Week Commencing From August 24, 2020 To August 30, 2020 Allahabad High Court 1) [Increasing Number Of COVID Cases In UP] 'Any Step Lesser Than A LockDown Would Be Of No Help': Observes Allahabad HC [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres And For Providing Better Treatment To Corona Positive Respondent] The High Court reiterated its concerns over the spike in Covid cases in...
Week Commencing From August 24, 2020 To August 30, 2020
Allahabad High Court
1) [Increasing Number Of COVID Cases In UP] 'Any Step Lesser Than A LockDown Would Be Of No Help': Observes Allahabad HC [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres And For Providing Better Treatment To Corona Positive Respondent]
The High Court reiterated its concerns over the spike in Covid cases in the State and remarked that re-imposing a Lockdown may be the only plausible measure to curb the spread of Covid-19.
"For the last several dates, we are being repeatedly assured of concrete steps being taken by the administration of various districts of the State to contain the spread of COVID-19 but the manner and the rise this pandemic has shown in several parts of the State, it is evident that any step lesser than a lockdown, would be of no help," remarked the Bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar.
2) BHU Missing Student Case: Allahabad HC Raps UP Police For Filing 'Vague Affidavit' [Saurabh Tiwari v. State of UP]
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh slammed the Police authorities for filing a 'vague affidavit' instead of giving a complete statement of facts that led to disappearance of a BHU student from Varanasi from Police custody.
The Court has now directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi to remain personally present in the Court on the next date of hearing, i.e. September 3, 2020.
3) Allahabad HC Grants Protection From Arrest To 'The Scroll' Journalist Supriya Sharma In FIR Alleging Misrepresentation Of Facts & Statements [Supriya Sharma & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors.]
The Division Bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Anil Kumar-IX granted protection from arrest to Supriya Sharma, Executive Editor of Scroll.in and also the Editor in Chief of Scroll.in, in connection to an FIR lodged against them by a Varanasi resident for misrepresentation of her statements.
The Court observed that Ms. Supriya claimed to be in possession of an audio recording of the interview, the contents of which were reflected in the publication. However, the Court refused to quash the FIR against them, stating that the allegations contained in the FIR disclose commission of cognizable offence.
4) Allahabad HC Grants Bail To 16 Foreign Members Of Tablighi Jamaat [Idrus Umar & Ors. v. State of UP]
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery allowed the bail applications of 16 foreign members of the Tablighi Jamaat, accused of violating of the pandemic protocol and hiding in Prayagraj without any information to the administration.
5) [Covid 19] Stipulate Stricter Time Schedules For Shops; Minimize Conglomeration: Allahabad HC Seeks Road Map From UP Govt To Restrict Public Movement [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres]
The Division Bench comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar granted two days time to the UP Government to come up with a "complete road map" to minimize public movement and prevent the spread of Covid infection in the state.
"We expect stricter time schedules for shops would be there and also every effort would be made to minimize conglomeration of people in public places and in public vehicles. Here it may be mentioned that even though timings of various commercial activities may be substantially reduced but medical shops and dispensaries might be an exception," the Court suggested.
6) 'Complete Prohibition Of Essential Religious Practices Is In Proportion To The Unprecedented Pandemic': Allahabad HC Refuses To Permit Muharram Processions [Japhar Abbas v. Union of India & Ors.]
The Division Bench comprising Justices SK Gupta and Shamim Ahmed dismissed a batch of petitions seeking permission to take out Tazia procession during Muharram, on August 29. "It is with a heavy heart that we hold that in these testing times, it is not possible to lift the prohibition by providing any guidelines for regulating the mourning rituals/practice connected with the 10th day of Moharram," it said.
The Court also said that complete prohibition of practices which are essential to our religions is very much in proportion to the unprecedented situation we are faced with.
Also Read: "Community May Be Targeted For Spreading Virus" SC Refuses Permission To Hold Muharram Procession
Bombay High Court
1) Pension A 'Property' U/Article 300 & A Fundamental Right To Livelihood U/Article 21; Bombay HC Imposes 50K Cost On Bank For Deducting Pension Retrospectively [Naini Gopal v. Union of India & Ors.]
