Week Commencing From August 10, 2020 To August 16, 2020 Bombay High Court 1) 'One Fine Day When The Relationship Turned Sour, She Filed A Complaint'; Bombay HC Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Rape [Ataullah Fakruddin Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra] The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre granted bail to a man accused of rape by a 24-year-old woman who befriended him on...
Week Commencing From August 10, 2020 To August 16, 2020
Bombay High Court
1) 'One Fine Day When The Relationship Turned Sour, She Filed A Complaint'; Bombay HC Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Rape [Ataullah Fakruddin Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra]
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre granted bail to a man accused of rape by a 24-year-old woman who befriended him on Facebook. The Court noted that the FIR was lodged after a discord arose between the two.
"The Applicant and the prosecutrix are major and as per the version of the complaint, she encouraged the friendship initially which slowly resulted into a physical one. She had accompanied the Applicant at several places where the Applicant established physical contact with her. She never objected to the same and from January, 2019 till filing of the complaint in March, 2020, allowed the relationship to flourish. Then, one fine day, when the relationship turned sour, she filed the complaint. Prima facie reading of the complaint does not make out a case of sexual indulgence without her consent or against her will but points out a consensual act," the order read.
2) 'God Is Within Us And God Is Everywhere"; Bombay HC Refuses To Allow Members Of Jain Community From Visiting Temples For Paryushan Festival [Ankit Hirji Vora v. Union of India & Ors.]
Division bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla and Justice Madhav Jamdar refused to allow members of the Jain community from offering prayers in temples during the holy period of Paryushan festival (between August 15 and August 23) observing that the duty of every right thinking person at this stage is to balance their religious duties with public duty, and their responsibility towards the rest of mankind.
"God is within us" and "God is everywhere," the bench remarked while deferring the plea for directions September 7.
3) Staying Exams Behind The Back Of Examinees Willing To Appear Physically, Is Detrimental To Their Interest: Bombay HC [Akash Udaysing Rajput & Ors. v. Maharashtra University of Health Science, Nashik & Ors.]
Division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice SP Tavade declined the prayer for stay on examinations proposed to be held on August 17 and August 25 by the Maharashtra University of Health Science, Nashik (MUHS) for the students of Bachelor In Dental Surgery and Masters In Dental Surgery observing that cancellation of such exams behind the back of those examinees who are willing to physically appear for writing the exam will be detrimental to their interest.
Thus, the prayer for stay was declined and the Court said that the University shall be at liberty to conduct the examinations scheduled on 17th and 25th August, 2020 by strictly adhering to social distancing norms and other protocol to prevent the contagion.
4) 'Complaint Filed Two Years After The Incident': Bombay HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Army Major Accused Of Rape [Maj.Aunshuman Mahendra Jha v. State of Maharashtra]
Single bench of Justice Bharati Dangre granted bail to Major Aunshuman Jha who is accused of rape by a 28-year-old IT Engineer in a telecom company. They met on a matrimonial site where the applicant introduced himself as a Major in the Army currently posted in Manipur.
The Court noted that the fact that the complaint has been filed more than two years after the alleged incident of rape itself creates many questions. Moreover, Justice Dangre opined that at this stage, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary and with an assurance that he will cooperate with the investigation which in progress, the following ad-interim relief would serve the purpose.
Calcutta High Court
1) Courts In India Have Power To Grant Anti-Arbitration Injunction Against Foreign-Seated Arbitration, Albeit Sparingly : Calcutta HC [Balasore Alloys Limited v. Medima LLC]
The bench of Justice B. Shekhar Saraf ruled that while civil courts in India do have the power to grant anti-arbitration injunctions against a foreign-seated arbitration, however, this power is to be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
The Court observed that in exercising discretion the courts must be satisfied of the following aspects enumerated in the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Modi Entertainment Network:
a) the defendant, against whom injunction is sought, is amenable to the personal jurisdiction of the court;
b) if the injunction is declined, the ends of justice will be defeated and injustice will be perpetuated; and
c) the principle of comity - respect for the court in which the commencement or continuance of action/proceeding is sought to be restrained - must be borne in mind.
