High Courts Weekly Roundup (March 1 to March 7)
Week commencing from March 1, 2021 till March 7, 2021
Allahabad High Court 1. Establish Uttar Pradesh Educational Services Tribunal Only After Court's Permission: Allahabad High Court [In Re Constitution Of Education Tribunals] A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery ordered that its permission is needed before establishing the Uttar Pradesh Education Services Tribunal, which is...
Allahabad High Court
1. Establish Uttar Pradesh Educational Services Tribunal Only After Court's Permission: Allahabad High Court [In Re Constitution Of Education Tribunals]
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery ordered that its permission is needed before establishing the Uttar Pradesh Education Services Tribunal, which is the subject matter of an ongoing lawyers strike. The Government is also requested to invite representatives of the Bar Associations of the Allahabad High Court at Prayagraj as well as at Lucknow to have deliberations with regard to their demands which are being agitated by different demand charters.
In a suo moto case registered by the Court following conflict between the Allahabad High Court Bar Association and the Awadh Bar Association with respect to the location of Tribunal's principal seat, the Court said, "The Legislature may complete the process of enacting the Act of 2021, if so desires, but, shall establish Educational Tribunals as proposed only after the leave of this Court."
2. Allahabad HC Stops Establishment Of GST Appellate Tribunal In UP Without Court's Permission [Awadh Bar Association & Anr. v Union of India & Ors.]
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi restrained the Central Government from establishing the GST Appellate Tribunal in the State of UP without Court's permission. The matter is kept for final disposal on March 15.
In view of the ongoing conflict with respect to location of the Tribunal, the Court said, "Having considered the arguments advanced and also the instructions communicated to us on behalf of respondent nos. 1 (Union of India) and 2 (GST Council), we deem it appropriate to direct respondent nos. 1 and 2 for not establishing Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal for the State of Uttar Pradesh without leave of this Court."
3. 'Prosecutrix Testimony Not Reliable': Allahabad High Court Acquit Rape Accused After 20 Yrs In Jail, Appeal Remained Defective For 16 Years [Vishnu v. State of UP]
A Division Bench of Justices Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Gautam Chowdhary came to the rescue of a man, after he suffered 20 years of incarceration in connection with a false rape case filed against him by a woman owing to an alleged land dispute.
The Court opined that the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, if reliable, is sufficient to convict the accused. However, in the instant case, it observed that the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be said to be that of a sterling witness and does not inspires the Court's confidence.
The Bench also pulled up the UP Government for its failure to comply with the mandate of Sections 432 and 433 of CrPC for remission of prisoners lodged in jail for more than 14 years.
4. Wife's Silence Cannot Give Rise To An Inference That She Had Consented For Purpose Of Adoption U/S 7 Of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act: Allahabad High Court [Bhanu Pratap Singh v. State of UP]
A Division Bench comprising of Justices Manoj Misra and Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held that a wife's silence or lack of protest at the time of adoption by her husband cannot give rise to an inference that she has consented to such adoption under Section 7 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956.
It held that in order to satisfy the mandate of the proviso to Section 7 of the Act, a party propounding adoption by a Hindu male, who has a living wife, has to adduce evidence to prove that the same was done with the consent of his wife.
"This can be done either by producing document evidencing her consent in writing or by leading evidence to show that wife had actively participated in the ceremonies of adoption with an affirmative mindset to support the action of the husband to take a son or a daughter in adoption," the Bench said.
5. Allahabad High Court Denies Daughter's Custody To Mother Accused Of Murdering Husband, Grants Liberty To Seek Custody Once Acquitted [Gyanmati Kushwaha & Anr. v. State Of UP & Ors.]
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir refused to hand over the custody of a two-year-old daughter to the petitioner-woman who has been accused of murdering her husband (i.e., child's father). It however, gave the mother the liberty to seek daughter's custody in the event she is acquitted by judgment based on doubt or otherwise.
The Court opined that if the mother were to be convicted, the minor's welfare would be thrown into disarray. "It would be irreversibly unsettling and debilitating in her formative years. It may even expose her to insurmountable trauma, if she witnesses her mother, whom she is bonded with, convicted in the case of her father's murder", remarked the Court.
Other developments:
- 'Must Be Left To Wisdom Of Govt': Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Removal Of Mobile Towers For Maintaining Public Health
- 'People Forgetting That They Have To Protect Themselves From Deadly Covid-19 Virus': Allahabad High Court Reiterates Directions; Seek Strict Enforcement
Bombay High Court
1. Bombay High Court Directs OTT Platform Amazon Prime To Take Down Telugu Movie 'V' On Actor Sakshi Malik's Plea [Sakshi Malik v. Venkateshwara Creations Pvt. Ltd.]
A single bench of Justice G.S. Patel restrained Venkateshwara Creations Pvt. Ltd. from releasing the Telugu Movie 'V' on the OTT platform, Amazon Prime until deletion of a scene wherein a portfolio picture of Mumbai based actor, Sakshi Malik was used without her permission. The Court also directed the defendants to take down the telecast of the film in all versions, irrespective of language and sub-titles, until the said deletion.
The order was passed in a defamation suit filed by actor Sakshi Malik praying for permanent injunction. However, the Court granted ad interim order restraining the defendants to not release or telecast the motion picture on any media platform until the said scene is deleted, subject to a specific order of the Court post its deletion.