Division bench of Justice RK Deshpande and Justice NB Suryawanshi imposed a cost of Rs.50,000 on State Bank Of India for deducting more than Rs.3 lakh from 85-year-old pensioner Naini Gopal's account after the bank concluded that an amount of Rs.872 per month was 'erroneously paid' in excess to the petitioner from the October 2007 due to technical error in the system. Court imposed cost towards mental agony and harassment caused by the bank and also for expenses of the said litigation.
"We need to remind the Bank that the pension payable to the employees upon superannuation is a 'property' under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and it constitutes a fundamental right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The deprivation, even a part of this amount, cannot be accepted, except in accordance with and authority of law," the Court said.
2) Low Death Rate & High Recovery Rate Of Covid Patients Not A Mere Coincidence; Bombay HC Lauds Aurangabad Admin & Civic Body, Issues Guidelines [Registrar, Judicial v. Union of India & Ors.]
Division bench of Justice RV Ghuge and Justice SD Kulkarni complimented the Aurangabad administration and the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation for their 'relentless efforts' in combating Coronavirus and issued several guidelines for "ensuring that the residents of the State do not feel neglected or ignored or deprived of medical assistance."
Further, the Court directed the district collectors in all districts to establish a task force if not already established. The bench also warned action against private hospitals levelling excessive charges on both Covid and non-Covid patients.
3) Contributions Made To The Fund Are Voluntary, No Compulsion For Anyone To Donate; Bombay HC Dismisses Advocate's PIL Seeking Public Declaration Of PM Cares Fund [Arvind K. Waghmare v. PM Cares Fund & Ors.]
Division bench of Justice SB Shukre and Justice AS Kilor dismissed a PIL seeking public declaration of money received for PM Care's Fund, observing that the contributions made to the said Fund are voluntary in nature and there is no compulsion on anyone to donate.
The Court noted that if any person has any doubt about the application of the money, he/she intends to donate to the said fund, they may be reminded of the words of Falstaff, a cowardly character in William Shakespeare's play Henry IV, "The better part of Valour is Discretion; in the which better part, I have saved my life".
4) Bombay HC Rejects Sudha Bharadwaj's Petition Seeking Bail On Medical Grounds
Division bench of Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice VG Bisht rejected Sudha Bharadwaj's writ petition seeking bail on medical grounds and challenging an order passed by a Special NIA Court rejecting her bail on medical grounds.
Court noted that prison authorities will continue providing her medical aid for her chronic ailments and rejected her plea.
5) Only One Tazia To Be Carried In The Entire State; Bombay HC Allows Muharram Procession Of Only 5 Persons With One Videographer [All India Idaara-E-Tahafuz-E-Hussainiyat v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]
Division bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla and Justice Madhav Jamdar allowed only five persons along with a videographer to carry Tazia, replica of the tomb of Husain, the martyred grandson of Muhammad that is carried in processions during Muharram, on August 30 from 4:30 pm to 5:30 pm from Zanabia, Bhendi Bazar to the Shia Cemetry at Mazgaon. Court clarified that it will be the only Tazia carried in the entire State of Maharashtra.
Also Read: "Community May Be Targeted For Spreading Virus" SC Refuses Permission To Hold Muharram Procession
6) Husband & Wife Equal Partners In A Marriage, Wife Best Suited To Be The Guardian Of A Husband In A Comatose Or Vegetative State: Bombay HC [Rajni Hariom Sharma v. Union of India & Anr.]
Division bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Milind Jadhav held that in a marriage, husband and wife are equal partners and the wife is best suited to be the guardian of her husband who is lying in a vegetative state.
Court directed all concerned authorities to accept her status as a guardian after she cited mounting medical expenses to gain access to her husband's finances but the bank refused.
7) Bombay HC Directs State Not To Take Coercive Steps Against Nagpur Resident Tweets Against Maha Govt In Sushant Singh Rajput's Death Case [Sameet v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]
Division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Avinash Gharote directed the State not to take coercive steps against a Nagpur resident named Sameer Thakkar who was booked for offences punishable under Sections 295B, 500, 504 & 505(2) of Indian Penal Code read with Section 67 of Information Technology Act for tweeting against the state government and its functioning regarding the Sushant Singh Rajput death case.
Calcutta High Court
The Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha dropped the contempt proceedings against a lawyer for taking a screenshot of the virtual court proceedings. "The contempt proceedings are dropped with a warning, however, to Mr. Shiv Ratan Kakrania not to repeat such conduct in future," the Court said.
