High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court on tuesday held that  since the consent of a girl below the age of 16 years is immaterial, the same cannot be treated as a mitigating circumstance so as to award a sentence lesser than 7 years rigorous imprisonment.

The High Court observed that, utmost care and transparency should be observed in the selection of the recipient of awards like Dronacharya Awards and the awards ought not to be conferred on those who are not perceived by those having expertise in the subject as deserving thereof. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw made this observation while dismissing a challenge by one Vinod Kumar against Dronacharya Award conferred to Wrestling Coach.

The Court held that for issuing passport, there is no legal requirement for insisting upon the father’s name of the Applicant. The Court also took judicial notice of the fact that families of single parents are on the increase due to various reasons like unwed mothers, sex workers, surrogate mothers, rape survivors, children abandoned by father and also children born through IVF technology.

While disposing of an appeal filed in the year 1985, against Trial court decree in a partition suit, the Delhi high Court said that  it is very unfortunate that it had remained pending on the Board of the Court for almost 30 years and had to pass through hands of as many as 75 Hon’ble Judges or so but still the solution to the problem of dividing the property could not be found out to the satisfaction of all the parties.

Calcutta High Court

Calcutta High Court recently held that a person is not entitled to back wages for the period during which he was out of service due to dismissal from service by reason of his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent reinstatement in service upon his acquittal by the Appellate Court.

Jharkhand High Court

The High Court bench issued an order in a Suo motu Public interest litigation asking the State to start, rain water harvesting project throughout the State, at least in all the Government Buildings.

Rajasthan High Court

Disposing the Public Interest Litigation filed by Abhyutthanam Society the  Rajasthan High Court held that the State Government is not competent & holding any authority to re-write the definition of Sec.2 (d) of the Right to Education Act, 2009.