High Courts Weekly Roundup [September 20, 2021 To September 26, 2021]

1. "No Concrete Action Taken By Govt Officials To Control Noise Pollution Through Modified Silencers": Allahabad High Court [Noise Pollution Thru Modified Silencers (Suo Moto)(P.I.L.)]

Dealing with the suo moto matter regarding Noise pollution through the modified silencers, the High Court remarked that the Government officials miserably failed in their duty to control noise pollution and to crack down on such vehicles causing noise pollution through the modified silencer, hooters, and pressure horns.

2. Hathras Gang Rape Case: Allahabad HC Seeks Details Of Scheme For Relief & Rehabilitation Of Atrocity Victims Under SC/ST Act [Suo-Moto Inre: Right To Decent & Dignified Last Rites/Cremation]

The High Court asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to specify details of the Scheme as envisaged under Sub Section 11 of Section 15-A of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Rule 14 of The SC/ST Rules, 1995. This particular subsection makes it the duty of the concerned State to specify an appropriate scheme to ensure the implementation of certain rights and entitlements of victims and witnesses in accessing justice.

3. Who Will Police The Police?' Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To 2 UP Cops In Bikru Encounter Conspiracy Case [Vinay Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

The High Court denied bail to two UP Police officials, SO Vinay Kumar Tiwari & Beat Officer Krishna Kumar Sharma, who are facing conspiring charges in connection with the ambush in Bikru village on July 3, 2020, in which eight policemen were gunned down by Gangster Vikas Dubey. The Court started with the famous statement made by Justice VR Krishna Iyer "Who will police the police" 40 years ago in a judgment.

4. No Abetment To Suicide Case Made Out If Man Separates Wife From His Life Due To Which She Dies By Suicide: Allahabad HC [Jagveer Singh Alias Bantu v. State of U.P.]

Setting aside the conviction order passed against a Husband for abetting the suicide of his wife, the High Court last week held that separating wife from his own life could not be a reason which could come under the category of the abetment. The Bench of Justice Ajai Tyagi was hearing an appeal filed by one Jagveer Singh Alias Bantu who had been convicted under Sections 498-A & 306 IPC by Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit.

5. Gareeb Nawaz Masjid Demolition- Allahabad HC Seeks UP Govt Response On Plea For Quashing Of FIR Over 'The Wire' Report

The High Court sought the reply of the Uttar Pradesh Government on a plea filed by 2 Journalists [Seraj Ali and Mukul Singh Chauhan] and the news portal 'The Wire' seeking quashing of FIR registered against them for their report on Gareeb Nawaz Masjid Demolition. The FIR in question was registered against them for their report on the alleged Gareeb Nawaz Mosque illegal demolition (Ramsanehighat, Barabanki) issue in Uttar Pradesh under Sections 153, 153-A, 505(1)(b), 120-B, 34 IPC.

6. Trend Of Political Parties Welcoming Gangsters, Giving Them Election Tickets Needs To Be Stopped: Allahabad High Court [Vinay Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

Expressing concerns over the trend of welcoming, giving election tickets to the Gangsters/Criminal by the Political parties, the High Court observed that if this practice isn't stopped, such criminals and gangsters would become "Bhasmasur" and will give a serious dent to the country and democratic setup.

The Bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava made these observations as it denied bail to two UP Police officials, SO Vinay Kumar Tiwari & Beat Officer Krishna Kumar Sharma, who are facing conspiring charges in connection with the ambush in Bikru village on July 3, 2020, in which eight policemen were gunned down by Gangster Vikas Dubey.

Andhra Pradesh

1. Minimum Wages Act Does Not Apply To Temples & Mutts: Andhra Pradesh High Court [Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. State of Andhra Pradesh]

The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that Minimum Wages Act does not apply to temples or mutts. In the context of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, the court observed that there is a distinction between a temple and a mutt.

"A Math is an institution headed by a person whose primary job is to engage himself in teaching, propagation of religious philosophy etc., and impart religious training etc. On the other hand, a temple is a place, which is dedicated to and keep used as a place of public religious worship.", Justice DVSS Somayajulu observed while allowing a writ petition filed by Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt challenging the memos issued to it directing payment of minimum wages.

2. Are Tobacco Products 'Food' Under Food Safety Act? Andhra Pradesh High Court Refers Issue To Division Bench [Dasa Shekar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and connected cases]

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has referred to division bench the issue whether tobacco products can be considered as 'food' under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, while considering a batch of writ petitions disagreed with earlier single bench view that Chewing Tobacco, Pan Masala and khaini cannot be treated, under the Food Safety Act, as food, and as such, the provisions of the Food Safety Act would not apply to these tobacco products.

Bombay High Court

1. Dismissed Cop Sachin Waze Approaches Special NIA Court Seeking House Arrest For Post-Bypass Recovery

Dismissed police officer Sachin Waze, accused in the Ambani Terror Scare and Mansukh Hiran murder case has approached the Special NIA Court to be kept under house arrest for post-bypass recovery. The case pertains to the recovery of 20 gelatine sticks (explosives) and a threat note in a Mahindra Scorpio Vehicle near industrialist Mukesh Ambani's house on February 25, and the subsequent murder of businessman Mansukh Hiran.

Also Read: Varavara Rao's Plea For Extension Of Medical Bail; Bombay HC Adjourns The Matter Due To Paucity Of Time, Grants Interim Protection

2. Khwaja Yunus Custodial Death Case Against Sachin Waze: Maharashtra Govt. Undertakes Not To Appoint New Special Public Prosecutor Till October 14 [Asiya Begum v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

Following a nudge from the Bombay High Court on Wednesday, the Maharashtra Government agreed not to appoint another Special Public Prosecutor in the 2003 custodial death case of Khwaja Yunus, till October 14. The case is against dismissed cop Sachin Waze and four others.