Earlier, it had instituted suo moto contempt proceedings for posting on 'LinkedIn' a screenshot of the virtual court hearing of the day when a favourable interim order was passed by the Single Judge while calling for affidavits.
Delhi High Court
1) Clear The Pending Bills Of Govt Counsel Within 4 Weeks: Delhi HC Directs Delhi Govt, Centre
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan directed the Delhi Government, Union of India, as well as the various municipal corporations of Delhi, to clear the bills of various government counsel within 4 weeks.
The order has come in a plea moved by Advocate Piyush Gupta seeking clearing of bills of various government counsel engaged with the Delhi Government, Union of India, and various municipal bodies, that have been kept pending for long.
2) Delhi HC Issues Notice On Plea Against Media Coverage Of Sensitive Information About Riots Accused
A bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru issued notice to the Delhi Government, Delhi Police etc., in a writ petition filed by an accused in a case related to Delhi riots challenging the publication of sensitive information about his case by few media houses. The Court posted the matter next on September 11.
The petitioner contended that he was coerced by the police officials to sign certain papers and make statements when he was under custody. He alleged that the police officials, with the mala fide intention of prejudicing his case, leaked the statements to certain media houses, which published sensational reports about him.
3) Delhi HC Issues Guidelines To Streamline Medical Post Graduate Entrance/Admission Process [Dr. Machat Balakrishnan Menon v. Medical Council Committee & Ors.]
Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh issued directions/ guidelines to the Medical Counselling Committee to streamline the Post Graduate Entrance/Admission Process. Access the full report to read the same.
In a plea moved by Anil Ambani challenging the appointment of a Resolution Professional for a personal guarantee given by him for loans taken by Reliance Communications Ltd (RCom) and Reliance Infratel Ltd (RITL) from the State Bank of India, the Division Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rajneesh Bhatnagar issued notice and stayed the proceedings initiated against him under Part III of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code.
The Court however restricted Anil Ambani from alienating his assets till the next date of hearing. The court will next take up the matter on October 06.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan directed the Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to consider as representation the plea seeking deletion or modification of certain scenes from the movie 'Gunjan Saxena: The Kargil Girl', for allegedly defamatory portrayal of the Indian Air Force.
6) Delhi HC Stays Broadcast Of Sudarshan TV's Show Communalising UPSC Recruitment Of Muslims
A single-Bench of Justice Navin Chavla stayed the broadcast of a show of Sudarshan News channel allegedly based on "infiltration of Muslims" in the Civil Services, on a plea filed by students of Jamia Millia Islamia.
Advocate Shadan Farasat for the petitioners had sought prohibition of the proposed broadcast of a program titled "Bindas Bol" on Sudarshan News that the success of Jamia Milia Islamia students in the Civil Services examination 2020 represents a "conspiracy to infiltrate the civil service by Muslims".
7) Delhi HC Dismisses Plea Moved By Mehul Choksi Against Netflix Show Big Boy Billionaire
The Single Bench of Justice Navin Chawla dismissed the plea moved by fugitive diamond merchant Mehul Choksi seeking access to the preview of the Netflix show Big Boy Billionaire prior to its release on September 02.
The Court noted that the remedy sought by the Petitioner is private in nature which cannot be entertained in a writ filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
8) Delhi HC Directs Center To Provide 'Firm Timeline' For Appointments To PMLA Appellate Tribunal [Phoenix Arc Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Anr.]
The Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has asked the Central Government to file an affidavit indicating the status of appointments at the Appellate Tribunal, PMLA. The Court asked Union of India, represented by Standing Counsel Amit Mahajan, to provide a "firm timeline" for the appointments to be finalized.
9) Insurance Scheme For Advocates Will Be Defeated By The Steep Rise In Premium Amount: Delhi HC Directs Companies To Come Up With Better Solutions [Bar Council of Delhi v. GNCTD & Ors.]
The Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the Life Insurance Corporation and New India Insurance Company to hold meetings with the Technical Evaluation Committee and the Bar Council of Delhi to address the issue of steep increase in the premium rate for the Chief Minister Advocates Welfare Scheme.