Note: Read the original report for more detailed discussion
Delhi High Court
1) Undertrials Accused of Economic Offences Not Eligible For Interim Bail As Per High Powered Committee's Criteria: Delhi HC [Malvinder Mohan Singh v. GNCTD & Anr.]
The Single Bench of Justice Anu Malhotra refused to quash the Minutes of Meeting held on March 28 by the High Powered Committee constituted to decongest the prisons whereby undertrial prisoners accused of economic offences or against whom enquiry is being conducted by the Enforcement Directorate have been excluded from the purview of interim bail.
The Court highlighted, "It is essential to observe that economic offences are offences which corrode the fabric of democracy and are committed with total disregard to the rights and interest of the nation and are committed by breach of trust and faith and are against the national economy and national interest."
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan directed the Union of India as well as the Indian Council Of Medical Research to consider as representation a plea seeking formulation of rules and regulations to prohibit sale of unlicensed and uncertified products claiming to be COVID19 compliant.
The petition was filed against the sale and advertisement of 'COVID Oven' - a product for sterilizing food articles and PPE kits, making them safe for consumption.
3) Delhi HC Seeks Status Report From Govt. On Setting Up Special Cell For Honour Killing Victims, In Terms Of SC's Shakti Vahini Judgment [Dhanak For Humanity v. GNCTD & Ors.]
The Division Bench of Justice JR Midha and Justice Brijesh Sethi directed the Principal Secretary (Home) of the Delhi Government to file a status report in a plea seeking strict compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Shakti Vahini v. Union of India for setting up a Special Cell for the victims of honour killing. The court will next take up the matter on September 14.
4) 'Clear Lapse By The School In Not Accessing Their E-Mails': Delhi HC Directs School To Waive Off One Month's Tution Fee Of Contempt Petitioners [Master Vipul Yadav & Anr. v. Ms T Shrivastava & Ors.]
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed the Richmond Global School in Paschim Vihar, Delhi, to waive off one month's tution fee of the Petitioners, who had been deprived from attending online classes, despite explicit Court orders in that behalf.
The Court observed that the omission was a result of school's failure to access its email, whereby the Court order to permit the Petitioners to attend online classes with immediate effect, was served on the school.
Gujarat High Court
1) Gujarat HC Adjourns Suo Moto Contempt Proceedings Against Yatin Oza Till Aug 17 [Suo Moto v. Yatin Narendra Oza]
The bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice NV Anjaria deferred hearing in the suo moto contempt proceedings pending against GHCAA President Yatin Oza, with a view to first dispose of the intervention application moved by Advocate Amit Panchal.
Oza had tendered unconditional apology for remarks against the High Court and its Registry. However the matter is now to be listed on Monday, August 17.
2) Accused Slept Over Entire Event As If Waiting For Tragedy: Gujarat HC Holds Factory Mngt. Prima Facie Guilty U/S 304 IPC For Industrial Accident, Denies Anticipatory Bail [Atalbiharikumar Rajendra Mandal v. State Of Gujarat]
"It shakes the human conscience since the after-shocks could be seen even today, if one visits Bhopal", the bench of Justice Gita Gopi expressed in reference to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, in denying anticipatory bail to the accused managerial staff of a chemical factory in the state in connection with an industrial accident in June resulting in the death of 10 workers and injuries to 77 others.
The Court denied anticipatory bail to the accused employees, including the Production Incharge, Unit Head, Head of Plant and Liquid Storage, Head of Fire and Safety, holding them prima facie guilty of the offence of criminal negligence leading to culpable homicide.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
1) Public Interest Litigation Is Not A Pill Or Panacea For All Wrongs And Can't Be Used For Suspicious Products Of Mischief: HP HC [Himanshu v. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Ors.]
A bench comprising Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Jyotsna Rewal Dua made strong observations against a PIL seeking the postponement of the 'HP Subordinate Allied Services (Main) Examination-2019' to any subsequent dates, post normalization of COVID-19 crisis.
While noting that the pleas raised were absolutely fallacious, the bench remarked, "…the attractive brand name of public interest litigation cannot be used for suspicious products of mischief. It has to be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta or private motive. The process of the Court cannot be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind."
