As the end of year 2021 is nearing, LiveLaw brings to you a bunch of important Cases from the Rajasthan High Court. This digest includes 48 important orders and judgments, spread across 11 different headsWomen/Children Centric Cases 1. In Digital Era, Employees Working In Different States To Be Treated As 'One Work Place' For Purposes Of Sexual Harassment At Workplace: Rajasthan High...
As the end of year 2021 is nearing, LiveLaw brings to you a bunch of important Cases from the Rajasthan High Court. This digest includes 48 important orders and judgments, spread across 11 different heads
Women/Children Centric Cases
1. In Digital Era, Employees Working In Different States To Be Treated As 'One Work Place' For Purposes Of Sexual Harassment At Workplace: Rajasthan High Court [Sanjeev Mishra v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma made it clear that in the digital age, posting of the Complainant in a different state from the accused would not be a barrier in prosecuting the latter for sexual harassment at workplace.
"In the present digital world, work place for employees working in the Bank and who have earlier worked in the same Branch and later on shifted to different branches which may be situated in different States has to be treated completely as one work place on a digital platform," the Court observed.
2. Install Smart Television Screens & Make Available Recorded Education Courses In Shelter Homes For Ladies/Children: Rajasthan High Court To State [Sangeeta v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]
The Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kachhawaha directed the State Government to ensure that smart television screens are installed in all Balika Gruhs, Children Observation Homes & Nari Niketans and pre-recorded courses of education department can be provided so as to impart education to the ladies/children housed in these institutions.
The direction was made taking into account the suggestions made by Amicus Curiae Dr. Nupur Bhati. She suggested the Court that smart television screens may be provided in each institution on which Pre-recorded courses of the Education Department can be played according to the age group of the ladies housed in the Institutions.
3. Rajasthan High Court Upholds Single Judge Decision Granting Maternity Leave To Woman Who Gave Birth Prior To Joining Service [State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Neeraj]
Upholding the decision of the Single Judge, a Division Bench of the Court has affirmed that a female government servant was entitled to avail maternity leave if she joins within the period of confinement i.e. 15 days before to three months after the birth of child, irrespective of the fact that the child was born prior to the date of joining or before issuance of appointment in service.
A Division Bench of Justices Vinit Kumar Mathur and Indrajit Mahanty rejected the argument of Additional Advocate General Pankaj Sharma that the respondent-mother was not a Government Servant at the time of delivery of the child, and therefore, would not be covered under Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
Criminal Law Cases
1. Gold Smuggling With Intent To Threaten Economic Security Of Country A 'Terrorist Act' Under UAPA : Rajasthan High Court [Mohammed Aslam v. Union Of India & Anr.]
A single bench of Justice Satish Kumar Sharma observed that the offence of gold smuggling with the intent to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security of the country covered under the definition of 'terrorist act' under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967(UAPA). The Court said that such an activity will come under Section 15(I)(iiia) of the Act.
Section 15(I)(iiia) of UAPA mentions activities with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security of the country causing "damage to, the monetary stability of India by way of production or smuggling or circulation of high quality counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of any other material".
2. Complainant Not Entitled To Hearing In Bails Plea Under Juvenile Justice Act: Rajasthan High Court
The High Court (Jodhpur Bench) has ruled that it is not obligated to provide the complainant with an opportunity of hearing while adjudicating upon a bail application of a juvenile accused under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that a holistic reading of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act indicate that the legislation does not direct the Courts to hear the complainant either at the trial stage, the appellate stage, or the revision stage, while adjudicating upon an application for bail of a juvenile accused who falls within the definition of a "child alleged to be in conflict with law" (CICL).
The Jodhpur Bench has directed Child Rights Department of the State Government to ensure that a training programme is conducted for Principal Magistrates posted in Juvenile Justice Boards in order to sensitize them with the mandate of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
A division bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Garg and Justice Sandeep Mehta also directed Mr. Govind Beniwal, a child rights activist, to meet the Secretary, Child Rights Department in order to chalk out an action plan for effective monitoring of the functioning of Child Welfare Committees.