The order has come in a plea moved by the Bar Council of Delhi seeking a direction to be issued to the Delhi Government to complete the process and operationalise the CM Advocates Welfare Scheme. After perusing the status report filed by the Delhi Government, the court observed that after opening of the financial bids, the insurance companies have substantially increased the amount of premium and reneged on their earlier quotations given in November/December, 2019.
Gauhati High Court
1) Unlike Other Govt. Employees, Judicial Officers Work Hard Throughout Year: Gauhati HC Pulls Up State's PAG Over Late Release Of Salaries [XXX v. Assam's Principal Accountant General]
Observing that if the Judicial Officers of the State have to "run from pillar to post" for their pay-slips, leave credit statement, etc., there is "likelihood that it may affect efficient dispensation of justice", the High Court pulled up Assam's Principal Accountant General over the late release of salaries.
The bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana suo motu invoked the court's writ jurisdiction on the basis of representation dated 10.08.2020 submitted by the Assam Judicial Service Association regarding non-issuance of pay slips, leave credit statements, etc. in a time bound manner.
Gujarat High Court
1) Husband & Wife Settle Dispute, Gujarat HC Quashes FIR Against The Wife Who Allegedly Poisoned Daughters And Attempted Suicide [Lataben Jiteshbhai Lathiya v. State Of Gujarat]
The bench of Justice AP Thaker allowed a Criminal application for quashing and setting aside the FIR registered against a woman accused under Section 307 of IPC, for attempting to murder her own two daughters. The order was passed after the husband and the wife reached an amicable settlement.
"It emerges that at the time of the alleged incident, the applicant, along with her two minor daughters was residing separately from the complainant and due to severe frustration on the part of the applicant, she has tried to commit suicide and administer the poisonous substance to her two children. It also appears that there was a family dispute between the applicant and respondent No.2 as husband and wife. Thus, in this peculiar fact, the FIR came to be lodged by the husband against his wife…In view of the settlement between the parties, there is no chance of any conviction and, therefore, the present application is required to be allowed," the order states.
2) School Of Thought Of "Give Slap, Say Sorry And Forget" Not Endorsed: Gujarat HC Rejects Advocate Yatin Oza's Unconditional Apology [Suo Moto v. Yatin Narendra Oza]
A Division Bench of Justices Sonia Gokani and NV Anjaria rejected the unconditional apology tendered by Advocate Yatin Oza over his remarks on functioning of the High Court as well as its Registry, stating that the same "lacks sincerity".
"We are neither satisfied with the genuineness of apology tendered before this court nor convinced of its bona fide nature of such apology and therefore, choose not to accept the same, and to discharge the respondent at this stage of proceedings," the Court said.
3) [Section 15A(3) SC/ST Act] Not Mandatory To Hear Victim While Granting Bail Where Accused Charged With Bailable Offence: Gujarat HC [Hemal Ashwin Jain v. Union of India & Ors.]
Bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice JB Pardiwala held that courts need not hear the complainant/victim during bail hearings for bailable offences under the SC/ST Act. However, it clarified that before the court decides to decline such opportunity to the victim or the dependent, the court shall thoroughly verify and ascertain that the allegations against the accused disclose commission of only bailable offence or offences under the Act, by him.
"When a person is accused of committing only bailable offence or offences under the Act, it is not mandatory to grant opportunity of hearing to the victim or the dependent as provided under Section 15A(5) of the Act in a proceeding relating to granting bail to such accused", ruled the bench.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
1) 'Unreasonable' To Make Payment Of Tuition Fee Optional: HP HC Directs State Govt To Revisit Policy on Payment Of Fees To Private Schools [Independent Schools Association v. State of HP & Anr.]
The Division Bench comprising Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Jyotsna Rewal Dua set aside a Government Order inasmuch as it made payment of tuition fee by the parents "optional".
"In case, the privately managed schools cannot authoritatively charge even the 'tuition fee' then it is beyond comprehension as to how they will pay the monthly salary/emoluments to not only their teaching but non-teaching staff as well. It cannot be assumed that private schools have unending supply of reserve funds with them," the bench observed.
2) Influential Employees Manage Postings In And Around Urban Areas, Leaving No Room For Others: HP HC Asks State To Break The Cartel [Sheela Suryavanshi v. State of H.P. & Ors.]
A division bench comprising Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Jyotsna Rewal Dua observed that if the employee has been transferred in order to adjust particular persons with no reasonable basis, then such type of transfers can be termed as "mala fide one" and would normally be liable to be quashed.
