association of India, allowing them to intervene in the proceedings.
The MBTVS, cited media reports and research studies to show that smoking helps "prevent and relieve Covid-19" and the studies have negated any correlation between smoking and susceptibility to Covid-19. Moreover, studies suggest "nicotine as a potential preventive agent against Covid-19 infection".
8. Award Of Lok Adalat Cannot Be Considered As An Award Of The Court Made Under Part III Of Land Acquisition Act: Bombay High Court [Umadevi Rajkumar Jeure & Ors. v. District Collector, Solapur & Ors.]
A division bench comprising of Justices SC Gupte and AA Sayed held that an award of the Lok Adalat, being an executable decree binding between the parties, cannot be considered as an award of the Court under Part III of the Land Acquisition Act for the purposes of sec. 28A providing for re-determination of the amount of compensation of the award.
It observed thus: "There is nothing in this scheme of things for treating an award passed by a Lok Adalat as a deemed decree of that court which made the reference to the Lok Adalat or for which the Lok Adalat was organised. In the context of the LA Act, and particularly for the purposes of Section 28A, the fiction of "decree of a civil court" will not only have to be to be extended to a decree of the court referring the matter to Lok Adalat or for which such Lok Adalat is organised, but such court having passed it under Part III of the LA Act, so as to have consequences for third parties."
9. Bombay High Court Upholds TRAI's Tariff Order Except One Condition In TV Channels' Challenge
In a big win for the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and ordinary consumers, a division bench of Justices AA Sayed and Anuja Prabhudessai upheld the constitutional validity of Section 11 of the TRAI Act regarding the regulator's powers and functions over television broadcasters.
The Court also upheld TRAI's 2017 and 2020 Tariff Order(Rules) and regulations but set aside one of the twin conditions in the 2020 Order according to which the MRP of an a-la-carte channel could not be more than 1/3rd the maximum rate of a channel in the bouquet. To illustrate this rule (which has been struck down by the HC), if the maximum rate of a channel in a bouquet is Rs.12, a broadcaster could not charge more than four rupees for an a-la-carte channel.
10. Permit Anand Teltumbde & Vernon Gonsalves To Receive & Send Letters : Spouses Move Bombay High Court [Rama Teltumbde & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors]
A plea has been filed by wives of Anand Teltumbde and Vernon Gonsalves in seeking action against the Superintendent of Taloja Prison for withholding communication from Teltumbde and other co-accused to their family members. The matter was posted before a division bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar, where counsel on behalf of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), Sandish Patel, contended not receiving a copy of the petition; thus, the matter was adjourned with directions to serve the respondents.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and GS Kulkarni took strong exception to politically driven rallies across Maharashtra State amid the covid-19 pandemic. It drew a parallel between politicians involved in such rallies and fake vaccination camps. Perusing a list of recommendations by an advocate to avoid the third wave in the Covid management PIL, a asked the State government to devise a method to stop such rallies.
A division bench of Justices Sadhana Jadhav and NR Borkar confirmed the 2002 trial court verdict acquitting TIPS co-founder Ramesh Taurani, and convicting Abdul Rauf Merchant in the 1997 murder of T-series owner Gulshan Kumar. It however, set aside the trial court's order acquitting Merchant's brother- Abdul Rashid Dawood Merchant- and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
The brothers were found guilty of murder (302), common intention (34) of IPC and under 27 of the Arms Act. The court additionally found them guilty u/s 120B (conspiracy) of the IPC. "The appellant (Abdul Rauf) should not be entitled to remission, if any…He has criminal antecedents and continued in similar activities thereafter. In the interest of justice and society at large, appellant doesn't deserve any leniency," Justice Jadhav said.
Octogenarian Stan Swamy, a tribal rights activist, from Ranchi and accused in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon – Elgaar Parishad case, has moved the High Court challenging the Section 43-D (5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, which imposes strict conditions for grant of bail, for being violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The plea has also urged the Court to quash and set aside the terminology "all its formations and front organisations" in first schedule of UAPA for being violative of Constitutional provisions.
Other developments:
- "Courts Are Not Able To Work At Full Strength And These Political Leaders Are Organising Rallies?" Bombay High Court Fumes At Political Rallies Amid Covid
- Wife Staying Abroad For Career Not 'Cruelty' To Husband Or 'Desertion Of Spouse' : Bombay High Court
- Supply Of "Defective" Ventilators : Bombay High Court Issues Notice To Manufacturer Jyoti CNC
- "Follow Dress Code, Etiquettes & Mannerism": Bombay HC Defers Final Hearing As Counsel Assisting Sr. Advocate Wasn't In 'Advocate's Uniform
- Kangana Concealed Defamation Case For Favourable Order In Passport Case : Javed Akhtar to Bombay High Court
Calcutta High Court
1. Allegations Of Post Poll Violence In West Bengal Prima Facie True; State Found On A Wrong Foot: Calcutta High Court Observes [Susmita Saha Dutta v. Union of India & Ors.]
A 5-Judge Bench of ACJ Rajesh Bindal and Justices IP Mukerji, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Subrata Talukdar observed that while the West Bengal Government has constantly been on a denial mode, the 2021 Assembly elections in the state were prima facie followed by violent episodes, leading to several deaths, rampant sexual exploitation of women and children, etc.
The Court noted that in the violence, a number of persons were killed, many suffered sexual violence and grievous injuries and even minor girls were not spared. "They have been brutally assaulted sexually," the remarked. It further noted that many properties were damaged during the incident, people were forced to leave their homes and even migrate to neighbouring states.
A 5-Judge Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, and Justices IP Mukherjee, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Arijit Banerjee allowed the applications filed by State of West Bengal, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, and the State Law Minister Moloy Ghatak seeking acceptance of their affidavits in the Narada Scam case (subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable by each applicant). The affidavits purportedly detail the law and order situation in the State (outside CBI office) on May 17, the date when the four accused TMC leaders were arrested.
The development comes after the Supreme Court set aside Calcutta High Court's order date June 9 where the Bench refused to take on record their affidavits saying that they waited for the arguments in the case to be substantially completed before seeking to place on record their pleadings in response. The Top Court directed the legislators to file an application before the High Court stating the reasons for not filing such affidavits earlier and requested the High Court to decide the applications first before proceeding with hearing on merits.
3. 'Termination Of Service By Merely Giving Notice, Without Holding Him Guilty Of Any Offence Is Wholly Unfit': Calcutta High Court Imposes 20,000 Cost On Employer [Webfil Ltd. v. Dipesh Kumar Bagchi & Anr.]
Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay emphasized that the Constitution is meant to 'secure the social order' of the society and to promote the 'welfare of the common people', the Calcutta High Court imposed cost of Rs. 20,000/- on an employer who terminated an employee without any cogent reasons.
"Such high-handed action of termination which fits in a feudal minded society for termination of service of a person by merely giving a notice without holding him guilty of any offence is wholly unfit in the atmosphere of a democratic country like ours where the dynamics of law is towards fairness in all actions", the Court held.