4. Anticipatory Bail Plea Not Maintainable If Accused Already In Custody In Another Criminal Case For Similar/ Different Offences: Rajasthan High Court [Sunil Kallani v. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor]
The bench at Jaipur has held that the anticipatory bail application of a person, already in custody in connection to a criminal case, will not be maintainable with respect to another criminal case registered for commission of similar or different offences.
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma was of the view that it would be appropriate that a footnote is added in all bail applications moved under Section 438 Cr.P.C. mentioning that the accused has not been arrested and is not in custody in any other case.
5. Rajasthan High Court Stays Arrest Warrant Issued Against Dhir & Dhir Associates' Alok Dhir In SBI Loan Scam Case [Alok Dhir and another v. State of Rajasthan]
The Court stayed an arrest warrant issued against Dhir & Dhir Associates' managing partner and an employee of Alchemist Asset Reconstruction, Alok Dhir in relation to the State Bank of India (SBI) loan scam.
Essentially, the arrest warrant was issued by a Jaisalmer court on February 12, 2020, against Alok Dhir and another employee of Alchemist Asset Reconstruction, Sasi Madathil.
6. Prisoner's Failure To Surrender On Completion Of Parole Amounts To Escape From State's Lawful Custody: Rajasthan High Court [Gajja Ram v. State and others]
Finding that a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court in the year 2020 isn't the correct law, the Rajasthan High Court on Thursday held that failure of a prisoner to surrender to the prison authorities on completion of parole period would amount to escape from the lawful custody of the State and that ordinarily such prisoner would not be entitled to be transferred to Open Air Camp as per Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules.
COVID Related Cases
The High Court issued notices to the Central Government, State Government on a plea challenging differential pricing of the vaccine for the Centre and the State.
The petition, filed by Journalist Mukesh Sharma through Advocates Abhay Kumar Bhandari & Siddharth Bapna submits that Serum Institute of India & Bharat Biotech International Limited have adopted differential pricing for COVID vaccines for the Government of India, State Governments and the private entities in violation of Articles-14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Covid-19: Rajasthan High Court Issues Directions For Real Time Updates On Hospital Beds; Local Production Of Oxygen; Deployment Of Medical Staff [Surendra Jain v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]
A Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur issued notice to the Central Government, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the State Government on a petition seeking various directions for managing the second wave of Covid-19 in the State.
The Court has asked the Respondents to make available the position of beds on their website on a "Real Time Basis". Further, State Government as well as Central Government have been directed to ensure adequate supply of Oxygen and other medicines required to deal with the virus, on 'war footing'.
The Court has also asked the State Government to consider taking the services of final year students as well as PG courses students of MBBS/Post Graduation for the doctors and likewise for the nursing staff for their deployment on the emergent basis if they are suitable in all respects to serve the general public at large.
3. What Steps Taken For Welfare Of Advocates Hit By COVID? Rajasthan High Court Asks State Bar Council
A single bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur asked the Bar Council of Rajasthan about the steps being taken for the welfare of advocates who are affected by COVID-19. The Court has issued notice to the Bar Council of Rajasthan, Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, The Bar Association Jaipur, State Health Department returnable by May 20.
4. Specify Steps Taken For Vaccinating Pakistani Minority Migrants, Provide Them Ration Immediately: Rajasthan High Court To Govt. [Suo Moto v. Union Of India & Anr.]
Stressing that it is the duty of the State to provide ration to every person residing in the State, a Division Bench of Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Rameshwar Vyas directed the State Government to make sure that ration is made available to the Pakistani Minority Migrants residing in Jodhpur by tomorrow. It further directed the State Government to specify regarding vaccination of those persons who are not having the prescribed identity cards (including Pakistani Minority Migrants).
5. Explain Why Pakistani Minority Migrants With No Identity Cards Not Being Vaccinated Despite Court's Order?: Rajasthan High Court To State Govt. [Suo Moto v. Union Of India & Anr.]