The court was hearing the deceased's mother, Asiya Begum's plea under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the State's decision to remove earlier prosecutor Dhiraj Mirajkar. Mirajkar's appointment was cancelled soon after he filed an application to arraign four more police officers as accused in the case in 2018.

3. Dr. Virendrasinh Tawade, Prime Accused in Narendra Dabholkar Murder, Approaches Bombay High Court For Bail [Virendrasinh Tawade v. State of Maharashtra]

ENT surgeon Dr Virendrasinh Tawade, prime accused in the 2013 murder of anti-superstition crusader Narendra Dabholkar has approached the Bombay High Court for bail. The CBI arrested right-wing doctor Tawade on June 10, 2016. A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar granted the Central Bureau of Investigation two weeks to file their reply. Dabholkar was shot dead by two bike-borne men on a morning walk in Pune on August 20, 2013.

4. Can't Use 'Astrological Incompatibility' To Avoid Rape Charges On False Promise Of Marriage – Bombay High Court [Avishek Asit Mitra v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

The High Court refused to discharge a 32-year-old man accused of 'rape on false promise of marriage' and cheating, rejecting his claims of 'astrological incompatibility' as valid reason for refusing the marriage. Justice Sandeep Shinde said it was clear from the man's conduct that he had no intention of marrying the girl right from the beginning. Because, if his intentions were genuine, he wouldn't refuse to marry her, citing mismatched horoscopes after she withdrew her first police complaint.

5. Media Reports On Shilpa Shetty's Children Are Of Concern : Bombay High Court On Raj Kundra Case Coverage

The High Court expressed concerns about media reports on actor Shilpa Shetty's minor children following her husband Raj Kundra's arrest in the porn films racket case.

Justice Gautam Patel was hearing a defamation suit filed by Shetty against various media houses for sensationalism to increase their readership and free-ride on her popularity after. Earlier in the week, a Metropolitan Magistrate granted Kundra and his associate bail in the case.

6. Not Been Arrested During Investigation, Unjustifiable Incarceration' – Rana Kapoor's Wife, Daughters Approach Bombay High Court For Bail [Bindu Kapoor & Ors v. CBI, EO-1, Delhi]

Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor's wife Bindu Kapoor and two daughters - Radha and Roshni Kapoor- have approached the Bombay High Court seeking bail in the Rs. 4000 crores Yes Bank – DHFL quid pro quo Case of 2020 being investigated by the CBI. The trio have sought bail stating that they have extended "fullest cooperation to CBI" and according to the settled law, since they weren't taken into custody at the time of investigation, they were entitled to bail.

Also Read: Covid Situation Has Been Improving'- Bombay High Court Unlikely To Extend Interim Orders Beyond October 8

7. Rahul Gandhi Can't Be Compelled To Admit Alleged Speech Linking RSS To Gandhi Assassination In Defamation Case : Bombay High Cour [Rajesh Kunte v. Rahul Gandhi]

The High Court dismissed Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) worker Rajesh Kunte's petition seeking directions to a Magistrate in Maharashtra to exhibit transcripts of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's speech as 'evidence' in the ongoing defamation case against him. Kunte has accused Gandhi of defaming the RSS by making "false and baseless allegations" during an election rally in 2014 by connecting its members to Mahatma Gandhi's assassination.

8. Accused Has No Fundamental/Statutory Right To Appeal Against Conviction Eo Instanti: Bombay High Court [Pankaj Arjunbhai Koli v. The State Of Maharashtra]

The High Court held that an accused has no fundamental or statutory right to prefer an appeal against an order holding him guilty of offence eo instanti. After the court records a conviction, the accused has to be heard on the question of sentence and it is only after the sentence is awarded that the judgment becomes complete and can be appealed against under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Division Bench comprising Justices S.S. Shinde and N. J. Jamadar observed.

Also Read: Sourav Ganguly's Plea To Execute Award : Bombay High Court Imposes Costs On Percept Group For Not Providing Accurate Information

9. Delay In Filling Up Vacancies: 'Maharashtra Human Rights Commission Has Become A Defunct Body'- Bombay High Court

The High Court granted the Maharashtra Government one last chance to fill up vacancies in the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission while hearing a PIL that showed 50% of the posts are vacant. "It is disheartening to note that the Maharashtra Human Rights Commission is a defunct body, at present," a division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni observed in their order.

10. Kangana Ranaut Accuses Javed Akhtar Of Criminal Intimidation & Extortion, Files Complaint

Actress Kangana Ranaut has filed a private complaint accusing lyricist Javed Akhtar of extortion and criminal intimidation by allegedly asking her to give a written apology in her public feud with actor Hrithik Roshan in 2016.

Ranaut claimed that Akthar called her and her sister Rangoli Chandel to his house with malafide intentions and forced her to tender a written apology to Roshan by threatening her with dire consequences. Ranaut claims that she did not complain to the police about this earlier because of her family. However, the event had left her traumatized.

Also Read: "I Have Lost Faith In This Court" – Kangana Ranaut Finally Appears In Javed Akhtar Defamation Case, Seeks Case Transfer

Calcutta High Court

1. Calcutta High Court Questions Election Commission For Expediting Bhowanipore Bypolls, Where Mamata Banerjee Contests [Sayan Banerjee v. The Election Commission of India and Ors]

The High Court refused to take on record the affidavit filed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the decision of the Election Commission to prioritize the bye-elections of Bhowanipore Assembly Constituency from where the Chief Minister of West Bengal Mamata Banerjee is set to contest on September 30.