It added that 'judicial process' is also 'State action' and thus, a duty is cast on the State, which includes the judiciary, under Article 38 of the Constitution— to secure a social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people.
4. Calcutta High Court Issues Interim Stay On Teacher Recruitment Process For Upper Primary Schools [Abhijit Ghosh v. State of West Bengal & Ors.]
Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay imposed an interim stay on West Bengal government's ongoing process of recruitment of teachers for primary schools till the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on July 2. It was alleged by the Petitioner that the SCC had committed irregular distribution of marks amongst the candidates. The petitioner alleged that in spite of obtaining higher marks than the respondent, he had not been included in the interview list.
No explanation has been given as to how the private respondent can be included in the interview list but the petitioner has not been included in the said list though the petitioner has obtained higher marks than the private respondent. In such circumstances, I direct SSC not to take any further steps in the selection process they have initiated pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 11th December, 2020 in WPA 9597 of 2019 and other related matters until further orders", the Court observed.
5. Calcutta HC Issues Notice To Centre, State On Challenge Against The Constitutionality of Rule 86A of CGST Rules [MRS Realty Private Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.]
Justice Md. Nizamuddin sought response from the Centra as well as the State government on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules) and its concurrent provision in the state legislation i.e. the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (WBGST Rules).
The petition also prayed for the reading down of the Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and its parallel provision in the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (WBGST Act).
6. Calcutta High Court Issues Notice On A Plea Challenging IT Rules 2021 [Sayanti Sengupta v. Union of India and Anr.]
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Arijit Banerjee issued notice on a petition challenging the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and digital Media ethic code) Rules, 2021 for being ulra vires to the Information Technology Act,2000 and the Constitution of India. The Rules had been enacted on February 25, 2021 by the Ministry of Information, Government of India. The Court directed the Centre to file a counter affidavit before July 19.
The Petitioner submits that she being an active user of intermediary platforms like Whatsapp, Facebook, Instagram, Gmail is aggrieved by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and digital Media ethic code) Rules, 2021 dated February 25, 2021 which is in absolute violation of right to privacy, right to freedom of speech and expression.
7. "A Strong Message Should Be Sent To Such Persons": Calcutta High Court Admonishes Party For Reconstructing Demolished Constructions [Ranu Pal & Ors. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors]
Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay came down heavily on individuals for carrying out illegal constructions in violation of the Court's earlier orders. In the concerned case, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation had demolished certain illegal constructions in a building pursuant to a Court order. Consequently, without taking leave of the Court, the respondents had reconstructed the demolished portions. Further, certain additional illegal constructions had also been carried out by the respondents.
8. Calcutta HC Directs Rahul Shivshankar To Appear Through VC Mode In Probe Over 'Defamatory' Audiotape On Abhishek Banerjee Run By Times Now [Bennett Coleman & Company Limited v. State of West Bengal & Anr]
Justice Kaushik Chanda directed Times Now news channel's Editor-in-Chief, Rahul Shivshankar to appear through Video Conferencing mode in probe over the matter related to telecast of a 'defamatory' audiotape about Mamata Banerjee's Nephew and Loksabha MP, Abhishek Banerjee on Times Now news channel. However, Shivshankar was permitted to respond to the notice issued under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure via Video Conference.
An FIR had been registered against the 'Editor of Times Now', on the complaint of Banerjee for a news item circulated on "Twitter handle of "Times Now" on April 4, 2021, and in the said news item, "Times Now" had played an audiotape which contained an alleged recording of a conversation between two people. In the FIR, it has been alleged that on the basis of the alleged tape, whose authenticity "Times Now" didn't vouch for, several derogatory, defamatory and disparaging statements were made against the de facto complainant (Abhishek Banerjee).
9. Distinction Between 'Temporary Injunction' And "Attachment Before Judgement" Under The CPC: Calcutta High Court Explains [Prabha Surana v. Jaideep Halwasiya]
Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya explained in detail the distinction in the nature of relief between a 'temporary injunction' under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and an order for 'attachment before judgment' under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). It observed that while both provisions aim to protect the petitioner by preserving the disputed property, their applicability differs when it comes to the nature of property and the stage of proceedings in question.
Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 a temporary relief is granted to the petitioner in the event that an imminent risk to the property in dispute in the suit is caused by the acts of the respondent. As a result in a bid to preserve the disputed property, the Court can pass any order as it deems fit in the nature of a temporary injunction. Whereas Order XXXVIII Rule 5 applies only at a later stage in a suit when the petitioner seeks to execute a decree. This section applies only in respect of orders which lend finality to the suit and aims at preserving the state of affairs after the interim stage in the suit is completed.
Other Developments:
- Fake Vaccination Camp Case: Calcutta High Court Directs State To File Report
- West Bengal Post-Poll Violence : Calcutta High Court Issues Contempt Notice To South Kolkata DCP Over Alleged Obstruction Of NHRC Team
Chhattisgarh High Court
1. Chhattisgarh High Court Seeks Reply From State Bar Council For Grant Of Relief To Advocates During Covid-19 Pandemic [Suo Moto v. State Of Chhattisgarh]
A Division Bench of ACJ Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Parth Prateem Sahu sought response from the State Bar Council on a plea seeking relief for the families of such Advocates who have either succumbed to Covid-19 or have been infected with it. The Court has also asked the Advocate Welfare Trust of the Bar Council of Chhattisgarh to file separate response so that the wholesome holistic view can be taken to render financial assistance to the affected lawyers.
The development comes in the backdrop of a letter addressed to the High Court by the District Bar Association, Bilaspur, highlighting the plight of Advocates during the pandemic. The Court registered the letter as an IA and asked the State Bar Council, represented by Senior Advocate Kishore Bhaduri, to seek instructions in the matter. The Council has been granted three days' time to respond to the application for grant of relief to advocates during the pandemic.
2. "She Has To Face Lifetime Anguish If Forced To Give Birth, Child Will Also Face Disdain": Chhattisgarh HC Allows Termination Of Pregnancy Of Rape Victim [ABC v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.]
Justice Goutam Bhaduri allowed the medical termination of pregnancy of a rape victim after observing that forcing her to give birth to the child will be subjecting her to face lifetime anguish in the given social scenario. It observed that the victim was subjected to rape and if she is forced to give birth to a child in the social scenario she has to face a life time anguish apart from the fact the child who is born will also have to face disdain of the society.
The development came in a plea filed by a woman who had conceived after she was subjected to rape. She had sought termination of pregnancy under the provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
Delhi High Court
1. "Street Dogs Have Right To Food And Citizens Have Right To Feed Them Without Impinging Upon The Rights Of Others: Delhi High Court [Dr. Maya D. Chablani v. Radha Mittal & Ors.]
Observing that Street dogs have a right to food and citizens have a right to feed them, a single judge bench comprising of Justice JR Midha issued a set of guidelines for feeding and treatment of community dogs after holding that every dog is a territorial being.
