High Courts Weekly Round Up

• Held that a Government servant is not entitled to full pension/death cum-retirement gratuity on/or during pending disciplinary/judicial proceedings against the government servant.
• Acquitted a couple in a murder case, one of whom was sentenced to death by the Trial Court. The High court observed that the involvement of the couple in the case appears to be doubtful and he is entitled for benefit of doubt and the possibility of the incident having being taken place in some other manner by more persons cannot be completely ruled out.
• Held that forcible sex, unnatural or natural, is an illegal intrusion in the privacy of the wife and amounts to cruelty against her. The division bench comprising of Justice Shashi Kant Gupta and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava upheld a district court order allowing the divorce plea filed by a wife.

Bombay High Court

• Granted relief to GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd, which owns the Sensodyne toothpaste brand, and allowed the company to release its stock in the market after its sale was put on hold last year by the State Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
• On the day of the counting of votes in the Lok Sabha elections of 2019, dismissed a petition filed by the Nagpur Shahar Congress Committee and Congress party's candidate from Nagpur, Nana Patole seeking directions to the Returning Officer (RO) to allow the candidate himself or his agent on the table of the Assistant Returning Officers (ARO).
• Held that a Government servant is not entitled to full pension/death cum-retirement gratuity on/or during pending disciplinary/judicial proceedings against the government servant.

Calcutta High Court

• Terming the police action against lawyers in Howrah Court premises "unprecedented, crude and barbaric", the High Court appointed former HC judge Justice K J Sengupta as one-man commission to enquire into incident. The order was passed by a bench of Justices Biswanath Somadder and Arindam Mukherjee in the suo moto proceedings initiated by the High Court in the wake of untoward incidents which occurred in the premises of the Howrah District Sadar Court complex on 24th April, 2019, when police personnel allegedly entered into court premises and assaulted lawyers.

Chhattisgarh High Court

• Held in Madan Tiwari v. Yashwant Kumar Sahu & Anr that dishonour of cheque issued for discharge of later liability is clearly covered by the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

Delhi High Court

• Vacated its order that stayed the appointment of Dr. Rajiv Mani, Joint Secretary & Legal Advisor, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice as the custodian of the undertakings of the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution.
• Sought JNU's response on a plea by several women students seeking early hearing on a contempt petition filed against the varsity and a professor who is accused in a sexual harassment case.
• Held in Vikas Bhutani v. State & Anr that maintenance awarded to a wife is not a bounty and it is awarded to her for her survival. Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was considering the question whether maintenance should be awarded from the date of the application or that of the order.
• Issued notice to the Election Commission of India in a petition seeking banning of political parties with religious, ethnic, linguistic or casteist connotations.
• Ordered compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs each to the legal heirs of two doctors and a nurse who were killed in an air ambulance crash in 2011.
• Directed the police to consider allowing lodging of FIRs through SMS, email and WhatsApp in case of missing persons to prevent loss of time and ensure speedy investigation.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

• Quashed the FIR lodged against Actor Jeetendra on the complaint by his cousin alleging sexual harassment by him in the year 1971.

Kerala High Court

• Considered for admission a public interest litigation for taking action against actor Mohanlal in a case relating to possession of ivory tusks.
• Observed that a Magistrate cannot invoke Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code to stop proceedings merely because the accused had absconded or that despite the initiation of coercive proceedings, his presence could not be secured.
• Observed that though the photographs may reflect that the couple were in a happy mood, but it does not mean that the couple was leading a happy married life.
• Quashed criminal proceedings against a rape accused who married the victim.

Madras High Court

• Rapped actor-politician Kamal Haasan for his Hindu extremist remark on Monday, observing that identifying a criminal with a religion, caste or race would definitely sow the seeds of hatred among people.
• Madurai Bench of the High Court directed for allotment of the medical seat to petitioner, who is physically challenged and has a benchmark disability of visual impairment. Petitioner namely J. Vibin had qualified National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) in disability quota.
• Held in Thirumoorthy& others v. State that that for taking cognizance of the offences under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, the public servant should lodge a complaint in writing and other than that no Court has power to take cognizance.
• Sided with the reasoning of single judge bench of Justice S. M. Subramaniam, which had dismissed writ petitions filed by Tamil Nadu Elementary School Teachers Federation challenging the order passed by the Director of Elementary Education deploying Secondary Grade Teachers in the Elementary Education to the post of Nursery / Montessori Teachers in Anganwadi Centre.
• In its order granting anticipatory bail to actor cum politician Kamal Hassan, the High Court cautioned against identifying a criminal with his/her religion, race, place of birth, residence and language.

Meghalaya High Court

The controversial judgment passed by the single bench of Justice S R Sen of Meghalaya High Court observing that India ought to have been declared a "Hindu Rashtra", was set aside by the Division Bench in appeal. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammed Yakoob Mir and Justice H S Thangkhiew observed that the judgment was "legally flawed and inconsistent with constitutional principles".

Patna High Court

• A Full Bench of the High Court declined to adjudicate on the validity of Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act 2016, which bars application for anticipatory bail for offences under the Act

Uttarakhand High Court

• A Full Bench of the High Court held that sports category reservation is traceable to Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that Article 16(4) of the Constitution is not exhaustive of all forms of reservation.
• Observed that the persistent efforts of a wife to compel her husband to get separated from his mother constitute an act of cruelty. The division bench comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice R.C. Khulbe allowed the appeal of a husband who had sought divorce on the ground of cruelty by wife.