2. Civil Appeal May Be Filed Against Family Court's Order Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court [Dr. Sandip Mrinmoy Chakrabarty v. Reshita Sandip Chakrabarty]
A Division Bench comprising of Justices RD Dhanuka and VG Bisht held that the reliefs canvased under Sections 19 to 22 of the Domestic Violence Act are predominantly of the civil nature and there is no infirmity in filing a civil appeal against an order passed under the said provisions.
The observation was made with respect to a case whereby two separate proceedings filed by a wife, one for divorce under the Special Marriage Act and another against restrain order under the Domestic Violence, were clubbed, and heard and decided by a Family Court.
3. "Court Can't Be Perceived To Be Accused or Victim Centric": Bombay High Court Refuses To Transfer Builder Sunil Lahoriya Murder Trial [Sandeep Sunil Kumar Lahoriya v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]
A trial court cannot be perceived to be accused or victim centric, a division bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale observed while refusing to transfer the ongoing trial from one judge to another in the 2013 murder of Navi Mumbai builder Sunil Lahoriya.
It said that a case was "not made out" for transfer while hearing a petition filed by the slain builder's son – Sandeep Lahoriya. The court, however, directed the trial judge to consider the son's grievances to play the CCTV footage from February 16, 2013, where his father is seen being shot and stabbed outside his office and is still alive on his way to the hospital.
4. "Silence Of Constitutional Functionary Highly Detrimental To Democracy"; Bombay High Court Sets Aside Notifications Reserving Wards In Goa Municipal Councils, Censures EC [Romaldo Fernandes v. State of Goa & Ors.]
A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and MS Sonak at Goa quashed reservations made in Municipal Councils of Sanguem, Mormugao, Mapusa, Margao and Quepem in Goa. It directed the state to issue a fresh notification ensuring reservations for women and other communities to ensure that the process is completed by 15 April 2021.
It came down heavily upon the Commission stating that it was bound to apply constitutional principles rather than rushing with the elections. "The silence on part of the constitutional functionary, according to us, is highly detrimental to the democratic concept of this country. We say nothing more".
5. Toolkit Case : Goa Based Activist Subham Kar Chandhuri Granted 10 Days Transit Anticipatory Bail By Bombay High Court [Subham Kar Chandhuri v. State of Goa]
A single bench of Justice M.S. Jawalkar granted 10 days transit anticipatory bail to Goa based activist, Subham Kar Chandhuri, member of the organization "Extinction Rebellion", apprehending arrest in connection with the Toolkit case.
"The apprehension of arrest is made out by the applicant. The reasons for apprehension of arrest is justified in the facts and circumstances set out. Admittedly, FIR is lodged at New Delhi and any regular application for anticipatory bail under sec. 438 of CrPC would be considered by the competent court at Delhi. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for protection by way of granting transit bail to approach the competent authority for seeking appropriate reliefs," the order states.
6. Maharashtra Govt Ban On School Fee Hike Prospective; Won't Apply To Schools Which Fixed Fee Before May 8, 2020: Bombay HC [Association of Indian Schools & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra]
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni asked Maharashtra state government to deal with complaints regarding fee hike in schools on a case-to-case basis, while disposing off a clutch of petitions by private unaided schools challenging a Government Resolution from May 8, 2020. The GR barred private unaided schools from increasing their fees for the academic year 2020-21, in view of the pandemic.
It left open the question about validity of such a resolution being passed by the government, but clarified that the GR is prospective in nature and would not affect cases where the fee was fixed and accepted before the GR. The order implies the GR is still in force.
A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale refused to allow 2008 Malegaon blast accused Lt. Colonel Prasad Purohit to bring certain 'confidential' documents related to his service in the Indian Army, on record, without serving a copy to the intervenor, a victim of the blast.
It said in unequivocal terms that if a petitioner intended to rely on a document, it was imperative the that the respondent was given a copy for consideration. "This is the concept of an open court. If you want us to consider the document in our judgment, a copy must be given to the other side," Justice Shinde said.
8. "Exercise Restraint And Follow 'Nilesh Navlakha Case' Guidelines On Media Trial Scrupulously": Bombay High Court To Media [Lahu Chandu Chavan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]
A Bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice Manish Pitale directed media organizations to observe restraint and not publish any content related to the incident of death of a Pune woman who fell from the balcony of her house and subsequently died.
It also directed the media organizations to scrupulously follow the guidelines which the Court had laid down in the case of Nilesh Navlakha v. Union of India, Aironline 2021 Bom 14 [Sushant Singh Rajput case] and not to give any unnecessary publicity to the illicit relationship of the Woman.
A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale granted Republic TV's Editor-in-Chief, Arnab Goswami, exemption from personal appearance before an Alibaug court in the Anvay Naik abetment to suicide case, till April 16. It granted the ad-interim relief on an amended plea by Goswami, seeking to quash the 2018 FIR and charge sheet against him in the interior designer's suicide.
10. Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Ex-BARC CEO Partho Dasgupta In TRP Scam Case
A Bench of Justice PD Naik granted bail to Partho Dasgupta, former CEO of Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC), Partho Dasgupta, in the case registered by the Mumbai police over the alleged manipulation of Target Rating Points (TRPs) of news channels to give undue favours to Republic TV.