It observed, "Community dogs (stray/street dogs) have the right to food and citizens have the right to feed community dogs but in exercising this right, care and caution should be taken to ensure that it does not impinge upon the rights of others or cause any harm, hindrance, harassment and nuisance to other individuals or members of the society."
Access full report to read guidelines
2. "Centre, Delhi Govt Must Incorporate Rules For Holding Officers Accountable For Lapse In Handling Court Cases": Delhi High Court [Hajara & Ors. v. Government Of India]
Prima facie observing that raising false claims by government officers causes injustice to the litigant seeking justice, a single judge bench comprising of Justice JR Midha observed that there is a need for the Centre and the Delhi Government to incorporate Rules for holding its officers responsible for lapses in handling court cases.
It observed, "This Court is of the prima facie view that whenever a false claim is raised by the Government, it causes immense injustice to the litigant seeking justice; it also puts unnecessary burden on the Court and the Government also suffers but the concerned officer who has raised the false claim, does not suffer any action."
3. Special Scheme For Motor Accident Claims- Delhi High Court To Consider Functioning Of Special Committees, Financial & Infrastructure Concerns [Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. v. Jaibir Singh & Ors]
Justice JR Midha is set to consider the suggestions regarding the functioning of Implementation Committee, Fast Track Committee and Arrears Committee constituted by the Court for giving effect to the Scheme clubbed with other concerns regarding financial and infrastructure requirement. The matter for expediting the process for implementation of Special Scheme regarding motor vehicle claims will now be considered next on July 8.
4. Delhi High Court Modifies Guidelines For Expediting Execution Of Decrees, Awards [M/S Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt Ltd v. M/S Maharia Raj Joint Venture & Ors.]
Justice JR Midha modified the guidelines issued by it regarding the execution of decrees and awards by directing the lower courts to expedite the proceedings within one year of their institution. The Court observed that an inordinate delay would frustrate the decree holders from reaping benefits, a single-judge bench of
It observed that delays and difficulties in the execution of decrees/awards erode public confidence and trust in the justice delivery system. He added that execution jurisdiction deserves special attention and expeditious disposal considering that the decree-holders have already succeeded in the litigation and hold a decree/award in their favor.
5. Annual Returns/FC-4 Form – "Can't Penalize Citizen For Discrepancy In Form Prescribed By Government": Delhi High Court [Arbor Charitable Foundation & Ors. v. Union Of India]
The Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar recently observed that a citizen cannot be penalized for a discrepancy in the form prescribed by the Government authorities resulting in the form being unable to be submitted even in the case of a law-abiding citizen.The Court was hearing the plea of Arbor Charitable Foundation and others who are the recipients of foreign contributions in accordance with the protocol set out in the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 FCRA.
It may be noted that every association registered under Foreign Contribution Regulations Act (FCRA) has to submit an Annual Return (Form FC-4) to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
A division bench comprising of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh issued practice directions in respect of bank guarantees required by the Court and has also notified the performa for 'Summons for Settlement of Issues in a Suit Relating to Commercial Dispute'. According to the directions, it has been stated that a clause of term shall be necessarily incorporated in every Bank Guarantee furnished by a party in the High Court for release of the amounts deposited.
"Such term shall be to the effect, that in case the Bank Guarantee is not renewed, at least ten days before the expiry of the Bank Guarantee, by the party at whose instance the Bank Guarantee has been furnished, the Bank shall, without any further demand by the beneficiary or reference to the party at whose instance the Bank Guarantee has been furnished, proceed to encash the Bank Guarantee and remit the amount thereunder to the beneficiary under the Bank Guarantee," it has been stated.
Justice JR Midha issued detailed guidelines to be followed while declaring a person as a Proclaimed Offender so as to ensure that the process under sec. 82 and 83 of CrPC is not issued in a routine manner and due process of law is followed.
The directions also state detailed mechanism for early apprehension of such proclaimed offenders including a direction that a Digital Surveillance System shall be placed by the Delhi Police by giving access to specific departments for tracking such proclaimed offenders.
Access full report to read guidelines
Other developments:
- Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Police To Give Protection To UP Woman Who Converted To Islam
- Justice Hari Shankar Recuses From Hearing Plea For Modifying CBSE's Evaluation Scheme For Class X Students
- Delhi High Court To Hear Plea For Making Delhi Government's New Excise Policy 2021-22 Public On July 5
- Tweets By Mahua Moitra, Swati Chaturvedi Not Violative Of Twitter Policies: Twitter To Delhi High Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court
1. "You Want To Be Rowdy Rathore, Unruly?": Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes of Plea Challenging BCI's Latest 'Criticism-Disqualification' Rule [Neeraj Shashwat v. Bar Council of HP & Ors.]
Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia disposed of a plea 'as withdrawn', which challenging the recently inserted Sections V and V-A of Chapter II of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), and 21. The Court asked how the Counsel for the Petitioner/Advocate as to how the rules affected him and why only one advocated had moved before the Court, rather than the associations/bar council.
2. "No Arbitrary Fixing Of Cut-Off Date Within Homogeneous Classes Of Pensioners": HP HC Sets Aside Notifications Denying NPA Benefits To Superannuating Doctors [Dr. Ved Parkash Sharma & Anr. v. State of H.P. & others]
Justice Sureshwar Thakur set aside notifications denying benefits of Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) as a part of basic pay for calculating retiral benefits to superannuated doctors who retired prior to 1st September 1997 and 1st January 2006.
Quashing the notifications, the Court ordered thus: "A reading of the afore extracted relevant paragraphs, does graphically pronounce, that within the homogeneous classes of pensioners, no arbitrary fixing of any cut off date, for any relevant purpose, inasmuch, as, the adding onto or addition of any NPA, in the basic pay, being restricted to retirees, whose superannuation occurred on or within the interregnum commencing from 1.9.1997, and upto 2006, can assume any tinge of constitutional validity, and, nor would stand the constitutional touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
Gauhati High Court
1. "Make Provision For Giving Priority In Administration Of Covid Vaccine To Persons With Disabilities Above 18 Years": Gauhati HC Directs Arunachal Pradesh Govt [Ebo Mili v. State of AP & Ors.]
Justice Nani Tagia directed the State of Arunachal Pradesh to make provision for giving priority in attendance and administration of covid 19 vaccine to people with disabilities above 18 years of age within a period of 4 Weeks. Observing that persons with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 would be entitled for administration of Covid-19 vaccine on priority basis, the Bench observed thus:
"I propose to dispose of this Public Interest Litigation(PIL) at the motion stage itself by directing the respondent authorities to make provision for giving priority in attendance and inoculation of the persons with disabilities, with Covid-19 vaccine, should the persons with disabilities above 18 years of age, volunteers for such vaccination, as mandated under Section 25(1)(c) of the Act of 2016, within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order which shall be furnished by the petitioner to the authority concerned within 7(seven) days from today."