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
1) Writ Petition Maintainable Against Pvt. Educational Institutions As They Perform Public Function & Are Subject To State Education Rules: Jammu And Kashmir HC [Satvinder Singh v. Presentation Convent Senior Secondary School]
Single bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani reiterated that writ petitions against even purely private, unaided educational institutions are maintainable, considering they are performing public functions.
The order was passed as the Court noted that even unaided minority educational institution, as in the case at hand, are subject to the control and supervision of the Jammu and Kashmir School Education Act of 2002 read with Jammu and Kashmir School Education Rules of 2010.
2) Govt. Generating Lot Of Litigation Due To Ad-hocism In Recruitments, Promotions: Jammu And Kashmir HC [Ghulam Hassan Rather v. Union Territory of J&K & Anr.]
Noting that because of adhocism in recruitment and promotions, a lot of litigation is being generated by the government, the bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Rajnesh Oswal sought comments from the UT as to how this system can be put to an end and all recruitments and promotions are made strictly in terms of the Rules governing the post and not in-charge basis.
"The system is being followed despite strict observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court way back in the year 2000 in the case of Suraj Parkash Gupta's case," the bench observed. In the said case, the practice of giving promotion on incharge basis without regular promotion was deprecated by Supreme Court.
Karnataka High Court
1) Karnataka HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Who Posted Message On Facebook Comparing Corona Virus With Holy Quran [Kusumadhara Kaniyoor v. State of Karnataka]
The bench of Justice K Natarajan granted anticipatory bail to a 32-year old man who in April during the lockdown had posted a message on his social media account allegedly comparing coronavirus with holy Quran and thereby, insulted the holy Quran and caused hurt to the feelings of Muslim community.
The bench said "Learned High Court Government Pleader has not produced any material to show whether the police have obtained permission to lodge criminal prosecution against the petitioner. The sanction is required for taking cognizance by the Magistrate. However, by looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manzar Sayeed Khan's case and message posted by the petitioner, at this stage, it cannot be said that, there is prima-facie case made out against the petitioner for having committed any alleged offence, where it promotes the communal violence or tension between two groups of society."
2) Ensure Not More Than 20 People Attend Burial/Crematorium Grounds : Karnataka HC Directs State Govt.
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Aravind Kumar directed the State government to ensure that direction mandating not more than 20 people can attend burial/crematorium grounds is scrupulously followed.
"State must take measure to ensure that said clause is implemented in as much as there is a direction issued under Disaster Management Act, which lays down that not more than 20 people can attend burial/crematorium grounds, violation of directions under the Act, will attract penal provisions," the bench said.
3) Karnataka HC Refuses To Postpone COMEDK Exam Scheduled On August 19
The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ravi Hosmani refused to postpone the COMEDK test scheduled to be conducted by Consortium of Medical, Engineering and Dental Colleges of Karnataka (COMEDK) on August 19. The Court however directed the authorities to take all precautions for the safe conduct of the exam.
"It is no doubt that the pandemic has affected everybody not only in this country but world over. But at the same time with the passage of time Central/state govt as well as citizens have now got accustomed to carry on with life/administration etc, by taking all precautions it is in that light that we have to view the conduct of examinations for entrance test for various professional colleges or such other entrance test," the Court observed while stressing that delaying exams any further may not be feasible.
Also Read: Final Year Exams: Karnataka HC Asks VTU To Reconsider Possibility Of Online Option For Special Exams
Kerala High Court
1) Journalism Is Not For Propagating Hearsay News, Says Kerala HC While Granting Anticipatory Bail To Sreekantan Nair [Dr. Shinu Syamalan v. State of Kerala]
Journalism is not for propagating hearsay news, the bench of Justice PV Kunhikrishnan remarked while considering bail application filed by journalist Sreekantan Nair, the Managing Director and Anchor of 24 News Channel, accused of circulating rumours about the Covid-19 pandemic, by interviewing a Doctor who allegedly gave false information to create panic among the people.
The bail order quotes Mahatma Gandhi, that 'the true function of journalism is to educate the public mind, not to stock it with wanted and unwanted impressions'. The court, however, allowed the bail plea by imposing stringent conditions.
2) Kerala HC Expresses Concerns About Police Officers Conducting Press Meetings About Ongoing Investigations [Jitesh v. State of Kerala]
The bench comprising Justices A. Hariprasad and N. Anil Kumar expressed its concerns about the police officers conducting press meetings in respect of criminal investigations in 'sensational cases'.
