Allahabad High Court 1. Delay- "Rip Van Winkles Have a Place in Literature, But Not in Law": Allahabad High Court [Ganga Sahay & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.] A Single Bench comprising of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed that the rule of delay and laches, as a policy of litigative repose, creates certainty in legal relations and curtails fruitless...
Allahabad High Court
1. Delay- "Rip Van Winkles Have a Place in Literature, But Not in Law": Allahabad High Court [Ganga Sahay & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.]
A Single Bench comprising of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed that the rule of delay and laches, as a policy of litigative repose, creates certainty in legal relations and curtails fruitless litigation thereby ensuring that the administration of justice is not clogged by pointless litigation.
The observation was made while dismissing a writ petition filed after a delay of more than 4 years, by observing it to be barred by the rule of delay and laches, without there being any satisfactory explanation as to the delay.
Whereas the Uttar Pradesh Government is yet to respond to a query put by Allahabad High Court regarding regulation of school fees during suspension of physical classes, yet another PIL has been filed challenging exorbitant and arbitrary levy of fees by private schools in the State.
The plea has been filed by members of the Parents Association in Moradabad, alleging that the parents and the children are constantly being harassed by private schools via SMS and Whatsapp messages, to pay arbitrary and exorbitant school fees for the session of 2020-2021, even for the duration the schools were closed and no services were provided, during the nationwide lockdowns.
Bombay High Court
1. DRT Cannot Adjudicate Civil Rights Claimed Vis-a-Vis Security Interest Which Are Outside Sec 13/17 SARFAESI : Bombay High Court [Bank of Baroda v. Gopal Shriram Panda & Anr.]
A division bench comprising Justices SB Shurke and Avinash G Gharote resolved the issue of the jurisdiction of the civil courts vis-a-vis the Debts Recovery Tribunal with respect to the security interest under the SARFAESI Act.
It held that the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, is not absolute, but is restricted to examination by the DRT of the actions of the secured creditor under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and the rights available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. DRT cannot embark on an adjudication of the civil rights claimed vis-a-vis the security interest, such as right of partition, specific performance, reliefs under Sections 31 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act, pre-emption, redemption, declaration in respect of a property.
Access full report to read a list of findings
A Division Bench headed by Justice SS Shinde observed that prima facie the petition filed by practising advocate Dr Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil seeking a CBI inquiry into allegations of corruption against State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh and others are done for "cheap publicity."
The bench came down heavily on Patil the moment the hearing began, citing a shoddily drafted petition. "You say you are a doctorate in criminology but please show us a single paragraph drafted by you. Your entire petition is based on extracting paragraphs from a letter," the bench observed. It added that the contents of Patil's petition were primarily based on the letter former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh has written to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra Uddhav Thackeray, making serious allegations of corruption against the State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh.
3. Maharashtra Government Notifies Appellate Authorities Under POSH Act After Filing Of Art. 226 Petition Before Bombay High Court [Dasharath Kallappa Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]
Over seven years after coming into force of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act and Rules in 2013, the Maharashtra Government yesterday issued a notification appointing the Appellate Authority under the Act. The Industries, Energy and Labour Department of the State appointed "Industrial Courts", constituted under section 10 of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1947, as the Appellate Authority under the POSH Act in respect of Industrial Establishments that fall under State jurisdiction.
The development comes in response to a writ petition filed by a Pune based educationist, accused of sexually harassing an employee at the school where he is a member of the Managing Committee. Advocate Dr. Chinmay Bhosale appearing for the Petitioner informed the High Court that the Petitioner was held guilty of the alleged misdeeds by a Local Complaints Committee, Pune and the former wished to challenge the conviction order. However, in the absence of an appropriate notified appellate authority under section 2(a) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 [as per the provisions of Rule 11 of the POSH Rules] the Petitioner is left devoid of an appropriate forum to prefer an appeal.