Dasgupta was arrested on December 24, 2020 and is currently lodged in Taloja Prison. He was BARC's CEO between June 2013 to November 2019 and is accused of receiving US $12,000 and Rs. 40 lakh cash from Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami, for manipulating TRPs for his channel.
11. "Petitioner Is Like My Daughter"- Sanjay Raut To Bombay High Court On Harassment Allegations
Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut refuted allegations of harassment by a Kalina based psychologist before a division bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale, and argued that the petitioner- a family friend- was like a daughter to him. Raut said that the lady is levelling allegations against him because she is under the impression that he is taking her husband's side in their matrimonial dispute
The court was hearing writ petitions by the psychologist residing in Kalina, in Mumbai, seeking directions to the Mumbai Police to investigate three FIRs lodged by her in 2013 and 2018 against unknown persons and to initiate action against the Deputy Police Commissioner (DCP), zone 8.
Calcutta High Court
1. Constitutional & Statutory Responsibility Of Govt. To Dispose Of Dead Bodies Which Aren't Being Cared For By Near & Dear Ones: Calcutta High Court [Lakshmikanta Lagar & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.]
A Bench of Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice Arijit Banerjee directed the West Bengal Government to take a decision relating to the installation of the electric chulli (electric crematorium) in a particular locality of the State for the utility of the people.
It also observed, "Disposal of dead bodies, in the ultimate situation of such dead bodies not being cared for by the near and dear ones, is the constitutional and statutory responsibility of the Government or the local self-government in accordance with the Acts and Rules."
2. "Election Commission To Ensure Free & Fair Elections", Calcutta High Court On West Bengal Assembly Polls [Bimal Kumar Chatterjee v. Election Commission of India & Ors.]
Recording the Election Commission's submission that it would ensure that West Bengal Assembly Elections are conducted in a free and fair manner, a Bench of Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice Shampa Sarkar disposed of a PIL that raised apprehension over conduct free and fair election in the State of West Bengal.
It noted in its order that it is within the domain of the Election Commission of India to ensure a free and fair election in the constituencies, where a notification has been issued by the Election Commission of India.
3. Strictly Follow The Directions To Ensure That There is No Unauthorized And Uncontrolled Slaughtering Of Cattle Including Cows: Calcutta HC Directs Municipal Corporation [Rajyashree Chaudhuri v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors.]
A Bench of Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice Arijit Banerjee directed the Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities to take action against people found slaughtering cattle including cows and/or exhibiting for sale flesh of slaughtered cattle and/or selling cattle meat.
It further directed the Corporation to strictly enforce the measures mentioned by the Commissioner in his affidavit (filed before the Court) "so that there is no unauthorized or uncontrolled slaughtering of cattle including the cows".
Delhi High Court
1. COVID Vaccine For Legal Fraternity : Delhi HC Seeks Affidavits From Bharat Biotech, SII On Capacity
A Division Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi & Rekha Palli directed the Union, Government of Delhi, Bharat Biotech and Serum Institute of India to file their affidavits addressing various issues raised by the court today in a case concerning Covid19 vaccination for the legal fraternity.
Taking note of the submissions of the counsels for the Serum Institute and Bharat Biotech that they have excess production capacity, the court directed the organizations to file affidavits clarifying their respective capacities to produce CoviShield and Covaxin - to be indicated as per day/week/month basis, their current offtake, their excess capacity, and how much the two organizations can scale up.
The court remarked, "We are either donating or selling off the vaccines to other countries, without looking at our own needs. There has to be a sense of urgency about this."
Hearing Delhi riots conspiracy case accused Asif Iqbal Tanha's writ petition against his media trial, a single judge bench of Justice Mukta Gupta came down heavily on the Vigilance Branch of Delhi Police for its failure to identify the source of leakage of case file documents to the media in his case. The bench orally observed, "This vigilance enquiry is even worse than what they do in a petty theft case."
Warning the authorities of harsher orders being passed as the Vigilance Enquiry had failed to establish the source of leakage, the court also said that the Special Commissioner of Police (Vigilance) would have to be present on the next date of hearing.
3. AIIMS Nurses' Strike- "They Rendered Yeoman's Service To Society/Patients During COVID-19": Delhi HC Directs AIIMS Not To Take Coercive Action Against Them [AIIMS v. AIIMS Nurses Union]
Underlining that health workers and nurses in general, including nurses working at AIIMS have rendered yeoman's service to society and patients, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, a Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed AIIMS not to take coercive steps against Nurses for having gone on strike. It also directed that the conciliation proceedings should continue under the ID Act should be decided expeditiously (in any case within a period of three months).
The Nurses Union resorted to strike alleging that its demands and issues with AIIMS were not addressed.
A single judge bench of Justice Prathiba Singh today sought response from the Delhi government on its scheme for compensation of Delhi riots' victims, which has been alleged to be discriminatory for awarding different compensation amounts to families of major and minor deceased riots' victims. The court will next hear the matter on April 26.
