High Courts Weekly Round-Up

• The Lucknow Bench of the High Court directed the Centre and the UP State government to decide whether or not the existing Shia and Sunni Wakf Boards in UP should be set aside to establish a Single Wakf Board instead.
• In the backdrop of Delhi-NCR gasping for fresh air due to severe pollution, the High Court pulled up Uttar Pradesh administration for failure to stop the operation of illegal brick kilns without Environmental Clearance and asked the administration to show cause as to why contempt proceedings must not be instituted against it.
• Reserved order on the bail application filed by former Union Minister and BJP leader Swami Chinmayanand, who was accused of raping a law student.
• Took in hands the conduct of an uncanny District Judge who tried to bring down the majesty of the high court and its judges by commenting adversely on their functioning.
• In a major setback for BSP MP Atul Rai, the High Court rejected his bail plea in connection to a case of sexual exploitation and rape. The high court said that keeping in mind the principle of fair and speedy trial, Rai should not be granted bail and the Trial Court should be allowed to frame charges against him. The order was passed by Justice Ramesh Sinha.
• Reiterated that at the stage of framing of charges, the trail court has to merely ascertain the existence of a prima facie case against the accused and that it is not required to assess all the evidence that has been collected by the Investigating Officer.

Bombay High Court

• Set aside penalty of Rs.432 cr imposed by Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) on Reliance industries and Raghuleela Builders for supposed delay in completion of construction of a building called "One BKC" at Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai, calling it arbitrary, discriminatory and without any basis.
• Refused relief to two law aspirants who sought admission to law colleges after qualifying the Common Entrance Test but were denied admission as they failed to fulfil the eligibility criteria introduced in 2015 making a minimum requirement of 45% marks in every year of graduation a must for being eligible to be included in the Common Admission Process (CAP). Division bench of Justice SC Dharmadhikari and Justice RI Chagla heard the two writ petitions filed by Purva Ingle and Vinay Kothari. Court dismissed both the petitions after concluding that both students were not eligible to be given admission.

Chhattisgarh High Court

• Made certain crucial observations with regards the stature of powers enjoyed by the Central and the State government under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

Delhi High Court

• Allowed the Instagram account holder, who posted complaints of sexual harassment against Subodh Gupta on Instagram account 'Herdsceneand', to maintain interim anonymity by allowing the filing of vakalatnama and written statements in a sealed cover.
• Clarified that the order rejecting bail to P Chidambaram contained no 'cut-paste' from the judgment in Rohit Tandon's case. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait issued this clarification after taking suo moto notice of the report published by "The Hindu" on November 17 that the November 15 order in Chidambaram's case had copy pasted certain facts from Rohit Tandon's case.
• Allowed the application filed by Enforcement Directorate (ED) to correct "inadvertent factual errors" and "accidental slips" in the order denying bail to P Chidambaram in the INX Media case and issued clarifications.
• Rejected an application seeking quashing of a rape case, filed under section 376 of IPC, on the ground of a settlement being reached between the victim and the accused. Refusing to exercise the inherent power under section 482 of CrPC, Justice Brijesh Sethi held that rape not only causes serious injury to a woman's body, but also to her honour and dignity. Therefore, even if such an offence is settled by the offender and victim, this offence being not private in nature, and having a serious impact on the society, cannot be quashed.
• Held that the order of the trial court on charge need not be a lengthy or a detailed one. Such an order should indicate that in the opinion of the trial court a prima facie case is made out. The court made this observation while disposing off a revision petition filed under section 397, read along with section 401 of CrPC wherein the Petitioner had challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge on framing of the charges against him.
• Almost a year after a Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) rape counsellor was found hanging at her matrimonial house within five months of marriage, the High Court denied bail to the father-in-law of the deceased while taking note of the fresh injuries found on her person and her WhatsApp messages wherein she had spoken of harassment at her matrimonial house.
• Refused to provide relief to students who were given a year back for not meeting the required attendance criteria by the IP University, in pursuance of Clauses 9 and 11 of the Attendance Rules. Reversing the order of the Single Judge, the Division Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Asha Menon opined that importance attached to attendance in classes in a professional course like BA LLB/BBA LLB cannot be overstated.
• Held that unless the information bulletin/prospectus makes it crystal clear that the result of the supplementary exam would not relate to the main exam, the benefit has to be given to the candidate.
• Held that Prosecution cannot be excused for non-examination of public witnesses, if there are material inconsistencies in the statements of the eyewitnesses. The Division Bench of Justice GS Sistani and Justice Chander Shekhar rejected the appeal of the state against the order of the trial court, which had acquitted the accused of charges under section 302 and 307 of the IPC.
• While setting aside a non-speaking order on charge passed by the trial court, the High Court held that application of mind is a sine qua non at the stage of framing of charges. The order was passed by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri while hearing revision petitions against the order of Court of Addl. Sessions Judge.