Other developments:
- "No Reason To Detain Adult Girl As She Left With Lover Voluntarily": Bombay HC Warns Father Of Action If He Harms Daughter, Her Lover
- Two Lawyers Move Bombay High Court Seeking Policy For Door To Door Covid Vaccination For Senior Citizens, Specially Abled and Medically Challenged Citizens
Calcutta High Court
1. Calcutta High Court Registers Suo Moto Case To Monitor Mentally Ill Prisoners In Terms Of Sheela Barse Case [In Re: Mental Health and Mental Health Care and allied matters concerning convicts/undertrials detained in various correctional homes in West Bengal and the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands in terms of Supreme Court directions]
The Calcutta High Court registered a suo moto case to monitor the mental health and other allied matters of various convicts and undertrial prisoners lodged in various correctional homes in West Bengal and the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The case is registered on the basis of administrative directions issued by Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, in terms of the Supreme Court's directions in Sheela Barse v. Union of India & Ors.
In this case, the Supreme Court was dealing with a letter petition highlighting the deplorable manner in which mentally ill women and children were kept in Presidency Jail at Calcutta.
After passing several directions in the case to ameliorate the situation, the Supreme Court had asked all the High Courts to monitor and ensure proper implementation of its orders in their respective States. The Chief Justice of each High Court was directed to designate a Judge for this purpose, who would be responsible to ensure the wellbeing of such detenus.
The High Courts were also granted liberty to pass such further orders as may be necessary to protect and improve the conditions of detention centres.
Chhattisgarh High Court
1. Phone Tapping Violates Article 21 Unless Permitted By Procedure Established By Law: Chhattisgarh High Court [Toman Lal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.]
Setting aside a dismissal order passed against a constable and a head constable who allegedly wanted to favour the criminal and the phone conversation to that effect was recorded, a Bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri observed that telephone tapping would infract Article 21 of the constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law.
The Court categorically observed that in PUCL v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 568, the Supreme Court had issued certain directions/ guidelines for telephone tapping as otherwise, it had held that it would offend Articles 19(1)(a) & 21 of the Constitution of India.
Delhi High Court
1. 'Proclaimed Offender' Declaration Under Section 82(4) CrPC Cannot Be Made Against Person Accused Of Sections 406, 420 IPC : Delhi High Court [Arun Kumar Parihar v. State (Govt NCTD)]
A Single bench of Justice Anu Malhotra held that a person accused of offences under Section 406(criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) under IPC cannot be declared as a 'proclaimed offender' under Section 82(4) of CrPC. The Court held that such a declaration can be made only against persons accused of the offences specified under Section 82(4), which are Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of IPC.
2. POCSO- FIR Cannot Be Quashed On The Ground That Victim Decided To Compromise Matter After Attaining Majority: Delhi High Court [Dinesh Sharma & Ors. v. State & Anr.]
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that an FIR filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 cannot be quashed on the ground that the victim after attaining majority decided to compromise the matter with the accused.
It observed, "Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash an offence under POCSO Act would go against the intention of the legislature which has brought out the special enactment to protect the interests of children. The FIR cannot be quashed on the ground that the victim after attaining majority has decided to compromise the matter with the accused."
3. Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report In Plea Seeking Constitution of SIT To Investigate Into Alleged Digital Fraud And Click Fraud Scam By Facebook [Vas Data Services Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice Anu Malhotra sought Delhi Police Cyber Cell's status report in a plea pertaining to alleged click fraud and other digital criminal frauds hatched by Facebook thereby seeking directions on Union of India, Delhi Police and Cyber Crime Cell to jointly constitute a Special Investigation Unit (SIT) for investigating into the complaint made by the petitioner company.
The petition also alleges that this might be the "biggest click fraud scam of India" having serious impact on economy thus requiring a fair and speedy investigation.
4. Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Police For Report On Alleged Illegal Detaining And Beating Of Man In Matrimonial Dispute Matter [Umair Siddiqui v. State of NCT of Delhi]
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anu Malhotra issued notice on a petition alleging illegal detaining and beating of a man involved in a matrimonial dispute by the Delhi Police and directed the police to file a status report on the incident.
The alleged incident took place at the Turkman Gate Police Post at New Delhi, and the petitioner, one Umair Siddiqui, has stated that the entire incident would have been the recorded and stored in the two CCTV cameras installed at the Turkman Gate Police Post. He submitted that the police had "illegally detained the petitioner and others and mercilessly beaten them."