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
1. Long Incarceration Not Ground For Bail In Case Of Severe Offences Like Murder: Jammu & Kashmir HC Denies Bail To Undertrial Incarcerated For Over 7 Years [Sohan Singh v. UT of J&K]
"Case where gravity of offence alleged against an accused is severe, the bail cannot be granted only on the ground of long incarceration," observed a Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar. Holding thus, it refused to enlarge on bail a murder accused incarcerated pending trial since December 2012.
The Court noted that some delay in completion of the trial has taken place on account of restrictions in physical hearing of cases due to COVID-19 pandemic but that is an eventuality beyond the control of everybody and the same cannot be the sole ground for enlarging an accused on bail, particularly in a heinous offence like murder.
2. "Take Effective Steps As Per Centre's Guidelines For Vaccination Of Disabled Persons In Union Territory": Jammu & Kashmir High Court [Humanity Welfare Organization Helpline v. Union of India & Ors.]
Issuing notice in a plea seeking vaccination for the disabled persons as a special category, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey asked the Centre and the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to take effective steps as per Centre's guidelines for vaccinating such persons.
It also directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Health and Medical Education Department of Jammu and Kashmir UT to file an affidavit by the next date of hearing indicating steps for Vaccination of disabled persons in the UT. The matter will now be heard on July 8.
3. Jammu And Kashmir High Court Stays Fresh Appointment Of Law Officers Except Advocate General [Sushil Chandel v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors]
Noting that the matter is of seminal importance, Justice Sanjeev Kumar stayed the appointment of Law Officers other than the Advocate General in a plea challenging the continued existence of the notification issued by the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, inviting applications for engagement as Standing Counsel.
The petitioner challenged an advertisement issued in pursuance to the Jammu and Kashmir Law Officers to appoint law officers in the exercise of powers conferred by Section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir read with Section 492 of J&K Cr. P. C. The petitioner argues that after the promulgation of the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019, the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and State Criminal Procedure Code have been repealed and have ceased to be in existence.
Other Developments
· Jammu & Kashmir Government Sanctions Rs. 1 Crore As Financial Assistance For Advocates During Covid-19
Jharkhand High Court
1. "No Indication That Joseph Shine Judgment Will Apply Prospectively": Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Convicted For Adultery In 2008 [August Kumar Mehta v. State of Jharkhand]
A Bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary set aside an order passed in 2008 by the lower court convicting and sentencing a man for the offence of adultery after observing that there is no indication of prospective application in the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court declaring adultery as unconstitutional.
Relying on the judgment of Joseph Shine v. Union of India, the Court observed thus: "As per Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all the courts within the territory of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court applies to all pending proceedings. Upon perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no indication that the same would apply prospectively and there is nothing like any prospective operation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court."
2. COVID- "Follow State Govt's Guidelines For Disposal Of Dead Bodies; Come Out With Fresh Decision To Avoid Spread Of Infection": Jharkhand HC To State [Sitwanto Devi Mahila Kalyan Sansthan v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.]
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad directed the State Government to follow its guidelines for disposal of dead bodies who have died due to covid 19 infection in 'full letter and spirit'. It also observed that the State must come out with a fresh decision to avoid the spread of covid while disposing of dead bodies.
The development came in a PIL highlighting the concern that the Centre's guidelines "Covid-19: Guidelines On Dead Body Management" were being flouted by the State as the same were not being complied with strictly leading to disrespect to the dead bodies. The plea thus prayed for directions on the State Government to respect dead bodies of the COVID-19 deceased as well as their wards strictly as per the said guidelines and in conformity with Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.
Karnataka High Court
In a relief to 180 doctors, a single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum passed an interim direction to the State restraining it from compelling these doctors from registering online for the Compulsory Rural Service under provisions of the Karnataka Compulsory Training Service By Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012. The Court directed the State not to precipitate the matter under the impugned notification as per Annexure- A for two weeks only in respect of the petitioners who are before this Court.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammed Nawaz allowed Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of fact-checking portal 'AltNews', to withdraw his petition seeking transit anticipatory bail in an FIR registered by Uttar Pradesh police over tweets on the Ghaziabad incident related to assault on an elderly Muslim man, after he informed the court that he had attended the police station and his statement was recorded.
Advocate Vrinda Grover appearing for the petitioner informed the court that as per the notice issued by the police under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the petitioner appeared before the police and his statement was recorded. Therefore, it was prayed he may be allowed to withdraw the petition with a liberty to approach the court if there is any threat of arrest in the future.
3. Husband's Extra-Marital Partner Can't Be Made Respondent In Domestic Violence Act Proceedings : Karnataka High Court [Harini H. v. Kavya H. & Ors.]
A single bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar held that a wife cannot make the woman with whom her husband is having an illegal relationship as a respondent in the application made by her under Section 12, of the Domestic Violence Act.
"Section 2(q) of the Act makes it clear that only those persons who have been in the domestic relationship can be made as respondent. In this case as argued by the petitioner's counsel, the allegation against the petitioner is that the 1st respondent's husband was suspected to be having an illegal relationship with the petitioner and he thought of bringing the petitioner to his house. Except this allegation,there are no other allegations against the petitioner which indicate that she too joined with the husband of the 1st respondent in harassing her. Therefore the petitioner does not come within the scope of respondent as envisaged under Section 2(q) of the Act. Making her respondent in the application filed under Section 12 of the Act is unwarranted," the Court said.
4. 37% Govt Schools Have No Girls' Toilet; No Safe Drinking Water In 40% : Report Before Karnataka HC
A division bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar directed the state government to submit a plan of action for spending the Rs 100 crore allocated towards infrastructure development in government schools across the state. The state government, while placing on record data of work being undertaken in schools, said that a sum of Rs 88 crore was allotted for infrastructure in the year 2020-21 and amount of Rs 100 crore has been allotted in the year 2021-22 for school infrastructure.
It orally said "Tell us how you are going to spend this Rs 100 crore. Which district will get how much money? It should not happen that some school gets funds only for repairs of walls and other schools get for repair of furniture. If you take up repairs, do a complete job in the school."
Other developments:
- Bengaluru Known As 'Silicon Valley Of India'; Best VC Systems Should Be Possible For Courts: Karnataka HC
- Ghaziabad Video : Karnataka High Court To Hear Twitter MD's Challenge Against UP Police Notice On July 5
- Karnataka High Court Allows Service Of Notice By Email To BBMP, BESCOM, KIADB
- Commission Charged For Relief To Domestic Workers: Karnataka High Court Fumes At Govt; Summons, Labour Secretary
- Preventive Detention- Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines On Consideration Of Detenu's Representation
Kerala High Court
1. Can Enforcement Directorate Maintain Writ Petition Against State Govt? Kerala High Court Reserves Order [Enforcement Directorate v. State of Kerala]
A single bench of Justice PB Suresh Kumar reserved order on the preliminary objections raised by State of Kerala against the maintainability of a writ petition filed by Enforcement Directorate.