2. Whether Filing Of A 'Statement Of Truth' In A Written Statement Is A Mandatory Requirement Under Commercial Courts Act, 2015?: Calcutta High Court Explains [Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd]

The High Court while adjudicating upon a commercial suit expounded in detail whether a 'statement of truth' in a written statement is a mandatory requirement under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and whether its absence warrants the disposal of the defence in the suit.

In the instant case, the petitioner had contended that a written statement in the absence of a 'statement of truth' is an incurable defect while the respondent argued otherwise. The issue in consideration was the interpretation of Order VI Rule 15A of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Chhattisgarh High Court

1. Existence of A Dispute Not A Pre Requisite For Grant of Divorce By Mutual Consent: Chhattisgarh High Court [Smt. Sandhya Sen v. Sanjay Sen]

The High Court held that the existence of a serious dispute between husband and wife is not a prerequisite for the grant of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A Division Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.K. Chandravanshi observed that the provisions contained in Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 do not provide for the existence of ground like the ones included in Section 13 for grant of divorce by mutual consent.

Delhi High Court

1. CCI Denies Leaking Confidential Probe Report Against Google; Tells Delhi High Court That Google Should Sue Media Houses [Google v. CCI]

The Competition Commission of India denied the allegations levelled by Google, accusing the anti-trust body of leaking a confidential probe report against the company to the media. Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman, appearing for the Commission before Justice Rekha Palli, suggested that instead of making bald allegations against a Government body, the search engine company should sue the concerned media houses that claim to have accessed the report.

2. Drug Hoarding Case: Delhi High Court Stays Trial Court Proceedings Against Gautam Gambhir Foundation

The High Court stayed the trial court proceedings against BJP MP Gautam Gambhir, his Foundation, and other persons in the case concerning alleged hoarding and illegal distribution of Covid-19 drugs during the second wave. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar issued notice on the petition filed by Gautam Gambhir Foundation, Seema Gambhir, Gautam Gambhir, Natasha Gambhir. The plea challenges the summoning order passed by the trial court and also the criminal complaint against the foundation.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Organization Of Ganesh Chaturthi Celebrations By Delhi Govt

3. [Selective Sex Birth] 'No Place For Such Nefarious Activities In Civilized Society; Strong Message Be Sent To Perpetrators': Delhi Cour [State v. Aditya Kandoi & Ors.]

Dealing with a case concerning prenatal sex discernment, a Delhi Court observed that when Government is running schemes like 'Beti Bachao Beti Padhao' a strong message has to be sent to those involved in such practices. The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, 1994 prohibits determination of sex of a fetus before birth. This was introduced to prevent the evil of female foeticide.

4. Attempt To Murder: "Offence Against Society, Can't Quash Proceedings Only On Ground Of Compromise": Delhi High Court [Mukhtiyaar Ali & Ors. v. The State NCT Delhi & Ors]

Observing that an offence of Attempt to Murder will fall under the category of heinous offence, and therefore, has to be treated as a crime against society, the High Court refused to quash an FIR registered for an offence under 307/34 IPC. The Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad opined that the attempt to murder is a heinous offence that cannot be quashed on the ground that the parties have resolved the entire disputes amongst themselves.

5. Delhi High Court Seeks Centre's Stand On Plea By Delhi Waqf Board Seeking Protection Of Religious Properties Amid Central Vista Redevelopment Project

The High Court sought Centre's stand on the petition moved by Delhi Waqf Board seeking preservation and protection of religious/waqf properties of historical importance amid the ongoing Central Vista Redevelopment Project. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva asked the Centre to seek instructions in the matter while posting the case for further hearing on September 29.

6. Family Courts Expected To Act With Due Application Of Mind Without Being Hyper- Technical, Should Have Litigant Friendly Approach: Delhi High Court [Ajay Dubey v. Annapurna]

The High Court has observed that the family courts are expected to act with due application of mind without being hyper technical, having a litigant friendly approach. Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh observed thus: "The Family Court is obliged to function so as to relieve the parties of the suffering that they are going through on account of matrimonial disputes. It is expected to act with due application of mind and without being hypertechnical about matters brought before it. The Family Court should have a litigant friendly approach, and function in the spirit of helping parties resolve their disputes – either mutually, or through the Courts determination."

7. "Material Seized During Survey In Safe Custody": Income Tax Dept Informs Delhi High Court As It Disposes Of Newslaundry's Plea Concerning Data Leak

The High Court disposed of the plea filed by news portal Newslaundry and its CEO Abhinandan Sekhri, after taking note of Income Tax Department's assurance that the material seized during survey is in safe custody. Advocate Ajit Sharma appearing for the Department submitted that the data in question shall not be leaked, the concept of confidentiality enshrined under Section 138 of Income Tax Act shall be abided and the seized material will be used only in accordance with the law.

8. Rape Victim Pregnancy: Delhi High Court Directs AIIMS To Constitute Medical Board Within A Day To Decide On Termination [S v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.]

In a writ petition filed by a rape victim seeking medical termination of pregnancy, the High Court has issued directions to the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, to immediately constitute a medical board and examine the feasibility of terminating the victim's 20 weeks old foetus.

Justice Mukta Gupta on Thursday ordered that the Board will be constituted and the petitioner will be examined within a day. The order stated, "This Court requests the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS to immediately constitute a medical board to examine the petitioner today or latest by tomorrow, i.e. 24th September, 2021 and in case the pregnancy can be terminated safely with no harm to the life of the petitioner the same be carried out expeditiously."

9. "There Cannot Be Compulsory Retirement Proof Employee": Delhi High Court Denies Relief To IRS Officer; Cites 'Doctrine Of Pleasure' [Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India & Anr.]

Denying relief to Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, an IRS Officer of 1985 batch, the High Court on Wednesday observed that there cannot be a 'compulsory retirement proof employee'. It was also observed that the fundamental source of compulsorily retiring an employee of the Government is derived from "Doctrine of Pleasure" and there is no right vested in the employee to continue in the employment after a prescribed age under the Rules.