Other developments:
Gujarat High Court
1. 'Such Tactics Need To Be Nipped In The Bud': Gujarat HC Criticizes Police For Misusing PASA Act To Settle Personal Disputes Between Parties [Rohitbhai Laxmanbhai Luni v. Commissioner Of Police, Surat & Ors.]
While dealing with an application filed by the Petitioner apprehending his detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985, in connection to the offence of kidnapping/ extortion, a Single Bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay took note of the rampant misuse of the PASA Act by the Police authorities to settle scores between private parties.
"This is one of such examples, where it is the police authorities who take upon such responsibility to settle the financial transaction / disputes between the parties, with the aid / threat of PASA," the Bench observed. It added, "The filing of such FIR and the readiness of the police to register the FIR itself is an aspect, which need not be gone into in this case, however suffice it to hold that it is more an arm- twisting by the complainant with the aid of local police authorities. Such tactics need to be nipped in the bud."
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
1. Jammu & Kashmir High Court Dismisses Mehbooba Mufti's Plea For Issuance Of Passport [Mehbooba Mufti v. Union of India & Ors.]
A Bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey dismissed former Chief Minister of J&K & Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti's plea seeking issuance of passport to her.
It observed that the Court's scope in the matter of grant or otherwise of passport (in favour of an individual) is very limited. "The Court could only direct the concerned authorities to expeditiously consider the case of an individual in the light of the mandate of the scheme of law governing the subject," the order stated.
Karnataka High Court
1. Give Wide Publicity To Crop Insurance Scheme Under PMFBY For Farmers' Benefit : Karnataka High Court
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the State Government to give wide publicity to the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) scheme for the benefit of farmers.
It said "Clause no 26 of the scheme itself mentions about giving adequate publicity and awareness. We direct the state government to give wide publicity to crop insurance scheme and to the fact that any farmer if is deprived of the said scheme he has the right to approach the committee. Steps shall be taken to give wide publicity in terms of clause 26, about the availability of crop insurance scheme."
A division bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice JM Khazi directed the state government to file by April 16, a status report with regard to the implementation of Shuchi scheme and to state as to when the administrative approvals for procurement of sanitary napkins/pads, as proposed for the year 2021-22, shall be secured.
Under the scheme sanitary napkins are distributed to adolescent girls studying in schools and staying in hostels between the age group of 10 to 19 years. A total of 17,06,933 adolescent girls are beneficiaries of the scheme in the state. However, during years 2019-20, 20-21, procurement of sanitary napkins to be distributed to adolescent girls was not made on account of financial constraint.
In a setback to Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa, the High Court vacated the stay granted on investigation and ordered a thorough probe to be conducted in the First Information Report in which he is accused of trying to woo JD(S) MLA Naganagouda Kandkur's son Sharanagouda with promise of money and Ministry in 2019 [Operation Kamala Case]
"As the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR and the contents of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences, the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to quash the above complaint and the FIR registered against the petitioners. Resultantly, petitioners being not entitled for the main relief claimed in the petitions, the question of continuing the interim order may not arise at all," Justice John Michael Cunha said in his order.
The Father of the victim in the alleged rape case against former minister Ramesh Jarkiholi, has approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the statement recorded by his daughter under section 164 of CrPC before the magistrate.
The petitioner, who is a retired army personnel, has claimed that the facts and circumstances of the case would make it clear that the petitioner, his family and his daughter are the victims of politics. The right to life includes the right to reputation and on account of the victimisation of the daughter of the petitioner, the right to reputation of the entire family is violated.
Further it is said that the respondents by their acts of commission and omission are directly responsible for the violation of the fundamental right guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution, while facilitating recording of statements of his daughter under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
Related News: Jarkiholi Sex CD Case : Victim Writes To Karnataka HC Chief Justice Seeking Protection, Court Monitored Probe
Other developments:
- Decide On Re-Starting Mid-Day Meals For Eligible Students : Karnataka High Court To State
- Decide On Representation To Ban Online Gambling : Karnataka High Court To State
- No Restrictions On Travel From Kerala; All Border Points To Remain Open, Karnataka Govt Assures High Court
Kerala High Court
1. Kerala High Court Stays Election Commission Order Which Halted Special Rice Distribution Through Ration Kits [State of Kerala v. ECI & Anr.]