The Bench remarked: "Because of the cartel created by a few of the employees serving in the urban and semi-urban areas of Himachal Pradesh, the influential employees manage to secure their postings in and around urban areas, leaving practically no room for the other employees."
Karnataka High Court
A division bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ravi V Hosmani asked the State government to clarify on who would be the real beneficiaries of the 25 percent domicile reservation introduced for students of Karnataka at the National Law School of India University.
The bench orally observed that "it will only help the students of elite schools. You (NLSIU) will only get students from Bengaluru city. Students from schools like Bishops Cotton, Frank Anthony will be benefited, you are making their life easy. Reservation must be to uplift, not to give somebody on a platter."
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ashok S Kinagi directed the Petitioner, Amarnathan to clarify whether he sent legal notices to Discovery Channel to stop the telecast of a program on the Cauvery Calling project, while claiming that if the program was aired it would amount to contempt of court as the matter is pending before the High Court.
Senior advocate Uday Holla appearing for Isha Foundation said three notices were sent to the channel by the petitioner whereas no interim order has been passed by the Court to stay the project.
Observing that "If we direct the city police to put up names of accused on its website people will come here (High Court) and say you are violating our Right to Privacy," the Bench of A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ashok S Kinagi dismissed a PIL seeking to give wide publicity to names of accused arrested in the Bengaluru riots case.
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ashok S Kinagi appointed Retired Justice H S Kempanna as the claims commissioner, to estimate and investigate the damages caused on account of the destruction of property, which occurred within the limits of D.J. Halli and K.G. Halli Police Station limits, on August 11.
Kerala High Court
1) Ensure Strict Confidentiality Of CDR Details Of COVID Patients: Kerala HC Closes Ramesh Chennithala's Plea [Ramesh Chennithala v. State Of Kerala]
While closing the writ petition filed by Leader of Opposition in the Kerala Assembly, Ramesh Chennithala, the bench comprising the Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Shaji P. Chaly directed the Government to ensure strict confidentiality of the Call Detail Records collected by it and also to ensure that no third party has access to it.
The Court closed the writ petition recording the submission of the state that the CDR details are collected for the limited purpose of finding the tower location.
2) Kerala HC Directs CBI To 'Further Investigate' Periya Twin Murder Case; Partly Allows State's Appeal By Reviving Final Report Filed By SIT [State of Kerala v. Krishnan]
The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice CT Ravikumar upheld the Single Bench order directing CBI Investigation in Periya twin murder case.
The bench partly allowed the state's appeal by setting aside the Single Bench order to the extent it quashed the charge sheet filed by the Special Investigation Team, which had investigated the crime initially. The bench, therefore directed the CBI to conduct 'further investigation' based on the re-registration of the case and file supplementary report in terms of the provisions under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C.
3) Aided Education Institutions Including Minority Institutions Bound To Provide Reservation In Employment For Physically Challenged Persons: Kerala HC [Renjith JV v. State Of Kerala]
Bench of Justice PV Asha held that the provisions relating to reservation in employment for physically challenged persons would apply to aided Schools and Colleges including minority institutions.
4) AYUSH Doctors Shall Not Prescribe Any Medicine As Cure For Covid-19: Kerala HC Directs Medical/Police Departments To Monitor [MSVineeth v. State Of Kerala]
AYUSH Doctors shall not prescribe tablets or mixtures as cure for COVID-19, but only as an immunity booster, observed the bench comprising the Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly while disposing of a PIL seeking a direction to the State Government to implement a notification issued by Ministry of AYUSH to adopt Homeopathic system among other systems of medicines, in the fight against the menace of Coronavirus.
The Court directed the medical/Police Departments to monitor the action of AYUSH medical practitioners.
5) [Attempt To Rape] Accused U/s Section 511 R/w 376 IPC Entitled To Statutory Bail If Final Report Is Not Filed Within Sixty Days After Remand: Kerala HC [Vinesh v. State of Kerala]
Bench of Justice PV Kunhikrishnan held that an accused charged for attempt to rape under Section 511 read with Section 376, is entitled to statutory bail if no Final Report is filed within sixty days. As per Section 167(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate cannot authorise detention of the accused beyond a period of 60 days if the investigation relates to an offence in which the maximum imprisonment is ten years.