The Enforcement Directorate had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the State Government's notification which constituted a judicial commission to inquire into the allegations of falsification of statements to implicate the Chief Minister in the gold smuggling case.
The Solicitor General drew the attention of the bench to the judgment delivered by the High Court in April this year which held that Kerala Police had no right to register FIR against ED officials to investigate the allegations of false implication. He said that the judicial commission has been constituted to circumvent that judgment.
2. IS Recruit Nimisha Fathima's Mother Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Her Repatriation From Afghanistan [Bindu K. v. Union of India & Ors]
A writ petition has been filed in the Kerala High Court seeking the return and repatriation of Nimisha @ Fathima Isa and her daughter, both Indian citizens hailing from Kerala, who are presently detained in Afghanistan.
The petition filed by Nimisha's mother, K Bindu, alleges that Nimisha was systematically persuaded and radicalized to move to Afghanistan and live under the Islamic State by her husband. It is stated that Nimisha's husband fought for the Islamic State without her knowledge, and was killed in an attack later on.
3. As Tribute To Dog Killed By Human Cruelty, Kerala High Court Renames Suo Moto Case "In Re Bruno"
The suo moto proceedings initiated by the High Court for the protection of animal rights in the State was renamed to In Re: Bruno in memory of the hapless dog that succumbed to the inhuman acts of three youngsters.
In a heartwarming gesture, a Division Bench of Justices Jayasankaran Nambiar and P Gopinath directed the Registry to rename the writ in memory of the dog, apart from using suggestions to promote animal welfare in the State.
"To begin with, we direct the Registry to rename this writ petition as "In Re: Bruno (Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation Proceedings initiated by the High Court in the matter of executive and legislative inaction of the State Government in the matter of Protection of Animal Rights)". We feel that this would be a fitting tribute to the hapless dog that succumbed to acts of human cruelty, and disturbed by which incident we had initiated these proceedings." the order passed said.
Also Read: Based On Judge's Letter, Kerala High Court Takes Suo Moto PIL To Control Animal Cruelty
The Bar Council of India submitted before a Single Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar that the new Rules which prohibits criticism and dissent against the BCI and other Bar Councils has not taken effect. The Court was hearing a petition seeking a declaration that the recently inserted Sections V and V-A of Chapter II of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules are unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), and 21.
Advocate Santhosh Mathew on behalf of the petitioner contended that the newly added rules infringed on the constitutionally protected freedom of speech and expression of the petitioner in his capacity as an Advocate and as a Bar Council member. He submitted that there was an uncertainty revolving around whether these Rules are currently in effect. It was also argued that the BCI has failed to notify if they have obtained the approval from the CJI before such insertion, which is a statutory requirement. On these grounds, the petitioner sought to declare the aforementioned Rules unconstitutional and illegal.
5. Levelling Accusation Of Unchastity And Perfidiousness Against Wife Amounts To Mental Cruelty: Kerala High Court While Granting Divorce To Couple [Sabitha Unnikrishnan v. Vineet Das]
A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaqu and Justice Kauser Edappagath while allowing a matrimonial appeal established that that unsubstantiated accusation and character assassination by one spouse against the other would constitute mental cruelty. It observed as follows: "The respondent has miserably failed to substantiate the imputation made by him that the appellant has relationship with another person and she is an unchaste woman. Levelling disgusting accusation of unchastity and attributing aspersions of perfidiousness to the wife would undoubtedly amount to worst form of mental cruelty."
The appellant Sabitha Unnikrishnan approached the Court challenging the judgment of the Mavelikkara Family Court dismissing her original petition against her husband for divorce, on the ground that she failed to prove cruelty. Both the parties worked at the Sultanate of Oman. According to the appellant, during their cohabitation, the respondent made false allegations of unchastity against her and spread them among his relatives as well as his workplace, where the appellant's father was also employed.
A Division Bench of Justices Jayasankaran Nambiar and P Gopinath set out an agenda to prevent animal cruelty in the State and to generally improve the state of animal welfare in Kerala. The Court emphasized that this has to be a concerted action by all the concerned stakeholders and branches of the government.
Accordingly, the Director General of Prosecution was directed to file a statement regarding the action taken on the complaint filed by the owner of the dog which was brutally killed by 3 youngsters within 10 days. Advocate Ashok Cherian informed the Court that three of them have been apprehended and charged under Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and Section 429 of IPC.
7. Law Of Limitation Only Bars Judicial Remedy, The Substantive Right Survives: Kerala High Court [Assistant General Manager, SBI v. S. Saradamani & Ors.]
A division bench of Justices Alexander Thomas and K. Babu decided in a pension recovery matter that the Law of Limitation only bars judicial remedy, and that the substantive right itself survives and continues to be available in other ways, and clarified that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. While disposing the petition, it held as follows: "We make it clear that the substantive right of the petitioners/Bank to recover the money paid in excess to the original applicant in ways other than judicial remedy is not destroyed by reason of the rules of limitation."
The petition was filed by the Bank challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which held that the recovery of an amount prior to the span of three years from the date on which the mistake was discovered is barred by limitation.
8. Kerala High Court Stays Lakshadweep Administration's Notice To Demolish Dwellings Of Traditional Coastal Communities [Ubaid Kunhiyammakada & Anr v. Administrator, UT of Lakshadweep & Ors]
A Single Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan stayed all further proceedings pursuant to a show cause notice issued by the Lakshadweep Administration ordering for the demolition of the petitioners' dwellings pending disposal of the writ petition. The petition was preferred by two natives of Kavarratti Island living traditionally in the coastal area claiming that the show cause notices issued to them constituted an atrocious executive action coloured with malafides and illegality.
The show cause notices were issued to the petitioners on the ground that their dwelling houses were constructed without diversion certificate as per Laccadive Minicoy and Amini Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulation. The notice also alleged that the structures contravened Integrated Island Management Plan since they lie within 20m from the High Tide line, which is declared as a No development Zone. Accordingly, the structures were directed to be removed.
9. 'Prima Facie Good Case On Merit' : Kerala High Court Stays Lakshadweep Notification Increasing Stamp Duty [Adv. Mohammed Salih P.M v. Union of India & Ors]
A Single Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V stayed all the proceedings pursuant to the Notification issued by the Lakshadweep Administration revising the existing stamp duty on the islands pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Observing that the petitioner has made out "prima facie a good case on merits", the Court stayed all the proceedings through an interim order and issued a notice to the Lakshadweep Administration to that effect.
Petitioner Advocate Mohammed Salih P.M, a practising lawyer in the Kerala High Court and various Lakshadweep Courts, approached the Court being apprehensive of the "unscrupulous measures: being implemented by the Administration by issuing the said notification.
10. Portuguese National Moves Kerala High Court Questioning Engagement Of Foreign Pilots On Contract Labour [Capt. Pedro Guilherme da Veiga Pereira e Oliveira Artilheiro vs. Union of India & Ors.]