A Single Bench of Justice PV Asha stayed the direction issued by the State Election Commission which stopped special distribution of rice to non-priority ration card holders (blue and white cards).
The Court noted that the decision regarding the special distribution was taken on February 4 before the election notification, and that auctions for the rice from Food Corporation of India have already been carried out for Rs 83.34 crores. Since the payments have to be made before March 30, 2021, it is not practical for the State Government to approach the Election Commission with a fresh proposal seeking sanction, the HC said in the interim order.
2. ED Officer's Writ Filed With Ulterior Motives, Hidden Agenda: Kerala Govt Tells High Court
The Kerala Government has filed its counter affidavit against the writ petition filed by P Radhakrishnan, Deputy Director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the investigation instituted by the Kerala Crime Branch into allegations of Swapna Suresh being forced into implicating the Chief Minister and others in the smuggling case.
In its counter, the Kerala Government charges the ED that it had ulterior motives in filing the writ petition and publishing statements made by the various accused during the course of its investigation into the gold smuggling scam and its various manifestations.
3. Kerala High Court Directs Police To Publish Details Of Officers Found Guilty Of Corruption Or Human Rights Violations [State Public Information Officer And Deputy Superintendent Of Police v. State Information Commission & Anr.]
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan directed the Kerala Police to publish in its official website the details of police officers who have been found guilty of corruption or human rights violations. This direction has to be complied within 30 days from March 20.
The High Court ruled that the Police cannot shield the names of officers who have been found guilty or dismissed from service on charges of corruption or human rights violations. In this regard it referred to Section 4 of the RTI Act that lists information that a public authority is mandated to publish under provisions of the Act.
4. Voters Should Be Able To See Name, Photograph And Symbol of Candidates With Sufficient Clarity, Essential For Free And Fair Election: Kerala High Court [Twenty20 Party v. ECI & Ors.]
While disposing a petition relating to the visibility of a party's symbol on Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), a Bench of Justice N Nagaresh emphasized upon the importance of being able to see the name, photograph, and symbol with clarity. It remarked, "It is important and essential that citizens, who are to caste (cast) vote, are able to see the name, photograph and symbol of all candidates with sufficient clarity. This is essential for any free and fair election."
The Court was hearing a petition by Twenty20, a registered unrecognised political party. The party claimed that the name, photograph, and symbol of its candidates in the Kothamangalam, Thrikkakkara and Vypin Assembly Constituencies were not clear and visible in the EVMs slated to be used during the Kerala Legislative Assembly polls on April 6, 2021.
5. Deliberate Scripting Of Events: Kerala High Court Acquits Accused In Nilambur Congress Party Officer Murder [Shamsudheen @ Bapputty v. State Of Kerala]
A division bench comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and MR Anitha acquitted the accused in Nilambur Congress Office Murder case. The lingering doubts that pervades every aspect of the evidence led, persuades us to give the accused the benefit of doubt and acquit them of the charges levelled against them, the Bench observed.
The deceased, who was working as a Sweeper, was allegedly murdered inside the Congress block committee office at Nilambur in Malappuram on February 5 in 2014. One of the accused was the Personal Assistant of a Minister and the Secretary of the Office of the Local Committee of the then ruling party. The Sessions Court convicted both the accused under Sections 302, 376(1), 201, 404 and 342.
Other developments:
- Kerala Assembly Elections : High Court Expresses Satisfaction With EC's Measures To Preserve Postal Ballots
- Illegal Extraction Of Mines & Minerals Amounts To Theft Under Section 379 IPC: Kerala High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
1. MP High Court Directs 'Mental Check-Up' Of Advocate Who Allegedly Sent Objectionable Birthday Messages To Lady Judge [Vijaysingh Yadav v. State Of Madhya Pradesh]
A Single Bench of Justice Rohit Arya directed that a mental check-up of a lawyer be done, who allegedly sent objectionable birthday greetings to a Lady Judge on her official mail ID. It noted that the primary allegation against the Advocate was that he indulged in highly objectionable unethical activity "unbecoming of an advocate while causing embarrassment to a lady judge" through WhatsApp and on social media portals.