5. Delhi High Court Directs Suspension of HappyEasyGo.com Ad Account On Google, On MakeMyTrip Plea
A single judge bench of Justice Jayant Nath directed search engine major Google to suspend the advertising account of travel booking website, HappyEasyGo.com on its Ad Words programme, where companies bid for keywords to appear on top of Google's search results.
The directive came on two contempt petitions by Make-MyTrip against HappyEasyGo for acting against a prior order which had restrained HEG from bidding for, adopting and using any of MMT's word marks or deceptive variants thereof, as an Ad Word through Google's Ad Word Programme.
A Division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jasmeet Singh refused to entertain a plea by a claimed professor seeking directions to the state governments of Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi to take specific steps to combat the anticipated water supply shortage in Delhi, telling the petitioner that "experts" in the three governments were already looking into the issue and that he himself isn't a "super-government".
The petitioner claimed that the fact of the water supply shortage was revealed through the reply to an RTI filed by him. Slamming the petitioner for approaching the Court with what it called a "blackmailing type of petition", the Court asked the petitioner his standing to be seeking intervention into the policy-level decision and remarked, "Who are you? In the eyes of law, who are you? You want directions to these states, but high ranking officials in all the 3 governments are already looking into it, are you smarter than all of them?"
Hearing a petition by actor Rakul Preet Singh seeking action against media channels for allegedly broadcasting maligning campaign against her, a single judge bench of Justice Prathiba Singh directed the Information and Broadcasting Ministry to take action against media channels that are not members of the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) if they are found guilty of the allegations.
The court had issued notice on Singh's plea in September last year, after she filed a petition against media channels for allegedly linking her to a drug fiasco after her name surfaced during the investigation related to Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput's death.
8. UP Bar Council VS BCI- "Have Power To Give Directions To State Bar Councils Under Advocates Act": BCI Tells Delhi High Court [Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Bar Council of India & Ors.]
The Chairman of the Bar Council of India, Manan Mishra, informed a Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh that the Circulars dated 19th January, 2021 and 2nd February, 2021 for appointment of Committees to look after the activities of the Bar Council of UP have been issued in exercise of its powers under Section 48B of the Advocates Act.
The impugned Circulars provide for appointment of a nine-member Committee to look after its activities and a three-member Committee for conducting its elections, respectively. Opposing the same, the UP Bar Council submitted that vide the impugned circulars, the State Bar Council has, in effect, been superseded by the BCI and its bank accounts are put under the control of the three-member election committee.
A single judge bench of Justice Mukta Gupta expressed its displeasure with the evasive stand taken by the Delhi police in responding to the grievance raised by Asif Iqbal Tanha, accused in Delhi riots conspiracy case, regarding the leakage of his alleged confessional statement to the media. Standing Counsel for Delhi Police, Amit Mahajan refuted the claim that the leakage was done by the police and said that responsibility for the allegations cannot be affixed on them.
The court then pointed out that the case was already beyond the stage of allegations as the police's property had already been passed on, and with the media having the particular information, the case was in fact established.
10. Press Council Censure Order Effectively Stopping Ads In Hindustan Times Newspaper": Delhi High Court Stays Order [Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. v. Press Council of India & Ors.]
A Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh stayed a communication issued by the Press Council of India (PCI) to the Government Departments, which had effectively barred all Government agencies from placing advertisements in the newspapers owned by Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd.
The Court was hearing the plea of Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd., challenging PCI's order through which, in effect, it was "censured". This Order was issued as allegedly the Petitioner failed to clarify that the content printed is an advertisement, which is a requirement as per clause 2(xxvi) of the Norms of Journalistic conduct framed by PCI.
11. Delhi High Court Rejects Challenge To Appointment Of Dr. Najma Akhtar As VC, Jamia Milia Islamia [M. Ehtesham-Ul-Haque v. Union of India & Ors.]
A single judge bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao rejected a quo warranto writ petition challenging the appointment of Dr. Najma Akhtar as Vice Chancellor of Jamia Milia Islamia University for allegedly being illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio and non-est in law.
The court noted, inter alia, that position of law is that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Search Committee. "Rather the scope is limited to judicial review of the decision whereby the Court is only concerned with whether the incumbent possessed qualifications for the appointment and the manner in which the appointment came to be made or whether the procedure adopted was fair, just and reasonable."
Other developments:
- Delhi High Court Grants Centre Further 4 Weeks' To Respond To Plea Against WhatsApp's Privacy Policy
- Delhi High Court Directs Administrative Wing & Delhi Govt To Consider Digitization Of All Court Records
- Use Of Slang Like 'Tom, Dick & Harry' Not Permissible In Pleadings : Delhi HC Dismisses Petition
- Farmer's Death During Tractor Rally : Delhi HC Directs UP Police To Give Post Mortem Video, Inquest Report & X-Ray To Delhi Police
- Delhi High Court Seeks Union's Health Budget Details, Crowdfunding Proposals On Petition For Treatment of Rare Diseases
- [Covid-19] Delhi High Court Directs 3499 Undertrial Prisoners To Surrender Before Jail Superintendents On Expiry Of Interim Bails
Gauhati High Court
1. Plea To Provide Legal Aid To NRC Excluded People In Assam: Gauhati High Court Issues Notice To UOI, State Government [Citizen For Justice & Peace v. Union of India & Ors.]