"When there is a specific provision in the Indian Penal Code which says that in calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years we cannot ignore that provision and interpret that imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life even while computing the detention period under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.," the Court said.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
1) [Missing Minor] 'Taking Advantage Of COVID, Police Didn't Try To Trace Out The Minor; A Clear Case Of Negligence': MP HC Seeks Response From DGP [Narayan Dhakad v. State of M.P. & Ors.]
The bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia rapped the Superintendent of Police, Bhind stating that "he has already lost the confidence of this Court." The court also reprimanded the Police team/officers as they failed in their duty to trace out the missing corpus/minor girl and secure her presence.
"It is really unfortunate that when the police was on the road to save the lives of persons from COVID-19 pandemic, but at the same time, the police is trying to take advantage of COVID-19 pandemic by saying that they were unable to move because of the lock-down, this clearly shows the negligence on the part of the police team," the Court remarked.
Noting that if the applicant goes to jail, the marriage would almost surely come to an end "as thereafter there would be hardly any chances of compromise", the bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of cruelty and harassment for dowry by his wife.
The allegations against the husband were that he abuses the complainant, demands a gold chain of five tolas and is asking for the land which is in the name of her father to be transferred, locks the victim in the room and when she asks for medical aid, he does not provide her, besides allegations of unnatural sex and harassment for sex. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Single Bench found that the allegations are "very trivial" and "can happen in any matrimonial home".
3) MP HC Extends PG Medical Admission Process To Fill Vacant Seats; Permits Registration Of Candidates Precluded Earlier Due To Covid [Dr. Jaya Patel v. State of MP & Anr.]
Division Bench comprising Justices SC Sharma and Shailendra Shukla directed the State Government to permit all the students, who were not able to get themselves registered on account of Covid-19 Pandemic, to participate in last round of counseling for NEET PG 2020.
"If a concession is made by the State Government, an opportunity should be given to the meritorious candidates who were certainly higher in merit list and cannot get themselves registered on account of Covid-19 Pandemic," the bench observed.
4) MP HC Refuses To Quash Criminal Proceedings Against Man Accused Of 'Induced Religious Conversion' [George Mangalapilly v. State of MP]
The Bench of Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of induced religious conversion under Section 153-B(1) and 295-A of IPC, even after the complainant stated that he has no objection for the same.
"Complainant Dharmendra Dohar has no objection in quashing the proceeding but looking to the fact that the offence is relating to religion and significant to maintain public tranquility, the Adhiniyam, 1968 clearly provides for the maintenance of public order, hence, under inherent jurisdiction, I do not think fit to give it overemphasized. Therefore, considering the allegations made in the FIR as well as 161 Statements, I am not inclined to quash the proceeding in respect of offence under Section 3/4 of Adhiniyam, 1968," the Court said.
Madras High Court
1) 'If A Policeman Is Attacked, The Society Is Not Safe': Madras HC Bats For Enactment Of New Goonda Act; Seeks State's Response [Velu v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.]
The Division Bench comprising Justice N. Kirubakaran and Justice VM Velumani directed the State Government to file a "proper reply" to the queries raised by the Court with regard to prevalence of Goonda Raj in the state. The Court particularly sought to know from the Government why it had not come out with a new Act to eliminate 'rowdy gangs', in suit with the Governments of Maharashtra and Karnataka.
The Court insisted that rowdy gangs are active in Tamil Nadu for more than 25 years and thus the State cannot claim there is no necessity for an enactment like Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999.
2) Madras HC Dismisses Pleas Against State's Assessment Mechanism For Passing Class X Students Amid COVID-19 [Minor T. & Ors. v. State of TN & Ors.]
The Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the assessment mechanism adopted by the Tamil Nadu Government to assess students of 10th standard and award marks in the final SSLC Public examination.
"The Government has thought it fit to adopt a particular method of awarding marks to the students in the 10th standard Public Examination. While adopting any method, the Government has to take into consideration the overall interest of the students. It may be possible that some of the students are not happy with the method suggested by the Government or it is also possible that there are some alternative or effective methods available to award marks to the students. That by itself cannot be a ground for this Court to interfere with the decision taken by the Government," the Court held.
3) India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway: Manipur HC Dismisses Challenge To Centre's Termination Of Contract [Niraj Cement Structurals Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.]