Justice PB Suresh Kumar recently sought response from the Centre, Indigo Airlines, Directorate General of Civil Aviation, and other concerned authorities on a petition filed by a former Indigo Airlines Captain, a Portuguese national, questioning practices related to engaging foreign pilots on contract.
The Court issued notice to all the respondents, including the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) and the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner in the matter. The petitioner is a Portuguese national and a qualified pilot who served Indigo Airlines as a Captain from 2018 till 2020. He was on a rotational leave in Portugal when the lockdown was declared in March 2020 in India.
Other developments:
- Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Man Who Injures Two Policemen When Questioned For Not Wearing Mask
- Alleged Illegal Detention And Conversion Of Woman And Son: Kerala High Court Orders Investigation Into The Matter After Husband's Plea
- Adopt Alternative Measures In Place of Mandatory Internship For Law Students: Kerala HC Directs MG University Amidst COVID
- Kerala High Court Refuses To Stay Investigation In Sedition Case Against Aisha Sultana
- Kerala High Court Seeks Responses Of Centre and State On Funds For Free Education
Madhya Pradesh High Court
1. Article 20(3) Isn't Violated If Magistrate Directs Accused To Give Voice Samples During Investigation Sans Consent: MP High Court [RK Akhande v. Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Bhopal & Anr.]
The Bench of Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Virender Singh has observed when an accused is asked to give a voice sample by the Magistrate, it can't be said that he is being compelled to be a witness against himself and thus, the fundamental right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution is not violated in such a case.
The Court reiterated the Supreme Court's 2019 ruling which held that a judicial magistrate can direct an accused to provide his voice samples for investigation even without his consent.
Observing that the directions of the Arnesh Kumar judgment is not being followed in the State for decongesting prisons, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla issued directions to the High Powered Committee to review the situation and evaluate compliance of earlier resolutions passed by it.
It observed thus: "What is disturbing to note is that as per the data available online in District Bhopal alone for the period 03.05.2021 to 16.06.2021, 1225 arrests were made out of which nearly 1060 accused were those who were arrested for the offences punishable upto 7 years of imprisonment, which constitutes 86.53% of the total number of arrests made for that period as against 165 accused who were found involved in offences punishable with more than 7 years imprisonment."
3. Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Detention Order Against Person Illegally Hoarding, Black Marketing 400 Remdesivir Injections [Monica Tripathi v. State of MP & Ors.]
Observing that the State administration was struggling to ensure supply of medicines and medical facilities to the citizens, a division bench comprising of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Shailendra Shukla upheld the detention order passed under National Security Act against a person found illegally hoarding and black marketing 400 Remdesivir Injections.
A case was registered against Dr. Vinay Shankar Tripathi for offences under sec. 420, 274, 275, 276, 188 of IPC; sec. 18A, 18a(i), 18(a)(iv); Section 27 of Drug and Cosmetic Act, 1940 r/w Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act 1987. It was thus his case that since the offences were punishable under the provisions of aforesaid enactments, the detention under the NSA Act was wholly impermissible.
4. Compelling A Married Woman To Live In Her Parental Home Amounts To Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court [Amar Singh v. Vimla]
A single judge bench comprising of Justice GS Ahluwalia observed that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home after marriage amounts to cruelty and that for this reason, it cannot be said that she was living separately without reasonable reason.
Madras High Court
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that when the right to life is under a threat, the right to practice religion will have to take a backseat. The Court observed that the right of citizens to practice religion is subservient to their right to life and thus, the Court dismissed a plea seeking reopening of temples across Tamil Nadu.
The Court observed that "citizens to practice religion is subservient to their right to life and when the right to life is under a threat". With this, the Court declined to entertain a plea filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
2. Documents Relating To Elections Contain Paper Trail To Voting In EVMs; Can't Be Given To Any Person In Absence Of Election Petition [B. Ramkumar Adityan v. Chief Election Commissioner]
A division bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy refused to issue directions to the Election Commission for uploading on its website, the documents relating to State Assembly elections of 2021.
The Court observed that Election Commission may be in possession of diverse documents, including the paper trail relating to voting in the electronic voting machines. However, these documents are not required to be uploaded or even made available to any person, unless there is a challenge to the election in accordance with the procedure established therefor.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy expressed concern over frequent desecration of waterbodies for construction of highways, subways, etc. The remarks were made while hearing a petition against destruction of one or more waterbodies by the railways for construction of a subway.
"The consistent refrain of this Court has been that waterbodies ought to be preserved to allow humans and other life forms to survive and a zero tolerance policy has to be adopted when it comes to disturbing or desecrating any waterbody any further," it observed.
A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy directed the Tamil Nadu Government to file its counter-affidavit on a plea challenging its decision to set up a committee for the purpose of ascertaining whether the NEET based admission process has prejudicially affected socially backward students. It has also left it open to the Union to indicate its stand.
The plea challenges the decision to constitute of a high-level committee consisting of 9 persons under the chairmanship of a retired High Court Judge, Justice Thiru. A.K.Rajan. It is claimed that in view of the Supreme Court's order in Kaaviyaa Nakkiran, and Ors. v. The State Of Tamil Nadu, there can be little room for the State to set up any Committee.
5. Destitute/ Homeless Stand More Exposed To Covid-19; Require Urgent Vaccination: Madras High Court [M. Murgantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.]
A division bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and SenthilKumar Ramamoorthy directed the Tamil Nadu Government to ensure that vulnerable persons such as homeless, pavement dwellers, etc. are vaccinated on an urgent basis, as they stand more exposed to Covid-19.
It directed that all the Corporations, Municipalities and Town Panchayats should be sensitized to ensure that these vulnerable persons be regarded as candidates for 'immediate urgent vaccination'.
6. Limitation Prescribed U/S 23 Registration Act For Presenting Documents Not Attracted For Orders/ Decrees Passed By Courts: Madras High Court [M. Rajendran v. Inspector General of Registration & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the limitation prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, for presenting documents will not stand attracted insofar as an order or decree passed by a Court is concerned.
The provision stipulates that no document other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four months from the date of its execution. has ruled that the Sub Registrar cannot refuse to register any order or decree only because the same has been presented beyond the period of limitation provided under Section 23 of the Act.
7. Doubtful If 'Right to Refuse' Covid-19 Vaccine Can Be Exercised When Larger Public Health Interest Is Involved: Madras High Court [M. Karpagam v. Commissionarate for Welfare of Differently-Abled & Anr.]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy expressed its reservation over 'right to refuse' Covid-19 vaccine as its administration involves larger interest of 'public health'. "Indeed, vaccinating oneself may not only be to protect oneself but also in the larger interest of public health," it observed. The observation was made after the State reported that there is reluctance among the general public to take the vaccine.
The Bench added, "When such larger interest of public health comes into play and it is possible that a person who has not taken the vaccine may not reveal any symptoms but still be a silent carrier, it is doubtful whether the right to refuse to take the vaccine can be exercised in such circumstances."
8. No Doubt Children Are Addicted To Online Games But Court Cannot Impose Personal Sense Of Morality [E. Martin Jayakumar v. Union of India & Ors.]