While hearing a plea filed by Human rights organization 'Citizens for Justice and Peace' seeking proper legal aid for such people who have been left out of the National Register of Citizens in Assam, a bench of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak issued notice to the Union of India, State Government among others.
The Petitioner-organization submitted that a survey conducted by it in 10 District Legal Services Authority establishments revealed they were understaffed with the under-trained paralegal volunteers and poor infrastructure.
Gujarat High Court
1. "No Person Has Right To Retain Encroached Land": Gujarat High Court Denies Relief To Evicted Slum Dwellers; Asks State To Frame Land Allotment Policies [Vora Zakirhusain Valibhai v. State Of Gujarat]
In a significant judgment touching upon the interplay of slum dwellers' right to shelter and menace of land encroachment, a Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice JB Pardiwala held that Right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(e) and Article 21 of the Constitution. However, no person has a right to encroach on any place earmarked for a public purpose.
It thus declined relief to the Petitioners, slum dwellers who were uprooted by the Government authorities in September 2020 from the Gandhinagar Railway Station area.
2. "How is This Permissible?": Gujarat High Court Expresses Shock Over Report That Over 5,000 Schools Functioning Without Fire Safety NOC [Amit Manilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat]
A Division Bench comprising of Justices JB Pardiwala and Ilesh J. Vora expressed shock at the functioning of over 5,000 schools in the State without a valid and subsisting No Objection Certificate with regard to the Fire Prevention and Protection Systems. It sternly remarked, "How is this permissible? How can one play with the innocent lives of the students studying in such schools? If no steps are taken in this direction at the earliest, then this Court may be compelled to ask the State Government to cancel the recognition of such schools."
The observation was made in a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Manilal Panchal seeking proper implementation of fire safety norms across all public accessible buildings in the State, in wake of the Shrey Hospital fire incident in Ahmedabad in August 2020, that took eight lives.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
1. Surrogate Woman Entitled To Maternity Leave Benefits, To Distinguish Between A Surrogate Mother And Natural Mother Would Result In Insulting Womanhood: Himachal HC [Sushma Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.]
A division bench comprising of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sandeep Sharma observed that a surrogate woman, getting child through arrangement by surrogate parents, is entitled to avail maternity leave benefits under Rule 43(1) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. The Court opined that it would be "an insult to womanhood" to distinguish between a mother who begets a child through surrogacy and a natural mother who gives birth to a child.
The bench observed, "Motherhood never ends on the birth of the child and a commissioning mother cannot be refused paid maternity leave. A woman cannot be discriminated, as far as maternity benefits are concerned, only on the ground that she has obtained the baby through surrogacy. A newly born child cannot be left at the mercy of others as it needs rearing and that is the most crucial period during which the child requires care and attention of his mother. The tremendous amount of learning that takes place in the first year of the baby's life, the baby learns a lot too. A bond of affection has also to be developed."
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
1. Jammu & Kashmir High Court Seeks Centre's Response On Functioning Of Armed Forces Tribunal in Jammu [Mohd Rafiq Malik v. Union of India & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar sought response from the Central Government on functioning of the Armed Forces Tribunal in Jammu. It granted four weeks' time to the Assistant Solicitor General, Vishal Sharma, to file a counter affidavit in the matter.
The direction was made on a writ petition filed by an ex-army personnel, Mohd Rafiq Malik, complaining that the Armed Forces Tribunal has not been functioning in Jammu ever since the pandemic hit, thus depriving him of access to Justice.
2. 'Until State Is Held Vicariously Responsible For Menace Of Spurious Drugs, Its Department Will Never Swing Into Action': Jammu & Kashmir High Court [UT of J&K & Ors. v. NHRC & Ors.]
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sindhu Sharma upheld an order of the National Human Rights Commission, holding the Government vicariously liable for lapses on part of its Drugs Department, in keep a regular vigil on the contents of drugs being offered for sale.
"Until and unless, the State is held vicariously responsible for such actions or omissions, the Government or its department would never swing into action effectively so as to control the menace of sale of contaminated or spurious drugs. A welfare State cannot escape from the responsibility to compensate the irreparable loss so caused to the families of the victims due to lapses of the Department," the Court said while upholding the order for payment of ₹3,00,000/- each to the next of kins of ten children who lost their lives due to consumption of a spurious cough syrup in the State in December 2019.
Karnataka High Court
A Single Bench of Justice HP Sandesh refused to stay the proceedings initiated against actress Kangana Ranaut by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) at Tumkur, which had on October 9, 2020 directed the jurisdictional Police Station (Kyathasandra) to register FIR against her for her tweet on farmers opposing the Farmers Bill.
Ranaut has moved the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash a FIR registered against her. The Court granted one week time to the petitioner to comply with office objection and posted the matter for further hearing on March 18.
A bench of Justice R Devdas clarified that its February 8 order quashing the Karnataka State Law University (KSLU) circular and Bar Council of India (BCI) decision to conduct end semester physical examination for 5-year LLB course will also be applicable to the 3-year LLB course.