"It appears expedient to direct for his mental checkup through a qualified Doctor or a psychiatrist and submit report before this Court," the Court remarked.
2. Granting Bail May Reinforce The Notion That Pre-Natal Diagnostic Regulation Act Is Only A 'Paper Tiger': MP HC Denies Bail To Woman Accused Of Female Foeticide [Rajni Lodhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh]
Calling for strict implementation of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994, a Single Bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia denied bail to a woman accused of female foeticide.
It observed, "we find it imperative that no leniency should be granted at this stage as the same may reinforce the notion that the PC&PNDT Act is only a paper tiger and that clinics and laboratories can carry out sex‐ determination and feticide with impunity. A strict approach has to be adopted if we are to eliminate the scourge of female feticide and iniquity towards girl children from our society."
Madras High Court
A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy refused to urgently hear DMK's plea challenging the Election Commission's order barring party's deputy general secretary A Raja from campaigning for 48 hours. The Election Commission had also delisted Raja from the DMK star campaigner list.
It was submitted before the Court by DMK's counsel, Senior Advocate R Shanmugasundaram that a writ petition in connection with the matter would be filed before the end of the day and further requested the court to take up the plea for hearing on Friday as a special case. However, the Bench led by the Chief Justice refused to hear the matter on an urgent basis.
Hearing a plea filed in connection with fixation of court-fees for writ petitions and writ appeals, a bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that it is a matter of policy and the Court need not interfere in such decisions. It however, asked the State that it may reconsider as to whether the quantum of increase in respect of both writ petitions and writ appeals should be so much and in a one-go.
3. Political Leaders Should Show Their Statesmanship & Healthy Politics Rather Than Accusing Others Publicly: Madras High Court [TTV Dhinakaran v. City Public Prosecutor, High Court Campus, Chennai]
While quashing criminal proceedings in a case against MLA & General Secretary of Amma Makkal Munnettra Kazhagam party, for the alleged offence under Section 499 of IPC, a Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar observed that political party leaders should restrain themselves from making serious allegations or criticism against the constitutional functionaries.
"Since leaders of political parties have huge followers and the same will have a serious impact on the followers also and the followers also blindly follow the path of their leaders", added the Court.
4. Improve Conditions Of Fishermen, Educate Them In Respect Of Hygiene, Presentation & Organise The Fishing Sector: Madras High Court [Fishermen Care Registered Association v. Union of India & Ors.]
Hearing two pleas instituted by fishermen associations, a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy asked the Centre and the State to put their best foot forward for improving the conditions of the fishermen across the State of Tamil Nadu. The Bench noted that it is a completely unorganised sector and most of the fishermen are not even registered.
It also observed that the primary task is to organise an unorganised sector, where most persons maybe illiterate and at the lowest rungs of the social order. The Court further stressed that the fishermen should be educated in respect of hygiene and presentation so that in addition to bettering their lives, the beaches become less of an eyesore than they are now.
5. Same-Sex Relationships- "I Am Trying To Break My Own Preconceived Notions": Madras High Court Judge
Dealing with a protection plea filed by a same-sex couple, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said that he himself is trying to break his own preconceived notions about the issue and is in the process of evolving.
When the Court interacted with the parents of the respective Petitioners, expressed their shock and they stated that weren't able to immediately accept the relationship between the Petitioners. They were more concerned about the security of the Petitioners and were worried that the Petitioners should not get exploited. In this backdrop, the Court thought it fit to refer the Petitioners and their respective parents to a counsellor who specializes in working with LGBTQI+ individuals.
Hearing a plea filed in connection with the alleged embezzlement of funds by the trustees of Franklin Templeton Asset Management India Pvt. Ltd., a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy raised concerns regarding officials' ability and their technical expertise to conduct the investigation into the matter.