A Bench of Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Rameshwar Vyas asked the Rajasthan State Government to explain as to why it is not treating the Pakistani Minority Migrants, who are not having prescribed identity cards, eligible for COVID-19 vaccination. It observed that despite its order dated May 28, the Pakistani Minority Migrants were not being vaccinated.
The Court noted that after its order dated May 28, a letter had been written by the National Health Mission, Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Rajasthan to the Health and Family Welfare Ministry, Government of India requesting them to include the Pakistani Minority Migrants in the SOP which deals with 'COVID-19 Vaccination of Persons without prescribed Identity Cards through CoWIN'.
6. 'Policy Matter': Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea For Compulsory Licensing Of Covid Vaccine [Mallika Singh & Anr. v. Union Of India & Anr.]
A Division Bench of Justices Sabina and Manoj Kumar Vyas dismissed a PIL seeking compulsory licensing of Covid-19 vaccines under the Patents Act. It observed that the same is a policy matter that has to be decided by the executive and the Courts need not interfere in it.
The Petitioner had urged that the Central Government be directed to issue compulsory licence for vaccines under Section 92 of the Patents Act. It was further urged that the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) be directed to share the trade secrets related to manufacturing process of vaccines to scale up the production of vaccines.
7. Covid-19 Vaccination Of Pakistani Minority Migrants Has Commenced: Rajasthan Government Says After High Court Nudge [Suo Moto v. Union of India & Anr.]
An affidavit was filed before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, informing that it has commenced the process for vaccination of Pakistani Minority Migrants. The development comes soon after the High Court asked the Government to chalk out a plan for vaccinating the said category of persons.
The State counsel assured the Court that he will file a further affidavit, indicating the names and location of the persons who have been vaccinated thus far, pursuant to the directions issued by the Court. Accordingly, the matter has been posted for hearing on July 6.
8. 'Policy Matter': Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea For Declaration Of Unaccredited Journalist As Frontline Health Workers [Vivek Singh v. State of Rajasthan]
A Division Bench of Justices Sabina and Manoj Kumar Vyas dismissed a PIL seeking declaration of non-accredited journalists as frontline health workers during the Covid-19 pandemic. It observed that the same is a policy matter that has to be decided by the executive and the Courts need not interfere in it.
In March 2021, the Rajasthan Government gave accredited journalist the status of frontline workers/ covid warriors and included them in the insurance scheme for ex-gratia payment of Rs. 50,00,000/-. However, the benefit does not extend to non-accredited journalists and media personnel reporting from the ground. The Petitioner had urged that, dependents of unaccredited journalists should also be given the benefit under this scheme, in case such journalists die during service.
9. Compensation For COVID Deaths: Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice To Center & State (Tanay Jain v. Union of India)
The Court has issued notices to the Central and the State Government on a plea seeking ex-gratia compensation for the family members/ dependents of those who succumbed to COVID-19 or Black Fungus (Mucormycosis). A division bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Satish Kumar Sharma has kept the matter for hearing on August 31.
10. COVID-19: Rajasthan High Court Directs State Govt To Take Appropriate Steps For Vaccination Of Transgender Persons [Sambhali Trust v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]
The Court has directed the State authorities to take appropriate steps for Vaccination of transgender persons in the State against Covid-19.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Sangeet Lodha was dealing with a plea seeking directions to the respondent authorities to facilitate COVID-19 vaccination for transgenders of the State of Rajasthan.
Human Rights/Fundamental Rights/Constitutional Importance Cases
1. Do Prisoners Have Right To Choose Medicinal System For Treatment? Rajasthan High Court To Consider In Plea Filed By Aasaram Bapu's Son [Narayan Sai v. State Of Rajasthan]
A Single Bench of Justice Arun Bhansali sought response from the State Government on a petition seeking Ayurveda medical treatment for Asaram Bapu who is lodged in Jodhpur's Central Jail in connection to a sexual assault case.