10. Delhi High Court Temporarily Stays Money Laundering Proceedings Against Company Allegedly Owned By Former IAS Officer Babulal Agrawal

The High Court stayed the proceedings before Adjudicating Authority in a PMLA case against a company namely Prime Ispat Ltd, it's director and managing director. The company is allegedly owned by Babulal Agrawal, former IAS Officer of 1988 Batch serving in the State Government of Chhattisgarh. The company had challenged the Provisional Attachment Order issued by the Enforcement Directorate along with complaint and show cause notice against it.

11. "Cater To Needs Of Underprivileged Children": Delhi High Court On Appointment Of Special Educators In Schools Managed By Municipal Corps

The High Court has sought response of the Delhi Government with regards to the large number of vacancies for the post of Special Educator (Primary) in the schools managed by municipal corporations. A Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh noted that there is "differential treatment" accorded by the GNCTD in respect of the Special Educators appointed in schools, which are run under the aegis of DOE, as against those, which are managed by the aforementioned municipal corporations.

12. Minority Not An Absolute Bar': Delhi High Court On 17 Yr Old's Plea For Donating Liver To Ailing Father [Saurav Suman through his mother v. GNCTD & Anr.]

The High Court orally observed that merely because a person is a minor does not mean (s)he is ineligible to donate her/his organ under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act 1994. "Minority is no bar," observed Justice Rekha Palli while referring to Rule 5(3) (g) of the Transplantation of Human Organs & Tissues Rules, 2014 which provides that living organs or tissues donation by minor is not permitted except under exceptional medical grounds to be recorded in details with full justification and with prior approval of the competent authority.

13. "Blackmailing Type Of Litigation": Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Against Alleged Unauthorized Construction With 50K Cost [Fight for right social welfare society v. The Chairman, DDA cum Chairperson Special Task Force & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court has rejected with Rs. 50,000 cost, a Public Interest Litigation filed challenging alleged unauthorised construction on properties, without any source of knowledge. The Court dubbed it to be 'a blackmailing type of litigation'. The petitioner claimed to have found out about the alleged illegal construction from persons living in surrounding areas. Unconvinced, the Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Amit Bansal said that the petition was filed "without any homework" and merely on being informed by "some persons who are moving on road".

14. Jantar Mantar Sloganeering Case- Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Preet Singh [Preet Singh v. State]

The High Court granted bail to Preet Singh, accused in connection with the alleged inflammatory and anti-Muslim sloganeering at Jantar Mantar. Justice Mukta Gupta pronounced the order after reserving it earlier this month on hearing Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain appearing for accused Singh and Tarang Srivastava appearing for the Prosecution.

Singh is the President of Save India Foundation and is alleged to be the co-­organizer of the event where the inflammatory slogans were shouted. His bail was rejected by a Sessions Court on August 27 after observing that he was clearly seen, actively participating in the incendiary speeches along with other associates.

15. Content Of Movie Communally Biased': Plea Moved In Delhi High Court Seeking Withholding Of 'The Conversion' Release [All India Practising Lawyers Council v. Union of India & Ors.]

A Plea has been moved before the High Court seeking withholding of the release of the movie 'The Conversion' and to remove its trailer from YouTube till it is reviewed/scrutinized and censored by the appropriate authorities. The Plea filed by All India Practising Lawyers Council through advocates Adil Sharfuddin & Ubaid UI Hasan avers that the Trailer of the Movie depicts biased and communal content and that the movie has the potential of communal polarization amidst the upcoming Uttar Pradesh elections.

During the hearing, ASG Chetan Sharma objected to the maintainability of the petition. He pointed out that there are several avenues in law available to the Petitioner, and asking a writ court to interfere in the matter at this is not only overstepping Article 226 of the Constitution but also amounts to asking for a john doe order, which the Courts refrain from.

16. No Control Of Central Or State Govts In Functioning Of PM CARES Funds Trust : PMO Tells Delhi High Court

An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the PM-CARES Fund Trust before the High Court, claiming that it is a public charitable trust and that it is not created by or under the Indian Constitution or any other statute, and the amount received by it does not go in the Consolidated Fund of India. The affidavit filed by the Under Secretary at Prime Minister's Office states that there is no control of either the Central Government or the State Government in the functioning of the PM CARES Trust.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea For Regulation Of Private Detectives

17. Google Moves Delhi High Court Against Competition Commission Alleging Leak Of Confidential Report

The Court allowed urgent listing of a plea filed by Google against the alleged leak of a confidential report, prepared by the investigative arm of Competition Commission of India (CCI) over the company's alleged anti-competitive practices.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh has agreed to hear the matter tomorrow, i.e., on September 24.

18. Manika Batra v. TT Federation: Delhi High Court Temporarily Stays Federation's Rules On Attending National Coaching Camp [Manika Batra v. Table Tennis Federation of India & Ors.]

The Court temporarily stayed till October 28, the Rules framed by the Table Tennis Federation of India (TTFI) which makes attending of National Coaching Camp compulsory for being selected for international events.

Justice Rekha Palli took note of the submissions made by the Central Government that it will conduct an independent enquiry into the allegations put forth by Batra and directed it to file a report in the matter.

19. High Court Directs Delhi Government To Appoint New Director To IHBAS 'At The Earliest' [Tej Bahadur Singh v. GNCTD]

The High Court directed the Delhi Government to appoint, as expeditiously as possible, a new Director to head the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS).

"We expect that recruitment will be completed at the earliest," observed a Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh while adjourning the plea against extension of tenure granted to incumbent Director, NG Desai, after he attained the age of 65 years.

