High Courts Weekly Round Up

• Directed Agra University to pay the first year medical student Rs 1 lakh for not exercising care and vigilance in checking the answer sheet in semester examinations at the University.
• In a notable judgment, the High Court explained the reasons for exempting Duty Free Shops(DFS) in airports from Goods and Services Tax (GST). The Court was considering a PIL filed by one Atin Krishna, who contended that the exemption given to Duty Free Shops from GST was based on a misinterpretation of law.
• In a petition for setting aside a case of domestic violence and dowry harassment, the High Court directed the Police to produce 'King Sahab' who filed Affidavit in the case
• Held that the mere fact that in the dying declaration, a sort of oath has been administered to the deceased before recording the same, would not make the credibility of the dying declaration doubtful and would not nullify the same.

Bombay High Court

• Held that financial deprivation amounts to economic abuse under the Domestic Violence Act. Court held that if a widow in a joint family, who is entitled to financial resources, is deprived of them then it qualifies as economic abuse.
• Held that the mandatory timeline of 120 days for filing a written statement in a commercial suit would not apply to suits filed prior to the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act 2015. Justice SJ Kathawalla has held that a commercial court may hold case management hearings with regard to such suits that are also referred to as 'transferred' suits. Case management hearings are prescribed under the newly-introduced Order XV-A of the Civil Procedure Code.

Calcutta High Court

• Calcutta High Court's order came as a breather for ex-police chief Rajeev Kumar as court granted him one month's protection from arrest and subjection to coercive process with some conditions to be fulfilled.

Delhi High Court

• The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would include the right of young children to live with their mother and the right of a husband to consortium with his wife, held the High Court while quashing 'Leave India Notice' served on a Pakistan citizen, who is the wife of an Indian citizen and a mother of two kids.
• Issued notice on a PIL seeking a direction to Centre to draft a Uniform Civil Code in the spirit of Article 14, 15 & 44 of the Constitution A Bench headed by Chief Justice Rajendra Menon also issued notice to Law Commission of India on the petition filed by BJP Leader Ashwini Upadhyay.
• Held in Jagdish Kapila v. Raj Kumar & Anr. that when there is no material to show that the possession was parted by the petitioner or was handed over to the complainant, no charge under section 447 of the Indian Penal Code can be framed against the petitioner.
• Dismissed a PIL seeking direction to Election Commission to investigate into the affidavit filed by the Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, member of parliament and businessman.
• Held that the issue of paternity cannot be determined in a habeas corpus proceeding. The Court was dealing with a habeas corpus petition filed by a couple claiming that a child in the custody of Bal Sahyog - a child care NGO- was their child. They claimed that the child bore resemblance to their lost child and that the age of the child was about the same as it would have been of their lost son.
• Directed the Customs authorities to pay Rs. 93,34,783 to a Kenyan national, whose gold was confiscated and sold off by it without issuing show-cause notice. The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justices S Muralidhar and I S Mehta on a plea by Zhinet Banu Nazir Dadany, a Kenyan woman, from who gold weighing 3732.48 grams was seized by Customs officers at the New Delhi airport on January 5, 2015.
• Observing that it needed scientific consideration, the High Court issued notices to the Centre and the National Commission for Women seeking their response to a PIL calling for extension of time limit for terminating the pregnancy on a women's own will to 24 or 26 weeks from the present 12 weeks.
• Sought Robert Vadra's response on an Enforcement Directorate plea seeking cancellation of his anticipatory bail in a money-laundering case. Justice Chander Shekhar issued a notice to Vadra on ED's petition challenging trial court's April 1 order, which granted him anticipatory bail.
• Sought the response of the Centre and the Delhi government on a plea seeking effective steps for security and welfare measures, including medical insurance, for advocates. A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Brijesh Sethi issued notice to the central and state governments on the PIL and listed the matter for further hearing on August 7.
• Issued notice in a PIL seeking "equal opportunity to enter workforce" and regularization of "exorbitant fee" and GST charged for applying for various entrance examination and posts advertised by State and its agencies.
• Granted four more months to the CBI to complete its probe in a bribery case involving the agency's former special director Rakesh Asthana. Justice Mukta Gupta allowed the CBI's plea seeking extension of time to complete its investigation in the case lodged against Asthana, DSP Devender Kumar and middleman Manoj Prasad.
• Held that an architect of a building, in the capacity of an author of an artistic work of architecture, does not have the right to restrain the demolition of a building on the ground that it was designed as per his work. The judgment was delivered by Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw.
• Issued notice to the Delhi government and the Director General (Prisons) on a PIL demanding that inmates in Delhi prisons be allowed conjugal visits, which is their fundamental as well as human right.
• Issued notices to Centre, Delhi Government and Delhi Development Authority in a PIL filed for protection of Jahanpanah City Forest from encroachment and deforestation.
• Dismissed a petition seeking to quash the Rules 22(3) and 22(4) of The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2016 for being ultra-vires the parent Act of 2007 and the Constitution.

Gauhati High Court

• Dismissed a bail application filed by a person accused of posting an obscene photo of the Prime Minister of India in his Facebook wall.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

• Held in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Happy that judgment passed by a single member of the Juvenile Justice Board is void ab initio as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

Kerala High Court

• In a relief for Arnab Goswami, Chief Editor of Republic TV, the High Court stayed the proceedings against him in a criminal defamation case filed in the Judicial Magistrate's Court Kannur for allegedly humiliating Keralites during a channel discussion.
• Held that If the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
• Refused to quash the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an Income Tax officer for allegedly leaking the identity of an informant to an assessee. The Division Bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and V G Arun dismissed the original petition filed by Shantam Bose, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), challenging the 2015 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal declining to interfere with the proceedings.
• Observed that the omission or error in the notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to mention the nature of the debt or liability, does not render it invalid. Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi also observed that there is no statutory requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability.

Madras High Court

• In recognition of the conjugal rights of prisoners, the High Court held that the conversations between a prisoner and spouse should be unmonitored. The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court read down Rule 531(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, which stated that every interview with a convicted prisoner should take place in the presence of an experienced prison officer.
• Ruled in Marimuthu v. Government of Tamil Nadu that medical reimbursement claimed by the employees and pensioners or their family members is not the bonus or bounty. It noted that since it has been made compulsory that, every employee or pensioner of the State Government must join in the Health Insurance Scheme by paying a continuous contribution towards premium every month, the State Government cannot easily abdicate their duty and responsibility by merely rejecting the case of the medical reimbursement claim on technical grounds.

Rajasthan High Court

• Held that the courts have to be very careful and sensitive to the circumstances before passing orders for getting the DNA test conducted for establishment of paternity in a case. The court said that such a prayer ought not to be granted by the courts without considering all circumstances and looking at it from every angle as the way it could affect the lives of individuals cannot be denied.
• Ordered the cancellation of all light motor vehicle driving licenses issued to illiterate persons. Curiously, the order has been passed in a writ petition filed by a person seeking license to drive transport vehicle on the ground that he had been issued license to drive light motor vehicle thirteen years ago.
• Terming it as glaring example of the "hire & fire" policy and depriving teachers from the service benefits, the High Court impressed upon the need to do away with total Adhocism or contractual appointment amongst teachers. It said that nebulous and unsatisfactory conditions of service of the teaching community create a sense of insecurity which may ultimately result in making education set up ineffective and inefficient