The writ petition filed by his son stresses on the fundamental right of prisoners under Article 21 of the Constitution to avail of efficacious medical treatment. It raises, inter alia, a question whether the fundamental right of a person to be medically treated under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses within itself the right of a Prisoner to undergo treatment under such a medicinal system, out of the various systems of medicines Allopathy, Ayurveda, Homeopathy etc recognized by the State, as he desires or is hopeful of improving his health?
2. [Indian Citizen's Dead Body Stuck In Russia] "Unprecedented Situation": Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice To Russian Govt [Asha and others v. Union Of India and others.]
The Court issued a notice to the Russian Embassy/Government of the Russian Federation on the plea of the wife and children of one Hitendra Kumar Garasiya, who passed away in some accident in Russia and his mortal remains are lying in Russia unattended for the last four months.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta took into account the submissions of the Union of India that all the endeavors are being made to ensure that the mortal remains of said Hitendra Kumar Garasiya (petitioners' husband/ father) are brought to India.
3. Don't Give Consent For Burial Of Indian Citizen's Dead Body Stuck In Russia; Resolve Issue At Diplomatic Level: Rajasthan HC To Centre [Asha and others v. Union Of India and others.]
The Court asked the Union Of India not to give its permission for the burial of mortal remains of an Indian Citizen which are lying in Russia unattended for the last four months. The Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta also directed the Foreign Secretary to explore ways to resolve the issue at a diplomatic level, by requesting the External Affairs Minister, Government of India to intervene and use his good offices.
4. Rajasthan High Court Orders Suspension Of Cop Who Allegedly Separated An Inter-Caste Married Couple
The Court ordered disciplinary action against the Constable and called for his provisional suspension, who has been accused of separating an inter caste couple and threatening the man who filed a habeas corpus petition seeking production of his wife.
The Court also took serious exception to the conduct of the Police Constable Chandrapal Singh as though he claimed to be on court duty in connection with the instant habeas corpus petition, he was not in uniform.
5. Plea Challenging Rajasthan Gov's 'Arbitrary And Indiscriminate' Practice Of Issuing Internet Suspension Orders: High Court Issues Notice [Sanjay Garg v. Union of India]
The Court issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the Rajasthan government's arbitrary and indiscriminate practice of issuing internet suspension orders on various pretexts.
A Division Bench comprising Justices M. M. Shrivastava and Farzand Ali observed that the matter was of serious concern and accordingly issued notice to the State government. The matter is slated to be heard next on November 23.
6. Rajasthan High Court Directs Police Officials To Preserve Viscera Samples Of Unidentified Dead Bodies For DNA Comparison In Man Missing Cases [Urmila Devi v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.]
The Jodhpur Bench has directed that all concerned police officials must make immediate efforts for the collection of viscera samples from unidentified dead bodies for DNA comparison, as and when required.
7. Rent Tribunal Not Amenable To Article 226; No Intra-Court Appeal Against Article 227 Orders : Rajasthan High Court [Mahendra Kumar Jain v. Appellate Rent Tribunal & Ors.]
A Full Bench of the Court has held that orders passed by Rent Tribunal are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. They can be challenged only by invoking the power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Since the orders of Rent Tribunal can be challenged only under Article 227, no intra-court appeal is maintainable against them, the Court added.
Education/Students Related Cases
1. Levy Of Advance Fees By Medical Colleges Illegal, Declares Rajasthan High Court [Deepesh Singh Beniwal v. Union of India & Ors.]
A Bench of Justices Sangeet Lodha and Rameshwar Vyas held that the condition imposed by private medical institutions requiring students seeking admission to MBBS Course to submit bank guarantee against the annual fees for next 3½ years of course duration in addition to deposit of annual fee for the first year of the course, at the time of admission, as illegal.
It restrained all Government and private institutions from recovering any amount as advance fee in addition to the fee for one year from any student admitted to the course.
The Court noted that banks are usually discouraged from giving unsecured guarantee. Thus, bank guarantees are obtained only on furnishing collateral security or fixed deposits, which may not be possible for every student.
It also observed that insistence for furnishing bank guarantee towards the fee for entire duration of the course upon each and every student, merely because some of the students may leave the course in midstream, appears to be unreasonable and unfair.
