NOMINAL INDEX Kul Bhushan Mishra And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 197 Vinod Kumar Gupta And Another vs. Sri Veer Bahadur Yadav, S.D.M. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 198 Shyam Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 199 Raj Kumar @ Rajenda Srivas And 3 Others vs. Mohd. Kaukab Azim Rizvi And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB)...
NOMINAL INDEX
Kul Bhushan Mishra And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 197
Vinod Kumar Gupta And Another vs. Sri Veer Bahadur Yadav, S.D.M. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 198
Shyam Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 199
Raj Kumar @ Rajenda Srivas And 3 Others vs. Mohd. Kaukab Azim Rizvi And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 200
Kiran Rawat And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 201
Raj Narain @ Ram vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 202
Rajkumari vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 203
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case title - Kul Bhushan Mishra And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 10209 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 197
While holding that transfer cannot be sought as a matter of right, the Allahabad High Court upheld the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Government’s transfer policy for assistant teachers teaching in Basic Education Institutions run by the Basic Education Board.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava did not find any illegality in the policy of the State to restrict the entertainment of application for transfer in normal circumstances unless a particular teacher has completed a specified length of service (five years’ service for male teachers and two years’ service for female teachers) in the cadre.
Case title - Vinod Kumar Gupta And Another vs. Sri Veer Bahadur Yadav, S.D.M. And Another [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 234 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 198
The Allahabad High Court observed that an intra-court appeal is not maintainable against the order of the Single Judge declining to initiate contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnor.
The bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Vikas Budhwar further held that no appeal is maintainable against dropping contempt proceedings against the contemnor under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the remedy lies under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court.
Case title - Shyam Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22529 of 2008]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 199
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a second application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC can sustain, after the rejection of the first application, if there are changes in the circumstances, entitling a person to be a claimant under the said provision.
Stressing that the liability to maintain under section 125 CrPC is a continuing one, the bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma was of the view that if the right to file an application for maintenance is foreclosed, it shall frustrate the very purpose of section 125 CrPC.
Case title - Raj Kumar @ Rajenda Srivas And 3 Others vs. Mohd. Kaukab Azim Rizvi And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 200 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5480 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 200
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the photocopy of the sale deed cannot be accepted as surety for the purposes of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 read with Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
The bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari noted that for the purposes of both the provisions, a surety should have been of the nature, which may be sold out as and when required and since, on the basis of the photocopy of the sale deed, no sale of the property can be made, therefore, such surety cannot be accepted.
Case title - Kiran Rawat And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3310 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 201
While dismissing a plea filed by an interfaith live-in couple seeking protection against alleged harassment at the hands of the police, the Allahabad High Court observed that the views expressed by the Supreme Court pertaining to 'live-in' relationships "cannot be considered to promote such relationships"
Observing that traditionally, Law has been biased in favour of marriage, the Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari also stressed upon the need to create awareness in young minds regarding the emotional and societal pressures and legal hassles which may be created by such relations.
Case title - Raj Narain @ Ram vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1817 of 2003]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 202
The Allahabad High Court ordered for the immediate release of a man who was arrested and sent to jail in December last year in connection with the same crime for which he already underwent a 7-year sentence, 14 years ago.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy also recalled HC’s November 15, 2022 order wherein a non-bailable Warrant was issued and in pursuance thereof, the appellant, who had already undergone the sentence, was again arrested and sent to Jail.
Case title - Rajkumari vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7496 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 203
The Allahabad High Court observed that the investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014).
“…a police officer is duty-bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing. The consequence of noncompliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offence. On the scope and objective of Section 41 and 41A, it is obvious that they are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution,” the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prakash Padia observed.
MORE UPDATES FROM THE HIGH COURT
Slamming the makers of the movie Adipurush for portraying religious characters including Lord Rama and Lord Hanuman in an objectionable manner, the Allahabad High Court observed as to why the tolerance level of a particular religion (referring to Hindus) was being put to the test by them.
"The one who is gentle should be suppressed? Is it so? It is good that it is about a religion, the believers of which did not create any public order problem. We should be thankful. We saw in the news that some people had gone to cinema halls (wherein the movie was being exhibited) and they only forced them to close the hall, they could have done something else as well," the bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Shree Prakash Singh orally remarked while noting that the CBFC should have done something while granting certificate in the matter.
While dealing with two PIL (Public Interest Litigation) pleas filed against the exhibition of Adipurush film, the Allahabad High Court asked the Union Of India as to whether it is considering taking appropriate steps in the interest of the public at large by invoking its revisional power under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
For context, the abovesaid provision of the Cinematograph Act provides for revisional powers to the Union government allowing it to call for the record of any proceeding which is pending before, or has been decided by the Central Board of Film Certification. It can do so on its own motion and at any stage.
While continuing to slam the makers of the film Adipurush for portraying religious characters of Ramayana including Lord Rama and Lord Hanuman in an objectionable manner, the Allahabad High Court observed that the Court of Law is not about any one religion and that it is concerned with the sentiments of all religions equally.
"You should not touch Quran, Bible and other sacred texts. We may make it clear that it is not about any one religion. But you should not depict any religion in a bad light. The Court has no religion of its own. Our only concern is that the law and order situation should be maintained," the bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Shree Prakash Singh remarked as they questioned the psyche of the makers of the film while making the movie.
While directing the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to submit their personal affidavits in two PIL pleas challenging objecting to the dialogues and scenes of the movie Adipurush, the Allahabad High Court said that certifying this movie was a blunder and that it has hurt the sentiments of the people at large.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Shree Prakash Singh, while questioning the psyche of the makers of the film, further observed that sacred texts such as Quran, and Bible should not be touched and encroached upon in such a way.
Observing that the shameful and disgusting portrayal of religious Icons including Lord Rama, Devi Sita and Lord Hanuman in the movie Adipurush has hurt the emotions of the people at large, the Allahabad High Court has sought the personal presence of movie Director (Om Raut), Producer (Bhushan Kumar) and Dialogue Writer (Manoj Muntashir Shukla) to explain their bonafide.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Shree Prakash Singh has also directed the Central government to constitute a committee to ‘revisit’ the certificate issued to the Prabhas, Saif Ali Khan and Kriti Sanon starrer movie.