Gauhati High Court

• Directed the Nagaland Government to provide Rupees 25 lakh as exemplary compensation to the family of a pregnant woman who died on her way to District Hospital which was 130 Kilometers away from her Village. Right to life includes the right to primary health care, said Justice Songkhupchung Serto holding that it is the duty of the state to provide primary health care.

Himachal Pradesh High court

• Said that "Gravity alone cannot be decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion."

Karnataka High Court

• Allowed a 24 year old woman to terminate her 31-week pregnancy after it was found that the foetus had multiple abnormalities. Justice B Veerappa while allowing the petition said the petitioner is permitted to terminate the pregnancy in the hospital of her choice under the medical care and supervision by a senior doctor. As prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, permission of the court is required, if the pregnancy is beyond 20 weeks.
• Directed the Principal Secretary (Home department) or any other official incharge in the state government to file an affidavit by Tuesday, detailing the number of detention centers in Bengaluru and other districts of the state, to house illegal foreign nationals, staying without valid visa, in the state. Also list out steps on how state will take care of them if they came out on bail or after conviction.
• Set aside the conviction and sentence of one year simple imprisonment handed down to a 26-year-old man who assaulted a bus conductor, for issuing a ticket with 'I Love You', written overleaf to his wife. Justice K N Phaneendra, while setting aside the conviction under section 333 of the Indian Penal Code against, Mahadeva M, said "Due to grave and sudden provocation the accused acted in such a manner and assaulted PW2 and caused grievous hurt."

Kerala High Court

• Observed that a two wheeler rider should not be chased by the Police for booking him for not wearing a helmet. Under no circumstances shall a two wheeler rider be pursued in a "hot chase" for booking him for not wearing a helmet as this is likely to put the life of the officer and the traffic offender to peril, said Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. while considering a bail application.
• Admitted the appeals filed by the Government of Kerala against the acquittals in the rape-death cases of two sisters in Walayar in 2017. A Division Bench comprising Justices A Hariprasad and N Anilkumar issued notices to Pradeep Kumar, Kutty Madhu, Valiya Madhu and Shibu in the six appeals filed by the Government against the judgments of Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad.

Madras High Court

• A Division Bench of the High Court comprising of Chief Justice Mr. A. P. Shahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad held that a Revision or a Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking declaration to declare that an acquittal judgment of a trial court as "Honourable Acquittal" is not maintainable.
• Ruled that a Petitioner, being a victim, is mandatorily entitled to notice before acceptance of final report of the Police and in case such a notice is not served, he has a right to file a protest petition.
• Reiterating that the mere change of opinion of the assessing officer is not a ground to re-open assessment under Section 147 Income Tax Act, the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed against the re-opening of assessment. The order was passed in the case City Union Bank Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others by Justice G R Swaminathan of Madurai bench.
• Granted 30-day parole to Robert Payas, one of the seven convicts serving a life term for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. A division bench of justices MM Sundresh and RMT Teekaa Raaman gave the order on a plea by Payas seeking parole for making arrangements for his son's wedding.
• Quashed the FIR lodged against K. Divya, Director of Kakoos (Toilet), a documentary film on manual scavenging.

Rajasthan High Court

• Directed the Jaipur Development Authority to carry out inspection in all zones of Jaipur indicating what effective steps have been taken to ensure that safety requirements of coaching institutes are fulfilled. The bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal also directed the authority to file compliance affidavit within two weeks.