3. Can Insurance Scheme Be Formed For Advocates Like Done By Delhi Govt? Karnataka HC Asks State Govt
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Aravind Kumar suggested the State government to convene a meeting of officer bearers of Bar Association, State government officials, LIC and four public sector Insurance companies including New Indian Insurance company, to ascertain whether a scheme can be evolved for the benefit of Advocates, as was done by the Delhi Government last year.
By its order, the Delhi High Court had approved the insurance policy decided by the Delhi Government, with the assistance of the Bar Council of Delhi, to implement the Chief Minister Advocate Welfare Scheme. The Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh has approved the policy which will provide medical and life insurance to 29077 advocates residing in Delhi.
4. Farmers Suicide - State Govt Policy To Compensate Only Farmers Who Borrowed From Banks Discriminatory, Says Karnataka HC [Akhanda Karnataka Raitha Sangha v. Union of India & Ors.]
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty took strong objection to the classification created by the state government whereby financial aid is given only to farmers who ended life after borrowing from banks and financial institutions.
It directed the State Chief Secretary to make a clear stand whether families of the farmers who killed themselves after borrowing from private money lenders will be excluded from government assistance of Rs 5 lakhs.
The Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) on Wednesday withdrew an affidavit filed by it before the Karnataka High Court in which it stated that no public rally or gathering was held by the party during the COVID-19 pandemic times. This happened after the Court warned that there will be action for perjury for making a false statement on affidavit.
"A very bold statement to make that this party has not conducted any road shows or gatherings. This is false. You better correct yourself. There are photographs of the events", a bench headed by Chief Justice Abhay S Oka told the counsel representing the BJP.
Other developments:
- 'Can't Be Tolerated' : Karnataka High Court On Deaths Of Two Manhole Workers & Suicide Of Cleaner After Manual Scavenging
- Karnataka HC Calls For Appearance Of BBMP Officers For Solving Road Potholes Problem
- 56 UAPA Cases Pending In Bengaluru Urban District : Karnataka HC Directs Immediate Appointment Of Judge
- 'We Must Modernize': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Stay FASTag Implementation
Kerala High Court
1. Kerala High Court Dismisses Jolly Joseph's Bail Plea, Says Bail Could Risk Exposing Witnesses To Possible Threat At Her Hands [Jollyamma Joseph v. State of Kerala]
A Single Bench of Justice Ashok Menon dismissed a bail application filed by Jollyamma Joseph, accused of poisoning six members of her family over a span of fourteen years. It highlighted that statements made by her son as well as other close relatives pointed to her complicity in the killings.
Joseph has been charged with killing members of her family primarily in order to take control of the family property and subsequently to marry her second husband. As per the prosecution's stance, she killed her father-in-law to prevent him from bequeathing his property to her brother-in-law.
2. [Thattekkadu Capsize] Degree Of Knowledge For Culpable Homicide Must Verge On Certainty, Mere Knowledge That Boat Is Overloaded Insufficient: Kerala HC [PM Raju v. State of Kerala]
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that merely knowing that there is overloading on a boat and there is a possibility of the boat sinking, was not the required knowledge contemplated under Section 304 IPC.
The observation was made while deciding an appeal filed by PM Raju, the owner and driver of the ill-fated boat 'Sivaranjini' whose capsize led to the death of 18 persons (of which 15 were children) near from St.Antony's U.P. School Elavoor near Thattekkadu in 2008. The Court convicted him for causing death by a rash and negligent act instead.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice R Narayana Pisharadi emphasised that a person could not be charged for murder as well as abetment of suicide simultaneously. It underscored that the offences of murder and suicide, punishable under Sections 302 and 306 respectively, are 'mutually exclusive' and cannot coexist.
It said, "The offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Section 306 of IPC are mutually exclusive. The offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC presupposes commission of suicide. The offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC contemplates punishment for murder which presumes existence of intention on the part of the accused to kill the victim. Section 306 of the IPC envisages suicidal death and it undisputedly excludes homicidal death. Charges under both sections cannot co-exist."
A single bench of Justice N Nagaresh directed the state police chief to produce the details of complaints received against two police officers and also to inform if there are any disciplinary proceedings pending against them. The order was passed while hearing a writ petition filed by Advocate C S Hemalal, who alleged that he was assaulted by two police officers, Laisad Mohammad and P Sreekumar over a car parking dispute.
A Bench of Justice R Narayana Pisharadi ruled that while a permission for further investigation was not mandated by the Criminal Procedure Code, It is a well-accepted legal practice based on principles of courtesy and propriety.
The Court extracted a passage form Ram Lal Narang v. State that underscored that a court permission before a probe would be desirable. Additionally, in State of AP v. AS Peter, the Supreme Court had ruled that permission was not necessary before a further investigation. However, the Apex Court clarified that such permission was necessary before a re-investigation.
A Single bench of Justice Nagaresh heard a petition challenging, among other issues, the failure to publish the list of forward communities. The petitioner, the Nair Service Society (NSS) alleged that the state government was lethargic in publishing the list, which was a requisite to apply for non-creamy layer certificates to avail economically weaker section (EWS) reservations.
The bench questioned the state on why the list remained unpublished. It thereafter called upon the state to furnish reasons as to the non-publication on an earlier occasion as well.
7. Kerala High Court Stays Government Orders For Regularizing Temporary/Contract Employees [Vishnu S. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.]