The Bench of Chief Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar and Justice Lanusungkam Jamir dismissed an appeal against its Single Judge's decision to not exercise jurisdiction in a contractual dispute pertaining to the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway Project.
The Court reiterated that the disputes relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract could not have been agitated in a petition under Article 226 and that such is a matter for adjudication by a civil court or in arbitration, if provided for in the contract.
Orissa High Court
1) "Love Knows No Bound Has Expanded Its Bounds To Include Same-Sex Relationships": Orissa HC Allows Same-Sex Live-In Couple To Stay Together [Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha & Ors.]
The Bench of Justices SK Mishra & Savitri Ratho allowed the petition of a 24-year-old woman to get back her same-sex partner who was forcibly separated from her by the partner's Mother and Uncle.
"There is hardly any scope to take a view other than holding that the petitioner has the right of self-determination of sex/gender and also he has the right to have a live-in relationship with a person of his choice even though such person may belong to the same gender as the petitioner," the Court observed.
2) [NDPS Act] Orissa HC Stresses Filing Of Chargesheet Within Statutory 180 Days, Crystallises Law For Further Detention U/S 36A(4) [Iswar Tiwari v. State of Odisha]
The Bench of Justice SK Panigrahi stressed upon filing of charge-sheet against accused held under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act within the stipulated 180 days.
"When an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. r/w Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act has been filed after expiry of the 180 days period and no decision thereupon, an indefeasible right to be released on bail accrued to the accused which cannot be defeated by keeping the said applications pending," the Court held.
Patna High Court
1) Patna HC Warns Govt. Doctors Of Contempt If "Illegal" Strike Not Called Off [Shivani Kaushik v. Union of India]
The Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar directed the doctors' associations in the state and each one of the members of these associations, besides other persons discharging duty as Paramedical workers and doctors, to immediately call off their strike and discharge their respective duties, warning that any violation would "only tantamount to aggravation of contempt".
The division bench expressed the strict view that during the time of current situation and circumstances prevalent as a result of Pandemic Covid-19, none of the functionaries empowered and authorised under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 can refrain from discharging their duties and functions, "more so by resorting to the mechanism of strike which perhaps may be illegal".
2) Patna HC Seeks Report On Implementation Of Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act [Veera Yadav v. Government of Bihar & Ors.]
While hearing a plea on pitiable state of affairs of the transgender in the state, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar sought a report from the Central as well as the State Government, delineating the steps taken by them to implement the welfare provisions contained under Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
The Court also asked the Government to show steps taken for compliance with implementation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
1) Victim Not Remedy-Less Against Police Inaction - Can Apply To Competent Magistrate, File Complaint U/S 166A(b) IPC Against IO, Even Move HC : P & H HC [Robin Sharma v. State of Punjab]
The Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi reassured that the complainant/victim of a crime is not remedy-less against deliberate inaction, unreasonable delay, failure to collect evidence, undue sympathy with/shielding of the offenders by the concerned Police Officers.
To avoid unnecessary delay in investigation, the Court said, the complainant/ victim may apply to the Judicial Magistrate, empowered to take cognizance of the offences in question on police report, for monitoring of investigation who can issue appropriate directions for expeditious completion of investigation. The complainant/victim may also file complaint under section 166A (b) of the IPC against the Investigating Officer for knowingly disobeying any direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation. The bench further explained that the complainant/victim may alternatively file a petition in the High Court for transfer of investigation to an independent agency such as CBI etc.
2) Employee Can't Be Removed Or Reduced In Rank Owing To Disability: P & H HC Pulls Up Punjab Govt. For "Anathematising" Welfare State, PWD Act [Rawel Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.]
"The object of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is to provide a congenial work environment keeping in view the disability of the employee," asserted the Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal.
The Court placed reliance on section 47(1) of the Act which stipulates that no establishment can dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during his service. In the event, he is found to be not suitable for the post he was holding, he has to be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. It is further provided that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
3) Due To Undesirable Human Interference With Forces Of Nature The Calamities Have Turned Into Harsh Realities: P&H HC Calls For Report On Illegal Sand Mining [Balwinder Singh & Ors. v. State Of Punjab]
A single bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi dismissed the anticipatory bail applications of 17 people booked under provisions of IPC and Mines and Minerals Act, for illegal sand mining. The Court also sought a report from the state within three months regarding the requisite steps taken to curb illegal sand mining in the state.