2. 'High-Handed, Vindictive' : Rajasthan HC Sets Aside ICAI's Decision To Cancel CA Student's Result For Questioning Exams During COVID [Risha Lodha v. Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India & Anr.]
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta set aside a 'vindictive' and 'extremely oppressive' decision of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), cancelling the CA intermediate exam result of a 21-year old woman over alleged 'derogatory' remarks that she had made in an email to the institute.
The petitioner Risha Lodha had written an email to the ICAI President in November 2020 highlighting the situation of spread of Covid-19 and cautioned that if the examinations are held between November 21st and December 14th, 2020, it will lead to exponential growth in number of Covid cases. 'Do you not understand the seriousness of the situation or are you just ignorant?' she had written.
Stating that there is hardly anything in the e-mail for which it can be construed to be derogatory, the Court observed, "The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India is a statutory body. Hence, its decisions, actions and adjudication are supposed to conform to the standards expected of State or instrumentality of a State. A State that suppresses freedom of speech and inflicts or imposes extreme punishment treating an act or attempt of criticism and/or if it treats any suggestion for improvement as a challenge to its authority or supremacy is a State, that disregards rather violates fundamental rights of a citizens guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution."
The Court held that NCTE's notification relaxing eligibility for teaching primary level students and thereby allowing B.Ed degree holders to appear for REET Level I [Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacher] is unlawful.
With this, the Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal also vacated its interim orders granted earlier allowing the petitioners to hold B.Ed. the degree to appear in the REET.
4. Right To Education: Rajasthan HC Grants Interim Relief Against State's Decision To Not Reserve 25% Seats For Weaker Section In Pre-School Admissions [ Smile For All Society (NGO) v. Elementary Education Rajasthan & Anr.]
The Court granted interim relief against the State's decision to not reserve 25% seats for admission of students from the weaker sections in pre-schools.
Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava observed that the State cannot come in the way of performance of statutory obligation by the schools provided under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).
5. BDS Admission Given To Student Who Failed Class 12 Subject Cancelled After One Year; Rajasthan HC Asks NEET Counselling Board, College To Pay Rs 10 Lakh Compensation Each [Nitendar Kumar Meena v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors.]
In a pertinent judgement, the Court has found the NEET Counselling Board and a Dental College guilty of serious lapses in thoroughly examining the School Certificate produced by the candidate at the time of provisional allotment and admission.
The single-judge bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur was considering the writ petition of a BDS student who was denied enrollment by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, almost a year after his admission, when it was found out that he had failed in the subject of Chemistry in Senior School Examination.
Cases that made news
1. Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Asaram's Plea For Temporary Suspension Of Sentences, Jail Admin Directed To Ensure His Proper Treatment [Asharam @ Ashumal v. State of Rajasthan]
A Division Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kachhawaha dismissed Self-styled godman & Life convict in a sexual assault case, Asaram's [or Asharam] plea for temporary suspension of sentences to pursue medical treatment.
It however, directed the district and jail administration to ensure that Asaram is provided with proper treatment, a nutritious diet, and a safe environment looking to his old age and medical condition.
The Court refused to grant him the relief, after the perusal of the rape convict's medical report submitted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in Jodhpur, where he was admitted after contracting COVID-19.
Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Summons Medical Report Of Asaram Bapu
2. Pehlu Khan Lynching Case: Rajasthan High Court Issues Bailable Warrants Against 6 Accused On Kin's Plea Against Their Acquittal [Irshad S/o Pehlu Khan v. State Of Rajasthan]
The Court issued a bailable warrant against six persons who were acquitted in the year 2019 in the Pehlu Khan lynching case by an Alwar court. Pehlu Khan was allegedly killed in 2017 by a mob that set upon him while he was transporting cows.
The Bench of Justice Goverdhan Bardhar and Justice Vijay Bishnoi ordered thus while admitting appeal filed by the victim's sons, Irshad and Arif, and clubbing it with a plea filed by the Rajasthan government against the lower court's acquittal order.
3. Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice To Union, State Govt On Plea Challenging Rajasthan Madarsa Board Act 2020 [Mukesh Jain v. State of Rajasthan]
Claiming that the provisions of the Rajasthan Madarsa Board Act 2020 are against the concept of a secular democratic State, a plea has been moved before the High Court challenging the State Legislation.
Hearing the matter on Wednesday, the bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur issued notice to the Union Of India and Rajasthan State Government and listed the matter after four weeks.
NDPS Act Cases
1. Rajasthan HC Seeks Centre's Response On Not Specifying Small Or Commercial Quantity Of Opium Poppy Plants Under NDPS Act [Suo Moto v. Union of India]
In with a suo moto case registered this year, a vacation bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta sought Centre's response on explaining the rationale behind its notification dated 19th October 2001 for not specifying small or commercial quantity for cultivation of Papaver somniferum commonly known as opium poppy or poppy plants under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
It issued notice to Union of India, through Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and also to the State of Rajasthan.
Advocates/Bar Related Cases
The Rajasthan High Court today asked the Bar Council of Rajasthan to take appropriate action against a lawyer who used filthy language before the Court and argued the matter loudly and in a shouting manner, and abused the Court which amounting to Contempt of Court.
The Bench of Justice Devendra Kachhwaha observed that he deliberately and willfully uttered obnoxious and filthy language which is normally used by cheapsters and street goons.
"Counsel Mr. Ramawatar Singh Choudhary didn't hold his horses and went on uttering direct abuses to this Court personally, further, the counsel commented bad upon the functioning of the Court on the judicial side," said the Court.
2. "No Ill-Will Against Lawyers": Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Defamation Complaint Against Akshay Kumar Concerning 'Jolly LLB 2' [Akshay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.]
The Court dismissed a criminal complaint for defamation filed in the year 2017 against Actor Akshay Kumar concerning the movie - Jolly LLB 2.
The Bench of Justice Satish Kumar Sharma also quashed the order of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan Sanganer taking cognizance under Section 500 IPC against Akshay Kumar on the basis of the trailer of the film Jolly LLB 2.
Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Notifies 'Video Conferencing Rules' For HC, Subordinate Courts
Family/Matrimonial/Custody/Maintenance Related Cases
1. Rajasthan High Court Suo Moto Exercises Writ Jurisdiction Directing Husband To Pay Monthly Maintenance To Deserted Wife, Children [Pintu Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]
The Rajasthan High Court recently exercised its extraordinary writ jurisdiction and directed a man to pay monthly maintenance to his deserted wife and children as an interim measure. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Sameer Jain was considering a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman alleging that her husband was being detained and blackmailed by one of the respondents.
2. 'Aggrieved Person' Under The Domestic Violence Act Includes A Foreign Citizen: Rajasthan High Court[Robarto Nieddu v. State Of Rajasthan and Another]
In a significant observation, the Jodhpur Bench has held that as per Section 2(a) of the Domestic Violence Act of 2005, the definition of 'aggrieved person', would include any woman including a foreign citizen, who is subjected to domestic violence.
Such a woman is very much entitled to get the protection of Section 12 of the Act of 2005 [Application to Magistrate], the Court further ruled.
3.Maintenance- Magistrate Empowered U/S 125 CrPC To Sentence Defaulter To Separate Terms Of Imprisonment Of Upto 1 Month For Every Month's Default: Rajasthan HC [In Re A Ref. U/s 395 Cr.P.C. By District And Sessions Judge, Pali v. Unknown]
In a significant judgment, the High Court has held that a Magistrate is empowered under Section 125 of CrPC to pass separate sentences over non-compliance of its order granting maintenance and that such sentence may be of up to one-month imprisonment each for every month's default.
4. Divorce Suit Transfer- "Convenience Of Wife Is To Be Preferred Over The Convenience Of Husband": Rajasthan High Court [Ekta Dhadhich v. Rajendra Prasad Sharma]
Dealing with a plea of wife seeking transfer of the Divorce case, the Jaipur Bench observed that in such matters, courts are required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants in comparison to the husband's convenience.
"Transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships," the Bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Songara further observed.
Cases affecting the entire society
1. Drug Menace: Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice To NCB, Social Justice Dept In Suo Moto Case
The Court has issued notice to the Central Bureau of Narcotics, the Narcotics Control Bureau, the Controller (Drugs and Cosmetics Act) and Social Justice and Empowerment Department of the State in its suo moto case registered last year on the issue of illegal drug trade flourishing in the State.
A division bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi also appointed Advocate Harshad Bhadu as amicus curiae in the matter while posting it for further hearing on July 30.
2. 'No Objection Can Be Raised Against Implementation Of Act': Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Circular Prohibiting Construction Of Shrines In Police Stations [Pooja Gurnani v. State of Rajasthan]
The Court has recently dismissed a plea challenging a circular issued by the Additional Director General of Police (Police Housing) to all district police stations to ensure strict compliance with the Rajasthan Religious Building and Places Act, 1954 (1954 Act).
The circular prohibits the construction of shrines inside police stations and police offices and stipulates that the 1954 Act prohibits use of public places for religious purposes.
3. Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Denial Of Physical Hearing By NCLT Jaipur Bench [Dalas Biotech Ltd. v. Farmasino Pharmaceuticals]
The Court issued notice to the Jaipur Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) while adjudicating upon an appeal against an order of the NCLT refusing the petitioner's request to allow physical hearing.
Justice Ashok Kumar Garg was apprised by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner's application for seeking physical hearing of the case had been dismissed by the NCLT on the ground that there is no Standard Operating Procedure laid down for physical hearings with respect to the infrastructure and facilities available at the Jaipur bench of NCLT.
4. Rajasthan High Court Stays Construction Of Any Road Passing Through Lakes In Udaipur [ Suo Moto vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]
The Court has stayed the construction of any road passing through any of the lakes in Udaipur. The order has been passed by a Division Bench of Justices Sangeeta Lodha and Vinit Kumar Mathur in an application for stay of tender notices issued in tis regard.
The Court has granted time to the concerned State authorities to submit their replies in the matter and meanwhile, until further orders, directed them not to construct any road which may pass through any of the lakes in the city.
Live-In Relationship Cases
1. Rajasthan HC Denies Protection To Married Lady In Live-In Relation By Relying On Allahabad HC's 'Social Fabric' Order [Maya Devi v. State of Rajasthan and others]
The High Court recently denied police protection to a married lady, who is in a live-in relationship with another man and who sought police protection against some private persons who are not happy with her relationship.
The Bench of Justice Satish Kumar Sharma relied upon the recent order of the Allahabad High Court wherein the Court had dismissed the protection plea of a married woman living with her partner with the exemplary cost of Rs.5,000.
2. "These Relationships Are Purely Illegal, Anti-Social": Rajasthan HC Denies Protection To Widow Living With A Married Man [Seema Devi and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others]
Denying police protection to a widow, who was living with a married man, the High Court recently observed that such a relationship between the petitioners don't come under the purview of a legal Live-in relationship and rather, such relationships are 'Purely Illegal' and 'Anti-Social'.
The Bench of Justice Satish Kumar Sharma was hearing the protection plea of a widow and her partner (a married man) when it observed so.
3. 'Courts Must Rely On Constitutional Morality And Not Obscure Notions Of Social Morality': Rajasthan HC Grants Protection To Live-In Couple Involving Married Woman [Leela v. State of Rajasthan]
The Court has recently held that neither the State nor the society can intrude into the private lives of two adult individuals who seek to indulge in a live-in relationship even if one of the partners is legally married to someone else. The Court was adjudicating upon a petition moved by a couple in a live-in relationship seeking police protection from harassment by their family members.
Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed, "It is well- settled that it is not in the Court's domain to intrude upon an individual's privacy. Any scrutiny or remark upon the so-called morality of an individual's relationship and blanket statements of condemnation especially in matters where it is not called into question, to begin with, would simply bolster an intrusion upon one's right to choice and condone acts of unwarranted moral policing by the society at large."