20. Delhi High Court Adjourns Plea Against Appointment Of Rakesh Asthana As DPC After Petitioner Fails To Explain Own Averment [Delhi Rozi Roti Abhiyan v. Union of India]

The Court has adjourned till September 27, hearing of the plea challenging appointment of IPS Officer Rakesh Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner, after counsel for the Petitioner failed to explain his own averment regarding "super-time scale" in service jurisprudence.

"This is how we are getting assistance in Delhi High Court," remarked Chief Justice DN Patel while adjourning the case.

Other developments:

• "Just Because You're Wearing A Uniform Is Not An Excuse To Get Away": Delhi High Court Tells Police Officer Who Filed Wrong Status Report
• High Court Seeks Delhi Govt's Stand On Plea Seeking Appointment Of Authority For Granting License To Play Sound Systems In Public Functions
• Backdoor Entries In Educational Institutions Should Stop: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Of 5 Medical Aspirants Granted Admission Sans Counselling
• Delhi High Court Temporarily Stays Order For Extension Of CM Advocates' Welfare Scheme To All Lawyers Residing In NCR
• Delhi High Court Says It Expects Centre To Take Steps To Transfer Unutilized Crowd-fund Amount To Rare Diseases Fund
• Delhi High Court Stays Election Of Delhi Capital Badminton Association Till October 22
• Covid Deaths Due To Oxygen Shortage: High Court Nod To Delhi Govt's High Powered Committee For Compensation
• Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Relief To TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, His Wife In Plea Seeking Quashing Of ED Summons In Coal Scam Case
• High Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Electricity Connection For Pakistani Hindu Migrants Residing In North Delhi
• Police Using Sections Struckdown By Courts-Delhi High Court Directs Centre To Consider Updating Statute Books
• Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Giving Fake COVID-19 Report For Release Of His Son On Interim Bail
• Linking Of Employees' UAN With Aadhar: Delhi High Court Extends Deadline For Establishments & Industries Till November 30
• "Twitter Has Appointed Personnel In Compliance With New IT Rules": Centre Tells Delhi High Court
• West Bengal Coal Scam- Delhi High Court Seeks ED's Response On Inspector's Plea Challenging Trial Court Summons In Money Laundering Case
• Plea In High Court Seeks Modification Of Delhi Govt's Order Completely Banning Sale, Use Of Firecrackers Amid Diwali, Asks For Graded Regulations Instead

Gauhati High Court

1. After High Court Nudge, Assam Government Issues Notification For Effective Implementation Of Right To Education Act [Debargha Roy v. State of Assam & Ors.]

The Assam Government has issued an Office Memorandum for ensuring effective implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Education Act, 2009, which reserves at least 25% elementary level school seats for children belonging to weaker sections. The developments comes after intervention by the Gauhati High Court, which observed that "this is essentially the responsibility of the State authorities to ensure proper compliance of the provision of the Act by the schools concerned."

Gujarat High Court

1. Customary Divorce A Social Evil, Happens On Account Of The Attitude Of Ill-Minded Male Chauvinists: Gujarat High Court [Bhartiben v. Amitbhai Vitthalbhai Sojitra]

Underscoring that customary divorce is a social evil, the Court recently refused to grant a declaration regarding the dissolution of marriage on the basis of a customary divorce of a couple noting that the same was not adequately proved by the wife (who was in an appeal seeking such declaration).

The bench, however, clarified that the parties were at liberty to file an appropriate application under the relevant provision of the Hindu Marriage Act and pray for a decree of divorce with consent, and directed the court to take such application for hearing at the earliest.

2. Asiatic Lions Are Not Only Gujarat's But Asia's Pride, Measures Expected From Govt. To Protect Wild Cat: Gujarat High Court

The Court observed that Asiatic Lions are not only the pride of Gujarat but they are the pride of Asia and that prompt measures are expected from government to protect the Wild cat.

The Bench of Justice N. V. Anjaria and Justice A. P. Thaker was hearing Suo moto proceedings for the conservation of lions in and around the Gir sanctuary in the State of Gujarat which was originated in 2018 after a news report appeared which stated that around 184 lions had died in the previous two years.

3. "Yes I Am Under Transfer, Don't Go By WhatsApp University Reports": Justice Paresh Upadhyay Of Gujarat HC To Hear Only Urgent Matters

Justice Paresh Upadhyay said in the open court that he was under transfer and that people should not go by Newspaper reports and that is why he was informing it himself. With this, Justice Upadhyay has now decided to hear only urgent matters.

"One mentioning from my side, let us not go by your WhatsApp Univerity or Newspaper report. I inform all of you that yes, I am under transfer and therefore, we will be only taking (up) urgent matters. Now my priorities will change."

Himachal Pradesh High Court

1. S.125 CrPC- 'Granting Interim Maintenance Is Similar To Giving First Aid; Prevents Wives & Children From Vagrancy': Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Court has observed that granting interim maintenance under Chapter IX of CrPC is like giving first aid which prevents wives and children from various modes of vagrancy and it's consequences.

Justice Anoop Chitkara observed thus: "Granting interim maintenance is similar to giving first aid. Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides a quick remedy by a summary procedure to protect the applicant against starvation and tide over immediate difficulties by a deserted wife or children to secure some reasonable sum by way of maintenance."

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

1. J&K And L High Court Quashes FIR Against Activist Sushil Pandit For His Tweet On Killing Of CRPF Jawans Based On Rumour [Sushil Pandit v. State of J&K & Anr]

The Court quashed an FIR registered against Activist Sushil Pandit for his 2018 tweet based on rumor regarding the death of 5 CRPF Jawans during the Ramzan ceasefire in the state.