It observed that Economic Offences Wing in the state police needs to be beefed up with appropriate personnel.
7. Madras High Court Disposes DMK's Plea Seeking CCTV Coverage Of Voting; Appreciates ECI For Clearing All Apprehensions [Dravida Munnetara Kazhagam v. Election Commission of India & Anr.]
In response to a petition filed by Dravida Munnetara Kazhagam party apprehending tampering of EVMs and unfair counting, the Election Commission of India gave an account of the measures being taken by it to ensure that the upcoming by-elections in Tamilnadu are free and fair.
The Commission informed a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy that it has identified critical and vulnerable booths and that 100% web-casting of the entire activities on polling day shall be done thereof. With respect to a prayer for installation of jammers at the strong rooms where EVMs are stored, the Commission submitted that the EVMs cannot be tampered by any wi-fi or radio device.
Hearing a PIL alleging that the Puducherry unit of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has misused Aadhaar details of voters for election campaigning purposes, a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy remarked, "There appears to be a serious breach by the sixth respondent political party (BJP) in how it conducted its campaign in Puducherry for the forthcoming Assembly elections."
The Petitioner alleged that Puducherry unit of BJP had sent messages to the mobile numbers that were linked to the Aadhar and not on other telephones or mobile phones which were not linked to the Aadhar. To this, the Court responded, "Bulk SMS/messages/voice messages were sent on the electronic media by the political party, which amounted to resorting to campaign on the electronic media without obtaining the previous permission of the Election Commission in such regard."
Other developments:
- Madras High Court Restrains PIL Petitioner From Filing PIL For One Year
- 'How To Name It? Callousness? Apathy?': Madras High Court Repents 'Inadequate Bureaucratic Impulses' In Respecting Citizen's Right To Property
- Present Generation Taking Concept Of Marriage Very Lightly, They Apply For Divorce On Unimaginable Trivial Issues: Madras High Court
Orissa High Court
1. Issue Directions To Follow Uniform Font Size, Line Spacing In Preparing FIR, To Ensure Better Visibility & Readability: Orissa HC To DGP [Buni @ Tunirani Pradhan & Anr. v. State of Odisha]
In view of difficulties encountered by the prosecution, defence and the Court while perusing F.I.R., charge sheet and such other reports, a Bench of Justice SK Panigrahi directed the State DGP to issue directions to follow uniform font size, line spacing in preparing fir, other reports.
Calling it a 'serious issue', the Bench directed the DG Police, Odisha to inform all the Police Officers of all Police Stations to follow a uniform pattern of font size of 12 in Times New Roman while preparing charge sheet, F.I.R. or any reports with line spacing of 1.5.
A Single Bench of Justice SK Panigrahi observed that the law holding that having sexual intercourse on a false promise to marry amounts to rape "appears to be erroneous". However, the Court went ahead to observe that the plight of the victim and probability of the accused in tarnishing her image need to be looked which deciding the question of bail.
The Court also observed that there is a need for amendment in the legislation defining what constitutes sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on the pretext of false promise to marry.
3. "Petitioners Should Wait For A Response After Making Representation To Authorities Before Filing PILs": Orissa High Court [Madan Mohan Sahu v. Collector, Angul & Ors.]
Noting that in a large number of PIL matters, the petitioners are filing writ petitions soon after making a representation without waiting for a response, a Bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice BP Routray disposed of a Writ Petition asking the petitioner to at least give a two months' time to the Opposite Parties to take a decision on his representation.
The Court referred to Rule 8 of the Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 (2010 Rules), which states that before filing a PIL, the Petitioner must send a representation to the authorities concerned for taking remedial action, akin to what is postulated in Section 80 of CPC. Details of such representation and reply, if any, from the authority concerned must be filed with the petition. However, in urgent cases, petition can be filed straightway by giving prior notice of filing to the authorities.
Patna High Court
1. Patna High Court Seeks Implementation Of HIV Patients' Welfare Scheme In The State By April 5 [Council for Protection of Public Rights & Welfare v. Union of India & Ors.]