"Due to undesirable human interference with forces of nature, the calamities, which were a few years back considered to be un-scientific fiction or remote possibilities have turned into harsh realities and become nightmares in many parts of the world endangering human life and even posing a threat to the very existence of mankind if remedial measures are not taken. Sustainable development with ecological balance is the only permissible way of life. There is an urgent need for creating widespread awareness and generating public commitment and support for the cause," the bench said.
4) For Parole, Inmate Can't Claim Parity With Co-Convicts In FIR: P & H HC Says 'Subjective Satisfaction' To Be Arrived At By Police, DM [Gagan v. State of Harayna & Ors.]
The Bench of Justice HS Madaan ruled that for being released on parole, the convict "cannot claim parity with his co-convicts in the FIR" for the "role played by each accused in the crime cannot be exactly identical".
Noting that the nature and gravity of the offences in other cases in which such accused/convict is involved is also to be assessed independently in light of the chances of such person indulging in committing crime again, if released on parole, the Court asserted that "subjective satisfaction" is to be arrived at by the police authorities and the concerned District Collector in releasing the convict on parole.
Rajasthan High Court
1) Rajasthan HC Seeks Report On Drafting Of CAA Rules; Seeks Center's Response On Issuance Of Temporary Ration Cards To Refugee Migrants, Extension Of NORI Visa [Suo Moto v. Union Of India]
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sangeet Lodha and Justice Rameshwar Vyas granted a week's time to the Central Government to file a progress report on the drafting of rules for implementation of the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. The Court also sought the Government's response on the provision for providing temporary ration cards to Pakistan Minority Migrants. Further, the Court asked the Government about its stance on extending the NORI visa of the refugees who had gone to Pakistan before the lockdown.
The development comes in a suo moto case registered by the High Court in the year 2017, concerned by the plight and predicaments of persons belonging to minorities in Pakistan as well as Bangladesh, being discriminated for socio-economic and political reasons, who migrated to India seeking shelter in India.
2) Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Speaker's Rejection Of Disqualification Petition Against 6 BSP MLAs; Asks Speaker To Decide Merits Within 3 Months [Bahujan Samaj Party & Anr. v. Speaker, Rajasthan Legislative Assembly & Ors.]
A single bench of Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal set aside the order of the Speaker which rejected the petition submitted by BJP MLA Madan Dilawar seeking the disqualification of 6 BSP MLAs who had merged with the Congress in 2019.
The Court found fault with the Speaker for rejecting the petition on technical grounds under Rule 6(7) of the 6 of the Rajasthan Assembly Members (Disqualification on the Grounds of Defection) Rules of 1989. It held that any person interested is also entitled to bring to the notice of the Speaker the factum of disqualification incurred by any Member of the House and that the Speaker is constitutionally obliged to take a decision on receiving such a complaint.
Sikkim High Court
1) Will "Private Function" Fall Under Definition Of 'Workplace' Of PoSH Act? : Sikkim HC To Examine [Silajit Guha v. Sikkim University & Ors.]
A single bench of Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed that it shall examine whether an incident of sexual harassment that occurred at a "Private Marriage Function in a private hotel" will fall within the definition of "Workplace", as stipulated under section 2(o) of the Sexual Harassment (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) At Workplace Act, 2013 (PoSH Act).
"Having examined the definition of the word "workplace" in the said Act, it seems that the petitioner does have a strong arguable point on jurisdiction or the lack of it. Whether the broad interpretation of "workplace" would bring within its ambit attending a private marriage function in a private hotel, is a question which may have to be examined" the Court said.
Uttarakhand High Court
1) Borrowing Money On Interest Without Informing Husband, Stealing Ornaments And Valuables,Levelling Allegations Against Him Etc. Amount To Cruelty: U'khand HC [Anita Gaur v. Rajesh Gaur]
A division bench comprising Justices Narayan Singh Dhanik and Ravi Malimath dismissed an appeal filed by a wife against grant of divorce, holding that the her actions of borrowing money on interest from many persons, making purchases on credit, stealing ornaments and valuables from her own house, without informing her spouse, amount to cruelty.
The Court also noted that she levelled so many allegations against her spouse which she failed to substantiate.