High Courts Weekly Round Up

• Issued a notice to and served summons on former Union Finance Minister, P. Chidambaram, National Spot Exchange Ltd. (NSEL), Secretary of Department of Industrial Policy and Promote Internal Trade, Ramesh Abhishek and Secretary of Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, K. P. Krishnan, (Defendants) in a suit claiming damages and compensation worth Rs. 10,000 crores.
• Held that those candidates who obtain a graduation degree through an open university and have not qualified their 10+2 Higher Secondary Examinations, are still eligible for admission in the three-year LLB course.
• Dismissed an appeal filed by a witness in the alleged fake encounter case of Tulsiram Prajapati, Sohrabuddin Shaikh and murder of his wife Kausar Bi. The said witness challenged the judgement of Additional Sessions Judge SJ Sharma acquitting 22 accused in the case.
• Held that no slaughter of sheep and goat can be permitted within residential individual flats during the upcoming Bakr-Eid festival.Division bench of Justice SC Dharmadhikari and Justice GS Patel directed the MCGM to be strict and stringent in maintaining public safety and hygiene. Court also asked the civic body to be prompt in taking action against any violations.
• Directing the employer to pay gratuity to an employee, the High Court reiterated that gratuity of an employee cannot be forfeited under Section 4(6)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the Act), unless his services were terminated.
• Granted conditional bail to all three doctors accused of abetting the suicide of Dr.Payal Tadavi by humiliating her and passing disparaging remarks about her caste.
• Questioned the Centre for meddling in the affairs of Film and Television Institute of India, Pune, by suspending a faculty member for an anti-government post on Facebook. The division bench of Justices SC Dharmadhikari and GS Patel was hearing a writ petition filed by Indranil Bhattacharya, faculty member at FTII who sought quashing of a suspension order dated July 19, 2019.
• Lawyer and civil rights activist Sudha Bharadwaj has been granted temporary bail by the High Court to attend her father's post-funeral rituals and rites at Bangalore for a couple of days. Bharadwaj has been in Pune's Yerwada Central Jail since last October in relation to allegations for inciting the caste-based violence that took place at Bhima Koregaon on January 1, 2018.
• Held that interest awarded on compensation in motor accident cases is not 'income' and therefore not liable to be taxed under the Income Tax Act 1961.

Calcutta High Court

• Dismissing an anticipatory bail moved by a brothel owner, the High Court reiterated that sex workers exploited for commercial sex are victims and they should not be arrested in course of investigation under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (the Act) unless materials on record suggest that they were involved as co-conspirators in the crime.

Delhi High Court

• Refused to revoke the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal continuing the suspension of a senior government officer on the grounds of pending investigation against him for serious crimes. The court noted that by virtue of his position, if allowed reinstatement, he would be in a position to influence the witnesses.
• Directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police to install CCTV cameras at Aman Vihar Police Station in Delhi. The Division Bench of Justice DN Patel and Justice Hari Shankar also have orders to Delhi Government to monitor the task of putting up street lights in the aforementioned area.
• Held that submitting the investigation report under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory even when a complaint has been filed under Official Secrets Act. The Single Bench of Justice RK Gauba also opined that the Magistrate is not compulsorily required to conduct an inquiry before committing the case to the court of Sessions.
• Directed Jawaharlal Nehru University to admit a visually impaired candidate to its M. Phil. programme despite the contentions of the university that the candidate had not completed requisite credit score in his M. A. programme and thus did not meet the eligibility criteria for admission.
• Issued directions to the central government to look into the matter of large scale financial irregularities that are being committed in Lalit Kala Academy.

Jharkhand High Court

· Refused to quash a First Information Report registered against four members of tribal community for allegedly posting seditious posts in Facebook supporting 'Pathalgadi' movement of Munda tribal community. The single bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhay observed that prima facie case of sedition and waging war against India was made out against the four petitioners - J Vikash Kora, Dharm Kishor Kullu, Emil Walter Kandulna and Ghanshyam Biruly.

Karnataka High Court

· Refused to regulate online content being aired on internet platforms like YouTube, Amazon Prime, Netflix, under the Cinematography Act.A division bench of Chief Abhay Oka and Justice Mohammad Nawaz rejected the petition filed by a senior citizen, Padmanabh Shankar.

Kerala High Court

• Held that when there is an alteration in the cheque with regard to the name of the payee, the burden is upon the complainant to prove that such alteration was made by the accused himself or that it was made with the consent of the accused.
• Issued significant directions to ensure that legible typewritten copy of the First Information Statement is also immediately maintained after the recording of the FIS in the Police Station concerned.

Patna High Court

• Dismissed a writ petition challenging the invalidation of OMR answer sheets on the account of use of whitener on them in the Bihar Elementary Teachers Eligibility Test, 2017.

Rajasthan High Court

• Held a hearing through video conferencing. The Bench comprised by Chief Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Vineet Kumar Mathur was seated in the principal bench at Jodhpur while the parties and their representatives were present in a court room at the Jaipur Bench of the high court.

Uttarakhand High Court

· Observed that non-filing of an affidavit in support of application filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code is curable defect. In this case [Commercial Toyota vs. State of Uttarakhand], the Magistrate, relying on the Apex Court judgment in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of UP., rejected an application under Section 156(3), on the ground that it was not accompanied with an affidavit. The Revisional Court remanded the matter to the Magistrate and directed him to consider the application de-novo.