In an interim order, a Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran directed a halt on the Government Order regularising the services of those who completed ten years of service in semi-government and various government departments. It observed that a prima facie case had been disclosed to admit the writ petition jointly filed by 31 petitioners who were included in rank lists prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission.
The petitioners challenged the Kerala State Government's decision to regularise the services of temporary employees in government and semi-government organisations. They also sought a direction that the temporary/contract employees sought to be regularized should be allowed to continue only on daily-wage or contract basis.
8. Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To 2 Men Accused Of Attacking Sabarimala Activist; Finds Allegations Prima Facie Mala Fide [Pratheesh R. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.]
A Bench of Justice B Sudheendra Kumar allowed pre-arrest bail to two persons accused of being part of a group that sprayed 'chemical' spray on activist Bindu Ammini when she approached the Ernakulam City Commissioner's office in 2019 seeking police protection for her pilgrimage to the Sabarimala temple.
It found that the allegations as against BJP/RSS workers Prateesh Viswanath and CC Rajagopal appeared to be tainted with malafides. The alleged incident took place in the backdrop of the Supreme Court's verdict allowing women entry into Sabarimala temple.
The Customs Deparment has told the Kerala High Court that the prime accused in gold smuggling case, Swapna Suresh, has made "shocking revelations" against Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan, Speaker and three Ministers regarding smuggling of US Dollars in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
The statement comes in response to an application filed by the Directorate of Prisons challenging an Order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Order directed protection to gold smuggling accused Swapna Suresh in the prison in which she was detained. Swapna is a key accused in a case involving the smuggling of gold via diplomatic channels and facing multiple probes by ED, NIA and Customs. She has been under custody from September 2020.
10. Can Call Details Of Police Officers Be Furnished To The Accused? Kerala High Court Refers Question For The Consideration Of Division Bench [Gokul Raj v. State of Kerala & Ors.]
Faced with a rather interesting request by a person accused in a drug haul seeking the call records of certain persons including investigating officers between a certain time window on a particular date, a Single Bench of Justice B Sudeendhra Kumar referred the matter to a larger Bench.
The applicant had beseeched the Court to issue directions to the Nodal Officers concerned to furnish the call details of certain persons, among whom were certain excise officers who investigated narcotics offences in the state. In his application, he prayed that the name of the subscriber, call details and the tower location of the mobile phone numbers of certain persons be produced.
11. Without Stringent Action, Malice Of Unauthorized Boards/Banners/Flags Can Never Be Rooted From Our Streets: Kerala HC [St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church v. State of Kerala & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran urged the Election Commission to ensure no unauthorized boards, banners and hoardings are put up in public places. The Court expressed displeasure at the inaction in removing these objects, despite 25 Orders.
Opining that the upcoming state elections would only worsen the situation, the Court directed the Election Commission to ensure political parties refrained from erecting unauthorised hoardings, boards, banners, flags and other material in public places.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
1. Commercial Matters Involving Arbitration Disputes Can Only Be Heard By Commercial Court Of Status Of District Judge/Addl District Judge: Madhya Pradesh High Court [Yashwardhan Raghuwanshi v. District & Sessions Judge & Anr.]
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla held that Commercial matters involving Arbitration disputes can only be heard by Commercial Court of the status of District Judge or Additional District Judge. It held that a Civil Judge would not be the competent authority to entertain cases under Sections 9,14, 34 & 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
It held that the language employed in the definition clause of "Court" in Section 2(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act clearly indicates that the Legislature intended to confer power in respect of disputes involving arbitration on the highest judicial Court of the District. This, the Court opined, was done to minimize the supervisory role of Courts in the arbitral process and, therefore, purposely excluded any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such Principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes.
Madras High Court
1. University Agreed To Give 30% Concession: Madras High Court Disposes Plea By Students Of School Of Excellence In Law [Gopinath & Ors. v. State of Tami Nadu & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi disposed of a PIL filed by over 90 students of the School of Excellence in Law, affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, challenging levy of fees for certain unutilized facilities in the academic year 2020-21, when academic learning was restricted to online classrooms, due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The development comes after the University informed that it's Finance Committee has decided to grant 30% concession in the fee (other than Admission fee, Tuition fee, & AIR Cafe fee) payable during the academic year 2020-2021.
2. Woman IPS Officer Allegedly Sexually Harassed & Stopped From Filing Complaint By DGP: Madras High Court Takes Cognizance; Will Monitor Investigation [Suo Moto Writ]
A Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh took suo moto cognizance of alleged sexual harassment of a IPS cadre woman officer by her senior, a Special DGP, and has decided to monitor investigation into the case itself. It minced no words in criticizing the alleged incident and also expressed displeasure at the manner in which the Special DGP allegedly used his contacts and power to prevent the victim officer from even filing a complaint against him.
The Judge was concerned that if an officer holding a high rank in Indian Police Services can be harassed and be forced to not file a complaint, what must be the state of ordinary women who are victims of such acts.
3. "Open To Petitioner To Live In The Stone Age, Courts Can't Impose Sanctions On How Media/Social Media Operates": Madras HC [S. Umamaheswaran v. Union of India & Ors.]
A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice R. Hemalatha dismissed a plea seeking directions to the respondents (including the Union of India) to take necessary steps to control, monitor, guide, and to form a panel of censor members of the social platforms.