The Court observed that the police officers are not expected to reveal before media the facts ascertained in the course of investigation by questioning material witnesses or confession made by the accused.
3) Article 15(6) Is Only Enabling Provision: Kerala HC Dismisses PIL Seeking 10% EWS Quota In Higher Secondary Admissions [Samastha Nair Samajam v. State of Kerala & Anr.]
Article 15(6) is only an enabling provision, observed the bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly while dismissing a PIL that sought direction to the state to earmark 10% quota for economically weaker section students, who apply for Higher Secondary course, for the year 2020- 21.
Referring to Ajit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, the court observed that, since it is an enabling provision, a discretion is vested in the State to consider providing reservation if the circumstances mentioned in those articles so warranted.
Reportedly, the Kerala Government has issued an order reserving 10% of the total seats in various batches in government higher secondary and vocational higher secondary schools for students from the EWS in the unreserved category.
4) Ignorance Of Law Is No Excuse, Kerala HC Tells German Citizen Who Believed He Became Indian Citizen By Naturalization [Roland Moesle v. Union Territory Of Lakshadweep]
"Ignorance of Law is no excuse," the bench of Justice Ashok Menon told a man who said that he believed that he has acquired Indian Citizenship through naturalization.
Roland Moesle had approached the High Court seeking Anticipatory Bail after a FIR was registered against him under the Passports Act and the Foreigners Act. Before the Court, he submitted that he was a German Citizen and entered India with a valid German Passport valid till 2011. Later he started a Company and obtained PAN in the name of the Company and himself. He submitted that PAN card and Aadhaar were very liberally granted to him without any questions being asked about his citizenship and thus he believed that Citizenship through naturalization was granted to him.
"He should have consulted knowledgeable persons to find out the manner in which he could acquire the Citizenship of India," the bench remarked though it granted him anticipatory bail, with stringent conditions.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly made a public appeal for raising financial assistance for the State Government's funds for treating children with rare diseases.
The court was considering a case related to children afflicted with a rare genetic disorder known as Lysosomal Storage Disorders (LSDs). LSDs affect multiple organs and cause progressive physical or mental deterioration over time. This rare disease affects 1 in 5000 births as a group.
Madras High Court
1) 'Final Report Filed Only After Lapse Of 90 Days, Even Before Which Plea For Default Bail Filed': Madras HC Releases Murder Accused [V.Madhan v. State]
Noting that the final report has been filed only after the lapse of the statutory period of 90 days, and even before the final report was filed, the petitioner had moved the subordinate court seeking default bail, the bench of Justice V. Bharathidasan held a murder accused, in custody since 5 months, to be entitled to bail under section 167(2) CrPC.
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in number of its pronouncements, has clearly held that the Proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 167 is a beneficial provision for curing the mischief of prolonging the investigation indefinitely, which ultimately affects the liberty of a citizen", reflected the bench, reiterating that the Right for bail under Section 167(2) is a indefeasible right and it cannot be frustrated by the prosecution.
2) Judicial Independence Prerequisite To Rule Of Law; Advocates Throwing Mud On Judges Attacking Institution And Themselves: Madras HC [Anshul Mishra v. District Collector, Madurai & Ors.]
Repeated requests for recusal of the Single Judge advanced on behalf of the accused prompted the High Court to "Judicial independence is defined as a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of fair proceedings".
Justice Pugalendhi proceeded to observe that in discharging our duties, we face several difficulties, but unmindful to the same, we must do our duty with due diligence. He said, 'Advocates throwing mud on the Judge must realise they are attacking the Institution, and themselves'.
3) Cut-Throat Corrupt Officials Are Like Cruel, Blood-Thirsty Wolves And Should Be Dealt With Iron Hand: Madras HC [CM Sivababu v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.]
Calling it a "classic case, which would demonstrate as to how corrupt Government servants utilise any situation to make illegal gain", the bench of Justices N. Kirubakaran and V. M. Velumani came down heavily on instances of procuring e-passes amidst the Pandemic by paying bribes to authorities.