The Court declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on all online and offline video games that children and young adults are currently addicted to. The petitioner had submitted that since all educational institutions are currently closed, many children and young adults are severely addicted to such online games which could have adverse consequences on their career and health.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy while disposing of the PIL opined that the petitioner should first approach the government for relief since the matters relates to a question of policy. Further the Court noted that only in the event of a failure by the Executive to address such matters of public interest can the Judiciary step in.
Revisiting the concept of 'golden hour' in medical parlance, a Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh directed the State Government to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- compensation to the husband of a woman who died due to non-availability of ambulance at a Primary Health Centre (PHC) and the resultant delay in shifting her to the Medical College for proper treatment.
It observed, "There was a delay in shifting the deceased from the Primary Health Centre to the Medical College, Asaripallam. When it comes to saving a life, every second count and delay by even a few minutes can cause the death of a person. Therefore, when it comes to medical emergencies, delay can never be condoned like how leniently we condone in Courts" the Court observed.
Other developments:
- 'Grave Importance': Madras High Court Seeks Report On Benefits Given To Differently Abled Persons During Covid-19 Pandemic
- Vaccinate Mentally Ill Patients On Priority Across The State: Madras High Court To Tamil Nadu Govt
- "Third Wave Might Be Standing At The Door If Vaccination Not Done With Speed": Gauhati High Court To Centre, State
- Madras High Court Directs Judicial Academy To Impart Training To Special Judge, IO, Prosecutors Dealing With POCSO Cases
- 'Ensure That Children Are Well Fed & Nourished': Madras High Court Seeks State's Reply On Plea For Door To Door Delivery Of Midday Meals
- Urgently Fill Up Vacancies In District & State Consumer Forums: Madras High Court Tells State
Meghalaya High Court
1. Gang Rape Of Minor- Meghalaya HC Denies Bail To BA Student, Directs Jail Authorities To Provide Him Necessary Facilities To Attend Virtual Classes [Abdul Kalam SK v. State of Meghalaya]
Rejecting a bail application filed by a BA student accused in a case concerning gang rape of a 16-year-old minor girl, a single judge bench comprising of Justice W. Diengdoh directed the jail authorities to provide him necessary facilities required for attending virtual classes.
Taking into account the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the Bench declined the request for bail. However. It added, "Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner as regard the fact that the accused Habibul Islam is a student pursuing his studies in BA, this Court hereby directs the jail authorities to provide all the necessary facilities even by allowing the accused/UTP to attend his classes via Online mode."
Orissa High Court
1. Plea Seeking 'Strict' Enforcement Of Orissa Prohibition Act: Orissa High Court Seeks State Govt. Response [Arun Kumar Budhia v. Chief Secretary To Govt. Of Odisha]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice SK Panigrahi sought response of the State Government on plea enforcement of the Orissa Prohibition Act, 1956 which prohibits, inter alia, sale and consumption of intoxicating liquors and drugs in the State. it directed the state government to file its affidavit by September 8. The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 15.
It may be noted that the State Legislature had passed the law with an intention to introduce and extend the prohibition on the manufacture, sale, and consumption of intoxicating liquors and drugs in Odisha. The President of India had given his assent to the Act in the year 1957. The petitioner prayed in the plea that the State must strictly enforce the Orissa Prohibition Act, 1956 which according to the Petitioner is still in force. The Petitioner stated that the petition was not only about manufacture and sale of illicit liquor, but all forms of liquor, which according to him, stand prohibited under the Orissa Prohibition Act.
2. Term 'Unemployment' Sounds Like A Death Knell For Youth, Duping Them On Pretext Of Securing Job Is 'Cheating Of Highest Order' [Akash Kumar Pathak v. State of Odisha]
A Bench of Justice SK Sahoo recently observed that exploiting the youth and duping him of his money arranged with much difficulty on the pretext of providing job and thus, makes him falling prey to temptations of lucrative jobs is cheating of highest order.
The Court ruled that making a false promise to the job aspirant by assuring him/her job on payment of huge amount itself establishes one of the essential ingredients of cheating as envisaged under section 415 of the Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court
1. "Set Up Relief Camps In Flood Affected Districts; Ensure Ration To Poor, Pregnant & Lactating Women, Infants": Patna HC Directs Authority To Dispose Of Plea Expeditiously [Satyam Jha v. State of Bihar & Ors.]
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sanjay Kumar directed the authority concerned to dispose of expeditiously a plea seeking setting up of relief camps in flood affected districts in the State and adequate ration and food Facilities to the poor and needy including lactating & pregnant women and infants.
It ordered thus: "The authority concerned shall consider and dispose it of expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of its filing along with a copy of this order." Further, it said: "We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law, before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch."
Other developments:
- "Not Attired In Proper Uniform": Patna High Court Refuses To Take Notice Of Public Prosecutor's Appearance
- 'Court Flooded With Petitions Due To Non-Initiation Of Confiscation Proceedings Under Bihar Prohibition Act': Patna HC Issues Directions For Expeditious Disposal
Punjab & Haryana High Court
1. Confining Prisoners In Separate Cells For 22 Hours A Day Constitutes Quasi-Solitary Confinement, Violates Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Rajia v. State of Punjab & Ors]
A bench of Justice Sudhir Mitta held that confining an inmate in a cell for 22 hours a day amounts to quasi-solitary confinement and is violative of his fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
"Except for one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening, the inmate is all by himself with his solitude and there is no limit on the period for which he will be so confined. Such confinement is not strictly solitary confinement but can be called quasi-solitary because the inmate is deprived of human company for extended lengths of time and such confinement has been held to be extremely harsh and violative of basic human rights which remain the entitlement of every prisoner", the Court said.
2. Sympathy Shown To Drug Peddlers In Granting Bail May Prove Counter Productive, Resulting In Increased Trafficking: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Jasbir Singh v. State Of Punjab]
A Single Bench of Justice HS Madaan observed that showing sympathy towards alleged drug peddlers at the time of granting bail often proves counterproductive as they indulge in further trafficking, one enlarged. Holding thus, it denied bail to an accused under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, found in conscious possession of contraband in the form of 2300 intoxicant tablets, without any permit or licence or medical prescription.
"The drug peddlers have successfully destroyed the social fabric of our society and led youth to the wrongful path. Such type of persons need to be dealt with firmly and sternly and no sympathy can be shown to them lest that should prove to be counter productive and result in increased drug trafficking," the Bench said.
3. Govt. Servant Terminated On 'Vague Allegation/Suspicion' Of Joining Farmers Protest: P&H High Court Issues Notice To Haryana State [Rajuddin v. State of Haryana & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga issued notice to the Haryana Government for allegedly terminating the service of a Government Servant, Rajuddin on a vague allegation/suspicion of the petitioner having participated in the strike call given by farmers at Tikri Border, Delhi. It also directed that till the next date of hearing, the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor (STS) (help by the petitioner) at Community Health Centre, Nuh shall be kept vacant.