Essentially, he had tweeted (and deleted later known after coming to know about its falsity) thus: "Just heard, five CRPF jawans martyred in Pampore. #Ramzan ceasefire is working. Question is who is it working for?"

2. 'Attacks Govt Over Abrogation Of Art. 370 In Garb Of PIL': Jammu & Kashmir High Court Imposes 10K Cost On Law Graduate

The High Court has dismissing a PIL seeking reopening of State Human Rights Commission, Women Commission, and Accountability Commission in Jammu & Kashmir for adjudication of pending complaints. The Court observed that the plea was politically motivated, and targeted the Government over abrogation of Article 370.

"The averments made in the petition reveal that the petitioner is not really interested in the establishment of the above foras but to attack the government over the deletion of the special status granted to the J&K," a Bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mittal and Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed.

Karnataka High Court

1. LL.B : Karnataka High Court Directs KSLU To Pass Law Students On 50-50 Formula; Quashes Clause For Assessment Based Entirely On Previous Semester Marks [E Karthik Patel v. Karnataka State Law University]

The Court recently quashed Clause 7 of the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Law University by which a candidate who secures less than 40% of marks based on an aggregate percentage of total performance including theory and internal assessment of marks in the previous semester shall be considered as 'fail'.

The High Court directed the University to follow its previous order issued in the case of Ritvik Balanagaraj B, in which it had directed the University to assess 1st to 4th year BA LLB students, on the basis of the internal assessments of the students to an extent of 50% and the remaining 50% of the marks on the basis of performance in the previous semester only (if available).

2. Registration Of Second FIR On The Same Incident To Improve The Earlier Complaint Not Allowed : Karnataka High Court [B. V. Byre Gowda v. Nisar Ahmed]

The Court has said that registration of the second FIR on the same incident would be hit by the "doctrine of sameness" and will have to be annihilated as it would amount to improving the facts and the case in the subsequent complaint on the same incident.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, while quashing a second First Information Report registered against B. V. Byre Gowda, a Bharatiya Janata Party worker charged in 2018, under Sections 504, 332, 353 OF IPC by the Hoskote Police said, "Once having registered a complaint on a particular premise of an incident, it was not open to the complainant to have registered another complaint on the very same incident regarding what happened during the very same period."

3. No Legal Bar In Minor Becoming A Swami, Amicus Tells Karnataka High Court; Judgment Reserved On Legality Of 'Bala Sanyasa' [P Lathavya Acharya v. State Of Karnataka]

The Court reserved its order on a petition questioning the legality of appointing 16-year-old Aniruddha Saralathaya (now named as Vedavardhana Tirtha) as the Peetadhipathi of the Shiroor Mutt in Udupi.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum heard the parties for over four hours and reserved their order.

4. Compulsory Teaching Of Kannada In CBSE/ICSE Schools 'Harsh, Draconian' : Plea In Karnataka High Court [Keertan Suresh(Minor) v. State of Karnataka]

A fourth standard student, studying in an Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) affiliated school in Bengaluru, has approached the Karnataka High Court, to declare the Kannada Language Learning Act, 2018, which makes it compulsory for all the institutions in the State of Karnataka to introduce Kannada Language as compulsory subject, either as first or second language, from Standard I, II, III and IV, for the academic year 2020-21.

Justice R Devadas upon hearing the case issued notice to the respondents. The next date of hearing is after three weeks. The petition filed through advocate Suvidutt MS states the state government enacted the Kannada Language Learning Act, 2015, pursuant to a policy decision to ensure that Kannada Language is taught as one of the compulsory subjects to all students studying in Standards I to X in all Schools in the State. The Act is stated to have received the assent of the Hon'ble Governor of Karnataka on 29.04.2015.

5. 1% Reservation For Transgenders In State-Owned Enterprises: Karnataka High Court Gives State Govt. 'Last Chance' To Issue Directions [Sangama v. State of Karnataka]

The Court by way of last chance, granted four weeks time to the state government to comply with an earlier order directing it to consider providing 1% reservations to transgenders for recruitment in all state-owned corporations.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said "Four weeks' time by way of last indulgence is granted to the state government to issue advisory as directed by an earlier order of this court."

Also Read: Registry Not To Insist Process Fee For Issuance Of Notice When State Govt. Is Arrayed As Respondent: Karnataka High Court

6. Exemption Granted To Kodavas & Jumma Land Holders From Obtaining Firearms Licenses Under Arms Act Constitutionally Valid: Karnataka High Court [Capt. Chetan Y K (Retd) v. Union of India.]

The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the notification issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs granting exemption to every person of Coorg by race, and Jumma tenure landholders in Coorg (Kodagu district), from the requirement to obtain a license to carry and possess firearms.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, "The Kodava community which is a marshal community is enjoying the benefit of exemption since pre-independence and Jumma tenure holders are enjoying the exemption since pre-independence period. They have rightly been granted exemption for a period of ten years, it is not the case they have been granted exemption indefinitely. Exemption granted is subject to certain terms and conditions. Therefore, the Constitutional validity of the notification is upheld in the petition."

7. 'Personal Interest Litigation' In The Form Of A PIL: Karnataka High Court Imposes Rs 10 Lakh Cost On Petition Filed Over Business Feud [Prashanth Amin v. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board]

The Court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 10 lakh on a PIL petitioner, a fish supplying agent, for filing a petition against a fishmeal and oil manufacturing company, due to his personal dispute with the company over a business deal.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum while dismissing the plea filed by one Prashant Amin noted, "The petitioner had suppressed the fact that the plea was against his former business associate and the plea was not in public interest but more in the nature of personal interest litigation."