"It is very shocking to know about such incidents and also about cut throat corrupt officials in the system. They are like cruel blood thirsty wolves and they should be dealt with iron hand", the bench vented its ire.
Orissa High Court
1) Disclosure Of COVID Patients' Identities Must Pass 'Triple Test' Of Privacy Judgment; Identity Of Deceased COVID Warriors May Be Disclosed To Honor Them: Orissa HC [Ananga Kumar Otta v. Union of India & Ors.]
The bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice S. Pujahari has held that the State has to uphold the right to privacy of Covid patients by preserving their identities. However, it has also stressed that right to privacy, like any other fundamental right, is not absolute and it may be diluted in exceptional circumstances.
On this note, the High Court has cautioned the authorities to ensure that in case they reveal the identity of a Covid patient/ suspect, the same is done in accordance with the law, i.e., it satisfies the 'Triple test' as laid down by the Supreme Court in the right to privacy judgment (KS Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.)
The Court also addressed the issue of disclosure of identity of Covid Warriors, who succumb to the infection on line of duty and held that the same s done with the prior consent of legal representatives of the deceased Covid Warrior, to honor his/ her sacrifice.
2) Orissa HC Sets Aside GO Mandating Furnishing Of Bank Guarantees, Instead Of Solvency Certificates, For Grant/Renewal Of Excise Licenses For Liquor Shops [Gopinath Sahu v. State of Orissa & Ors.]
A division bench led by Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq set aside a Government Order, mandating furnishing of Bank Guarantees, instead of Solvency certificates, for grant or renewal of Excise Licenses in respect of IMFL shops, Beer Parlours, etc.
The bench, also comprised of Justice KR Mohapatra observed that the order is in teeth of the statutory stipulations under Rule 51 and Rule 150 of the Odisha Excise Rule 2017. It therefore held that statutory provision of law or the Rules cannot be overridden by way of executive instructions.
3) Witch Hunting Still Very Active In This Century Though Scientific Temper Reached Its Pinnacle : Orissa HC Calls For Uniform Law [Jitu Murmu @ Sukul Murmu & Anr. v. State of Odisha]
Taking note of the prevalence of the inhuman and barbaric practice of witch-hunting in the State of Orissa, the bench of Justice SK Panigrahi observed that witch craft, that has been in practice across culture, religion and territory "bares the terrible face of the so-called civilized society of human being and that the uneducated and economically weaker sections end up being the soft targets of this practice".
"The fact remains, in the absence of central legislation it has resulted in a lack of uniformity in the application of the law across the country. The provisions of the Indian Penal Code, although applicable for the crime associated with the menace, have not proved to be as effective in deterring these criminals," the bench observed in a call for drafting of a uniform law.
4) Write The Name Of Drugs In Capital Letters Or In A Legible Manner: Orissa HC Tells Doctors [Krishna Pad Mandal v. State of Odisha]
The bench of Justice SK Panigrahi recommended that doctors working in Government or private or other medical set-ups should write the name of prescribed drugs in "capital letters", to ensure that their prescriptions are "legible".
The remarks were made while hearing of a bail application, whereby the Applicant sought interim relief to take care of his ailing wife. He had produced the medical records of his wife, which the Court found to be of "pathetically poor legibility", far beyond comprehension of any common man.
"Such illegible scrawls composed by doctors creates unnecessary nuisance at the end of the patients, pharmacists, Police, prosecutors, judges who are bound to deal with such medical reports. Prescriptions of physicians, OPD slips, post-mortem report, injury report etc. written, perforce, are required to be legible and fully comprehensible. A medical prescription ought to leave any room for ambiguity or interpretation," the bench observed.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
1) Protective Shield Of Law To Be Extended To Public Servants To Enable Discharge Of Duty Without Fear: P & H HC [Gurpreet Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab]
Noting that cases of assault or use of criminal force to obstruct/prevent public servants from discharging their duties are on the increase, the bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi observed that such cases have to be "sternly dealt" to curb the tendency of assaulting or using criminal force to public servants and the "protective shield of law" has to be extended to such public servants to enable them to effectively discharge their duties without any fear.
2) P&H HC Imposes Cost Of Rs. 1,00,000/- On Plea Filed Without Territorial Jurisdiction Only To 'Gain Benefit' Of Its Interim Order [Vijay Goverdhandas Kalantri & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.]