Concerned by non-implementation of Government schemes for welfare of HIV/ AIDS victims, a Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar came into action and sought response from the Bihar State AIDS Control Society (BSACS).
The Bench ordered the Project Director, BSACS, to file his personal affidavit, indicating the steps taken by the society for proper and complete interpretation of various Statute, Rules and Schemes, notified for the benefit of AIDS victims. The Court also sought a report on appointment of statutory authorities for the purpose and the funds allocated to them.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
1. Parallel Inquiry During Investigation/After Submission Of Final Report: P&H High Court Quashes Govt's Direction [Pankaj Kumar @ Panki v. State of Punjab & Anr.]
While declining the bail pleas of two accused in separate cases, a Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj ruled that holding of simultaneous inquiry, either during investigation or post submission of final report under Section 173 (2) Cr. P.C is incomprehensible under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It directed the police department of Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh not to hold a simultaneous inquiry in criminal matters and further quashed the instructions of the Director Bureau of Investigation of Punjab issued in 2017.
2. U-Turn By Prosecutrix Before Court Not Enough To Grant Bail To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Subhash Chander v. State of Haryana]
While hearing the bail plea of a rape accused, a Single Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that "U-turn" by the prosecutrix before the trial Court is not a ground to grant relief. It observed that merely because the prosecutrix has not supported the allegations in deposition before the Court, it is not enough to grant bail. The Bench further observed that it will be for the Police authorities to investigate the change in stance of the prosecutrix.
3. "Perversity Requiring Correction": P&H HC Sets Aside Trial Court's Order Denying Children Custody To Mother Relying On Infidelity Allegations [Megha Sood v. Amit Sood]
A Single Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal set aside a Trial Court's Order by which the custody of the children was denied to the Mother by relying on allegations of infidelity levelled against her. It observed that in view of Section 17 of the Guardian Act as well as Section 13 of the Minority Act, the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration to be kept in mind by the Court while appointing a guardian.
"Children are innocence personified. For their ideal development, it is essential that the period of innocence be cherished and protected. This, however, remains a pipe-dream where parents clash," the Bench remarked. It added, "The learned trial Court was correct in observing so while passing the impugned order but apparently it has still been influenced by the allegations made against the mother which is a perversity requiring correction."
Tripura High Court
1. Facebook Post Saying Call On Pro-CAA Number Would Lead To Caller's Data Being Hacked: Tripura High Court Quashes FIR Against Accused [Arindam Bhattacharjee v. State of Tripura]
A Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi quashed an FIR filed against man for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 153B & 505 of IPC who had allegedly posted on Facebook that if anybody calls on a particular mobile number, the caller's data saved in the mobile phone would be hacked. Significantly, the mobile number in question was being used by BJP inviting members of the public to give a missed call to show their support in favour of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA).
the Court noted that there was no iota of allegation as to which offence the petitioner in consort with anyone else, agreed to do or caused to be done and thus, in plain terms Section 120B of the IPC is wrongly applied. Regarding the application of Section 153B, the Court noted that the allegations against the petitioner were that he had wrongly represented to the members of the public that a caller of a particular number would be incurring the risk of his data being hacked.
2. Conviction Of Accused Only On The Basis Of Presumption Under POCSO Act Would Offend Art. 20(3), 21 Of The Constitution: Tripura High Court [Joubansen Tripura v. State of Tripura]
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Arindam Lodh held that the conviction of an accused only on the basis of presumption under sec. 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act would offend Art. 20(3) [No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself] and Art. 21 [Right to Life] of the Constitution of India. It noted that such presumption would be lead up to the prosecution commencing the trial with "an added advantage".
The Court also went ahead to observe that such convictions forming basis only on the basis of presumption was not the objective of the legislature in incorporating the said provisions under the Act and that the presumption of innocence is a human right and cannot per se be equated with the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Uttarakhand High Court
In view of the fact that a large population is about to visit the cities of Haridwar and Rishikesh for Kumbh Mela, a Bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma directed the State Government to increase the number of daily testing to at least 50,000 persons per day.
It further directed the State Government to publish the data on the internet with regard to the number of persons found to be COVID-19 positive, and with regard to any death caused by COVID-19.