Rajuddin, contended before the Court that he was appointed on the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor (STS) under National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) by Civil Surgeon-cum-Chairman, Executive Committee, District Health and Family Welfare, Mewat. Further, it was stated that he had been serving uninterruptedly since 2014. However, merely on a vague allegation/suspicion of the petitioner having participated in the strike call given by farmers at Tikri Border, Delhi on 05.12.2020, he added, his services were summarily terminated vide impugned order dated 25.02.2021 without holding any inquiry and/or giving any show-cause-notice and/or opportunity of being heard in person.
Other developments:
· Punjab & Haryana High Court Extends The Life Of Interim Orders, Directions Till August 31
Rajasthan High Court
1. 'Policy Matter': Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea For Compulsory Licensing Of Covid Vaccine [Mallika Singh & Anr. v. Union Of India & Anr.]
A Division Bench of Justices Sabina and Manoj Kumar Vyas dismissed a PIL seeking compulsory licensing of Covid-19 vaccines under the Patents Act. It observed that the same is a policy matter that has to be decided by the executive and the Courts need not interfere in it.
The Petitioner had urged that the Central Government be directed to issue compulsory licence for vaccines under Section 92 of the Patents Act. It was further urged that the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) be directed to share the trade secrets related to manufacturing process of vaccines to scale up the production of vaccines.
2. Covid-19 Vaccination Of Pakistani Minority Migrants Has Commenced: Rajasthan Government Says After High Court Nudge [Suo Moto v. Union of India & Anr.]
An affidavit was filed before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, informing that it has commenced the process for vaccination of Pakistani Minority Migrants. The development comes soon after the High Court asked the Government to chalk out a plan for vaccinating the said category of persons.
The State counsel assured the Court that he will file a further affidavit, indicating the names and location of the persons who have been vaccinated thus far, pursuant to the directions issued by the Court. Accordingly, the matter has been posted for hearing on July 6.
3. 'Policy Matter': Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea For Declaration Of Unaccredited Journalist As Frontline Health Workers [Vivek Singh v. State of Rajasthan]
A Division Bench of Justices Sabina and Manoj Kumar Vyas dismissed a PIL seeking declaration of non-accredited journalists as frontline health workers during the Covid-19 pandemic. It observed that the same is a policy matter that has to be decided by the executive and the Courts need not interfere in it.
In March 2021, the Rajasthan Government gave accredited journalist the status of frontline workers/ covid warriors and included them in the insurance scheme for ex-gratia payment of Rs. 50,00,000/-. However, the benefit does not extend to non-accredited journalists and media personnel reporting from the ground. The Petitioner had urged that, dependents of unaccredited journalists should also be given the benefit under this scheme, in case such journalists die during service.
Other Developments:
- Hybrid Hearing From July 5, Only First Jab Takers To Get Court Entry: Rajasthan High Court Modifies Functioning Modalities
- 'Lawyer Uses "Filthy Language Used By Cheapsters & Street Goons" In Court: Rajasthan HC Asks Bar Council To Take Action
Sikkim High Court
1. Government Tackling Covid-19 In An Unplanned Fashion Despite Studies & Experiences Of Other Countries: Sikkim High Court [In Re : Covid 19 Management]
"We do not see nor are we provided with a rational and planned thinking process. Emergent situation seem to have been met on need basis," commented a Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan with respect to management of the Covid-19 crisis in the State. It observed that although the State Government took several steps to ramp up the health infrastructure and facilities to deal with the deadly virus, it did not formulate any "concrete policy" to face the wrath of the pandemic.
The Court was of the opinion that the experience in the last two years of the pandemic provides a number of useful information and indicators for the State to augment its resources in a more systematic and planned manner, which is the need of the hour. "The studies and experiences of other countries and other States would also be a huge resource for the State to formulate a good policy," it added.
Telangana High Court
1. Anticipatory Bail Application By Juvenile Under S. 438 CrPC In Writ Petition Not Maintainable: Telangana High Court [Mohammed Bin Ziyad v. State of Telangana & Anr.]
A Bench of Justice K. Lakshman ruled that filing of an anticipatory bail application by a juvenile under Section 438 of CrPC in a writ petition is not maintainable, and that the juvenile has to avail the remedy under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. It ruled thus while noting that under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, there was no provision for grant of anticipatory bail.
The Court further observed that an application seeking anticipatory bail under Section - 438 of Cr.P.C. at the instance of a child in conflict with law was not at all maintainable. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court noted that a lot of safeguards were provided to the child in conflict with law in the event the child is apprehended by the police and thus, a child in conflict with law cannot be arrested, the child in conflict with law need not apply for anticipatory bail.
Tripura High Court
1. Tripura High Court Asks State Government To Specify Its Policy On COVID Death Certification [Court on its own motion]
Taking into account the concern regarding certification of Covid death, a Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi Justice S. Talapatra asked the State Government to specify its policy regarding the indication of Covid death in the death certificates.
The posed the following 4 questions before the state government: (i) Whether the State policy mandates indication of Covid death in the death certificate itself whether the patient dies solely on account of Covid infection or coupled with any co-morbid condition? (ii) What is the position of death certificate issued in cases of deaths which are declared by the State administration as Covid deaths? (iii) Place on record if there is any Central or State Government notification or directives in this respect. (iv) What is the position of the State administration if a person may have recovered from Covid infection but dies shortly thereafter due to post-Covid complications whether coupled with or without comorbidity?
A Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi stayed investigation into an FIR registered against a leader of CPI(M) for his Facebook Posts calling locals to build resistance in case of an attack stating that if the police don't take any action in the matter of attack at a house, then the culprits must be taught a lesson collectively. It prima facie observed that it was extremely doubtful whether the posts could be brought within the fold of Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code.
The provision provides for punishment for promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.
Uttarakhand High Court
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma stayed the decision of the Uttarakhand State Cabinet to hold Chardham Yatra by taking a prima facie view that the decision is arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It directed the Government to ensure that the ceremonies, the pujas and archanas, carried out within the sanctum sanctorum of the Char Dham temples, are live-streamed for the benefit of the people at large.
"It is common knowledge that as people began to die, there were insufficient spaces in our crematorium and burial grounds. People could not perform a decent cremation, or decent burial to our lost brethren. The satellite images of May, 2020, and the International Media continued to show the endless number of pyres which were burning, and the pitiable condition of our people," the Court observed.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma directed that an amount of Rs. 23 Crores be immediately transferred to the State Transport Corporation for the purpose of payment of its Employees' salary for the month of February and March this year.
The development came after the Court was informed by the State Chief Secretary that despite a request made to the Chief Minister Tirath Singh Rawat for convening a Cabinet Meeting on an urgent basis, he had declined to do so. The Court had on the previous date of hearing, requested the Chief Minister to convene an urgent meeting for ensuring that arrears of salaries are paid to the employees of State Transport Corporation which is unpaid from the last five months.