The single-Judge bench of Justice Alka Sarin imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the Directors of a Mumbai-based company, who had appeared before it against disqualification order passed against them, only to reap benefits of a precedent set by the High Court, without there being territorial jurisdiction.
The Court noted that no cause of action, fully or in part, had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction and the Petitioners had invoked its jurisdiction "only to gain benefit" of an interim order passed by it, which was favorable to them in the facts and circumstances.
3) State Govt. Has No Power To Amend Art. 341 List Notified By President: P & H HC Stays Haryana Govt. Notifications Including OBC Community In SC Category [Dr. Ambedkar Mission Sanstha (Regd.) v. State of Haryana & Anr.]
Noting that the state government has no power under Article 341 to specify any caste, race or tribe, or part or group thereof, as Scheduled Caste, the bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha and Justice Arun Palli stayed two notifications of the government of Haryana including the OBC 'Gadaria' community as SC.
Issuing notice to the state of Haryana, the operation of the impugned orders/notifications issued by the State Government was stayed, in light of the Supreme Court's verdicts in Maharashtra v. Milind & Ors., (2000) and EV Chinnaiah v. State of AP & Ors. (2004).
4) Cheque-Bounce Not An Offence Against Society, Accused Can Escape Punishment By Compounding: P & H HC Reduces Imprisonment on Account Of Mitigating Factors [Rakesh Kumar v. Jasbir Singh & Anr.]
"Cheque bounce is not an offence against society and an accused can escape punishment by settling with the complainant", observed the Single Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal.
The Court was of the view that the sentence imposed must be commensurate with the crime committed and in accordance with jurisprudential justification such as deterrence, retribution or restoration, and accordingly, mitigating circumstances as well as aggravating circumstances should also be kept in mind.
5) P&H HC Directs GST Authority To Consider Plea For Re-Classification Of Ayurvedic Ingredient Based Sanitizers Within 12% GST Bracket [HADMA v. CGST & Ors.]
The bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice Ashok Kumar Verma disposed of a writ petition for reclassification of "AUS ingredients based sanitizer" within 12% GST Tariff bracket instead of 18%, with a direction to the GST authority to consider the same.
It was submitted that such sanitizers are Ayurvedic/ Unani/ Sidha (AUS) ingredient based sanitizers and thus different from alcohol based sanitizers. The Court expressed hope that the GST Council will take up the matter at the earliest.
Rajasthan High Court
1) Rajasthan HC Upholds Validity Of Interchangeability Of Reservation Vacancies Between Widows And Divorcee Women In Case Of Non-Avilability Of Candidates In Either Category [Anita Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]
Full bench of Justice Sangeet Lodha, Justice Goverdhan Bardhar and Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal upheld the constitutional validity of a Notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan substituting a rule pertaining to reservation of vacancies for women in its Service Rules to allow interchangeability between divorcee and widow candidates vacancies on the quota of seats reserved for these category in case of non-availability of sufficient candidates in either of the two categories.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors., (1995) and Indra Sawhney etc. v. Union of India & Ors., (1992), the Court held that interchangeability is permissible within compartmentalized horizontal reservation. It stated that its only when migration of candidates due to interchangeability prejudices vertical reservation that such interchangeability is objected to.
Uttarakhand High Court
1) "Errors Must Be Corrected": Uttarakhand HC Modifies Its 2018 Judgment Setting Maximum Noise Limit For Loudspeakers [Mahendra Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand]
The sanctity to the finality of judicial orders should never deter a Court in correcting its plain errors, remarked Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia while allowing a plea seeking modification of a directive issued by the Uttarakhand High Court in its 2018 judgment setting maximum noise level for loudspeakers.
In the 2018 judgment, the state was directed to to ensure that no loudspeaker or public address system shall be used by any person including religious bodies in Temples, Mosques and Gurudwaras without written permission of the authority even during day time, that too, by getting an undertaking that the noise level shall not exceed more than 5dB(A) peripheral noise level. This direction has been now modified to "the noise level shall not exceed by more than 5dB(A) peripheral noise level above the ambient noise standards specified for the area in which it is used at the boundaries of the private place."