Observing that it is open to the petitioner to live in the stone age or to protect his family or his children from the advances of technology, the Bench remarked, "Though complaints may be entertained, the Courts are not there to impose sanctions or guidelines on how the media or even social media operates and it is for the other agencies to do so, based on the policy decision taken by the legislature of the day or the executive arm."
4. 'Once Plea Of Mistake Is Raised, It Is For The Party Pleading Mistake To Prove The Same': Madras High Court [P. Sivakumar v. S. Beula]
A Single Bench of Justice R. Subramanian held that a person, who raises a plea of mistake in order to controvert any material produced before the Court, bears the burden to establish such mistake. It therefore dismissed the plea of a woman, claiming that she is a Hindu and that she was mistakenly shown as a Christian in her school certificates.
The Court observed, "the courts below were not right in placing burden of proving misrepresentation on the appellant and concluding that the appellant has not discharged the burden. Once the plea of mistake is raised, it is for the party pleading mistake to prove the same. The documentary evidence that is made available would clearly point out the fact that there was a misrepresentation with reference to the material fact namely, the religion of the respondent at the time of marriage."
5. Shocking That Children In This Country Are Till Date Being Subjected To Sadistic & Inhumane Culture Of Corporal Punishment: Madras High Court [S. Jai Singh & Ors. v. State & Anr.]
"Despite the legislative framework that by all means seek to eliminate corporal punishment, the practice has been persistently followed by schools and institutions across the country," observed a Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh in a case arising out of the death of a school child whilst he was being subjected to corporal punishment for arriving late.
At the outset, the Judge referred to a series of research in the field, revealing that the outcomes of corporal punishment can be severely negative inasmuch as it can encourage violence in children and may even cause immense psychological damage to a child. It referred to a judgement of the Delhi High Court in Parents Forum For Meaningful Education & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., 2001 (57) DRJ 456 (DB), where it struck down Rule 37(1)(a)(in) and (4) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, which gave a legal sanction for corporal punishment, as being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
6. Call Of Policy-Makers In The Legislature To Consider Whether State Should Turn Dry, Court's Have No Role To Play: Madras High Court [V. Kaliyamoorthy v. District Collector Thanjavur District]
Underlining that Courts cannot barge and interfere on the personal predilection of any individual that every form of drinking may be evil, a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice R. Hemalatha held that it is for the policy-makers in the legislature to consider whether the State should turn dry.
It thereby dismissed a plea seeking directions to the respondents to close and shift a TASMAC Shop and the bar attached therein, functioning at a particular of Thanjavur District.
Patna High Court
1. Rape Victim's Identity Shouldn't Be Indicated Unless Such Disclosure Becomes Imperative For Which Reasons Are To Be Given: Patna High Court [Nagendra Kumar v. State of Bihar]
A Bench of Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh directed all courts subordinate to ensure that the identity of the rape victim is not indicated in Orders/Judgment, unless such disclosure becomes imperative, for the reasons recorded in writing by the special courts. The Court took into account Section 228-A of IPC and Section 24 of POCSO to stress that identification of a child, in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection or a child victim or a witness of a crime involved in such matters, should not be disclosed.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
1. Punjab and Haryana HC Seeks Details Of Cases Against MPs, MLAs From Trial Courts [Court on its own motion versus State of Punjab]
A division bench consisting of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh took cognizance of cases pending against MPs, MLAs. It directed all the District and Sessions Judges to send information regarding pending cases against legislators, to fast-track adjudication by issuing directions for their expeditious disposal.
2. Don't Allow Installation Of Towers On Residential Buildings Till Further Orders: P&H High Court Directs Punjab Govt. [Simarjeet Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.]
While deliberating upon the 'larger question' regarding 'installation of towers on residential building', a Bench of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh directed the Punjab Government to not allow installation of towers on the residential buildings till further orders (as an interim measure).
It has passed this order in view of the fact that installation of towers in a haphazard manner may endanger lives and property of the people and would violate their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Apart from this, the Bench has also issued a notice of motion to the Punjab State Government asking them to clarify as to whether a uniform policy was being adopted across the Punjab or stand-alone instructions had been given for a particular place.
Tripura High Court
1. Once The Investigation Is Completed It Is Mandatory For The Police To Inform The Informant About Action Taken: Tripura High Court [Bhaskar Deb v. State of Tripura & Anr.]
A Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice SG Chattopadhyay directed the State Government to ensure that the requirements of Section 173 (2) (ii) of CrPC are 'scrupulously followed' in all cases. The said provision makes it mandatory for the officer-in-charge of the police station to communicate the action taken by him to the first informant upon the completion of the investigation.
2. Careless Insults To Religion Without Deliberate Intention To Outrage Religious Feelings Not Offence Under Sec 295A IPC : Tripura High Court [Dulal Ghosh v. State of Tripura & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi held that insults to religion made unwittingly/ without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of a class would not amount to an offence under Section 295A of IPC.
It referred to the findings of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP, AIR 1957 SC 620, and held, "The petitioner can hold his personal beliefs and within the framework of law can also express them, as long as he does not transgress any of the restrictions imposed by law to the freedom of his speech and expression."