8. Extortion Complaint Against Bengaluru ACP: Karnataka High Court Quashes The Prosecution Case For Being 'Malicious' And 'Vengeful' [Prabhu Shankar v. State Of Karnataka]

The Court recently quashed an extortion case registered against an Assistant Commissioner of Police. The court while doing so noted that, "The Criminal proceedings are manifest with malafides and the entire proceedings are maliciously instituted with ulterior motives for wreaking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due to the personal and private grudge."

A single-judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh allowed the petition filed by Prabhu Shankar, it quashed the FIR dated 12.05.2020 registered under Section 384 read with Section 34 of IPC and the proceedings which are pending before the Additional CMM Court, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru City.

Also Read: Hold Elections To Managing Committee Of Advocates Association Of Bengaluru By Dec 22 : Karnataka High Court

Kerala High Court

1. Settlement Via Marriage Not A Ground To Quash Proceedings Against Rape Accused Under POCSO: Kerala High Court [Rahul P.R & Anr. v. State of Kerala]

In a significant ruling, the Court has held that a compromise of marriage between the parties is not a ground to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused under the provisions of POCSO.

Justice V. Shircy while dismissing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, remarked: "Rape is not only a very serious and inhumane offence committed towards the victim alone, but also it causes a very serious impact upon her relatives and society as a whole. When the magnitude of the crime is so grave and heinous as such to shock the sense of justice, a settlement between the parties and a marriage subsequently between them are not matters for consideration to quash the proceedings in a criminal case."

2. 'Would Lead To A Social Disaster': Centre Appeals Against Kerala HC Decision To Reduce Covishield Dose Interval Of 84 Days [Secretary to Government of India Department of Health and Family Welfare v. Kitex Garments Limited & Ors]

The Centre has preferred an appeal before the Court against a Single Bench order allowing the second dose of COVISHIELD to be administered prior to the prescribed interval of 84 days. The appeal has been filed through the Assistant Solicitor General of India P. Vijayakumar.

By the aforesaid judgment, the Single bench had directed the appellants to make necessary provisions forthwith in the CoWIN portal so as to enable scheduling of a second dose of COVISHIELD vaccine after four weeks of the first dose being administered for those who were willing to accept the same.

3. Which God Would Accept Offerings Of Such A Priest? Kerala High Court Laments Over Pujari Repeatedly Raping Young Girl

While hearing a criminal appeal preferred by a priest accused of sexually assaulting a young girl, the Court voiced its concern over the pitiful fate of women abandoned by their husbands, particularly of the helpless children.

"When a man abandons his wife and children, roving vultures wait to prey on not only the abandoned woman, but also the helpless children. In this case we have a 'poojari'/'komaram' (priest/oracle in a temple) taking the abandoned woman and the three children under his wing, only to repeatedly molest the elder girl child, that too in the presence of her siblings. We wonder which God would accept the obeisance and offerings of such a priest or make him a medium?"

Also Read: 'A Lapse We Encounter Daily': Kerala High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance On Incompetence Of Prosecutors, Resulting In Offenders Walking Scot-Free

4. Fake Lawyer Case : Kerala High Court Advises Bar Associations To Verify With Bar Council Before Admitting New Members [Sessy Xavier v. State of Kerala & Ors.]

The Court while denying pre-arrest bail to Sessy Xavier who practised in the State as an Advocate for over two years without enrolment, observed that she had not merely deceived the Bar Association or the general public, but the entire Judicial system.

The Court also observed that it is advisable that Bar Associations verify with the Bar Council before admitting new members.

Also Read: High Court Issues Notice To Kerala Govt Over Withdrawal Of Suspension Of Excise Officers Accused In Custodial Death Case

5. Normal Rules Of Criminal Jurisprudence Not Applicable To COFEPOSA: Kerala HC Upholds Preventive Detention Of Accused In Gold Smuggling Case [Jamseena v. Union of India and Ors]

While directing continued preventive detention of two accused in the gold smuggling case, the Court held that the normal rules of criminal jurisprudence or provisions of the Evidence Act will not be attracted while invoking provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act, 1974.

A Division Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P held that applying the principles of the Evidence Act is foreign to the jurisdiction exercised under the COFEPOSA Act while directing preventive detention since one is punitive in nature while the other is preventive.

6. Shouldn't Post-Covid Treatment Be Part Of Covid Care? Kerala High Court Asks State [Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. Advocate Sabu P Joseph]

The Court sought clarification from the State regarding why treatment for post-Covid complications was not considered a part of coronavirus care when the death of a person 30 days after turning Covid negative was treated as a COVID-19 death.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Kauser Edappagath was hearing a review petition filed by the Kerala Private Hospitals Association challenging the charges fixed by the State for Covid-19 treatment in private hospitals.

7. [ISRO Espionage] Time Limit On Siby Mathew's Pre-Arrest Bail Order: Kerala High Court Seeks CBI Response [Siby Mathews v. Central Bureau of Investigation]

The Court sought the response of the Central Bureau of Investigation regarding the order of the Sessions Court dated 24th August which imposed a time limit imposed on the pre-arrest bail granted to former DGP Siby Mathews, an accused in the ISRO espionage case. Justice K Haripal listed the matter on October 21st for further consideration.

In his plea, the applicant mentioned that although he was granted bail in the matter, the Sessions Court curtailed the relief granted to him for a period of 60 days as the 6th condition in its order.

Also Read: [ISRO Espionage] Former DGP Siby Mathews Moves Kerala High Court Challenging Time Limit Imposed On His Pre-Arrest Bail

8. 'Effective Steps Already Taken': High Court Disposes Of PIL For Proper Solid Waste Management Pursuant To Kerala Floods [Jackson Mathew v. State of Kerala & Ors]

The Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the concerned authorities to initiate immediate action for proper solid waste management, subsequent to the devastating floods in the State.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly noted that the respondents had "already taken all possible effective steps" for the disposal of solid waste caused due to flood, as laid down in statutory provisions.

9. Right Of Accused To Impeach Witness Testimony Indefeasible, Embargo Under Section 172(3) CrPC Not Applicable: Kerala High Court [Selvaraj v. State of Kerala]

The Court has held that the embargo in Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not take away the right of the accused to use previous statements of witnesses to impeach their testimonies.

Justice K Haripal while allowing the petition, observed as such in light of Section 161 of the CrPC and Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act: "...it is the right of every accused in a criminal trial to make use of the previous statements of a witness including the statements recorded by the investigating agency during the course of investigation for the purpose of establishing contradiction in evidence or to discredit the witness."

10. 'No Arbitrariness': Kerala High Court Upholds Lakshadweep Admin Decision To Close Dairy Farms, Modify Mid Day Meals [Ajmal Ahmed R v. Union of India & Ors]

The Court while disposing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) assailing the reforms introduced by the new Lakshadweep Administration, reiterated that a writ court can only consider a policy matter if there was any arbitrariness, illegality or unfairness on the part of the authority while exercising the power conferred under law.

Dismissing the PIL, a Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly remarked: "Taking into account the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court and the facts and circumstances available in the case at hand, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has not made out any case of arbitrariness or illegality in the policy decision taken by the Lakshadweep administration in the matter of the closure of the cattle farm, and the modification of the midday meal scheme provided to the children of the island."

Also Read: Lottery Prize Can't Be Denied Just Because Winner Happens To Be Wife Of A Suspended Lottery Agent : Kerala High Court

11. Incorrect Date And Venue On Vaccination Certificate: Kerala High Court Directs Enquiry To Verify If Its A Genuine Mistake Or Mischief [K P John v. Union of India]

The Court directed an enquiry into a matter where incorrect date and venue were displayed on the petitioner's Covid-19 vaccination certificate for his second dose, to verify if it was a genuine mistake or some mischief.

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan remarked that if the incorrect details on the certificate were found to be a result of any sort of mischief, such an incident calls for stringent action against the officials involved.

12. Land Development Permit Not Required To Extract & Transport Ordinary Earth If Building Construction Does Not Involve Subdivision Into Plots : Kerala High Court [Philip Thomas v. The Geologist & Ors.]

The Court has ruled that where a building construction does not involve development of land by subdivision of land into plots, but only extraction and transportation of ordinary earth, the owner need not obtain a Land Development Permit for the purpose of obtaining Mineral Transit Pass.

Justice N. Nagaresh clarified, however, that in such cases, the application for Mineral Transit Pass should be accompanied by a valid Building Permit obtained from the Local Self Government authorities, a Possession Certificate issued by the Village Officer and an approved building plan obtained from the Local Self Government authorities containing the quantity of ordinary earth to be extracted for such construction.

13. Lawyers Owe Responsibility First To Their Clients, Then To Courts: Kerala High Court [Sessy Xavier v. State of Kerala & Ors.]

While dismissing the anticipatory bail application filed in a fake lawyer case, the Court remarked that a lawyer owes paramount responsibility to his client first, and to the court second.

Justice Shircy V in her order also observed that the legal profession was one of the noblest: "The lawyers' profession is considered to be one of the noblest professions. Lawyers have to play a pivotal role in the administration of justice as only with their sincere and purposeful effort and assistance the Courts could administer justice properly."

Also Read: Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Alleging Camp Followers Being 'Enslaved' By IPS Officers

14. Prima Facie No 'Control' Of Grandfather On Child Living Away; S.75 JJ Act Not Attracted: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest In Child Abuse Case

The Court has granted pre-arrest bail to a man who allegedly abused his minor grandson on the ground that he was not in charge or control of the child so as to attract the offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Justice MR Anitha while allowing the application, however, imposed stringent conditions on the petitioner.

The petitioner was booked under Sections 294(b) (Obscene acts), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 451 (House-trespass) of IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act for assaulting his daughter (the defacto complainant) and her son aged 2 years.

Other Developments:

• Kerala High Court Comes To Aid Of Another Minor Rape Victim: Allows Termination Of Pregnancy
• Kerala High Court Comes Down On Police Force Once Again, Condemns Its Continued Practice Of Colonial Attitude
• Attack On Covid Warriors: Kerala High Court Directs Police To Pull Up Its Socks
• Shameful That Every Other Case Is That Of A Minor Being Raped: Kerala High Court Expresses Shock Over Rising POCSO Cases

Madhya Pradesh High Court

1. Only The Election Commission Of India Is Competent To Decide When To Conduct Bye-Elections: Madhya Pradesh High Court [Nagrik Upbhokta Margdarshak Manch v. State of Madhya Pradesh]

While dismissing a plea seeking deferring of bye-elections to the Khandwa parliamentary constituency and Prathvipur, Jobat, and Rajgarh assembly constituencies, the Court held that only the Election Commission of India is competent to decide when to conduct bye-elections.

The Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla was hearing a plea moved by the Nagrik Upbhokta Margdarshak Manch seeking deferment of bye-polls amid the possibility of a third wave of COVID-19.

2. Police Warning Against University Webinar For 'Anti-National' Speakers : MP High Court Seeks State's Response [Professor Rajesh Kumar Gautam v. The State Of M.P. and Others]

The Court has sought the response of the State Government on a writ petition challenging the letter issued by the Superintendent of Police, District Sagar, warning DR. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar of actions against it citing the presence of 'anti national' speakers in the webinar.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi granted three weeks' time to the state to file its reply on the plea filed by Professor Rajesh Kumar Gautam, the convener of the Webinar.

3. Proviso To Section 15(1) Of JJ Act- "Assistance Of Experienced Psychologists Or Psycho-Social Workers Or Other Experts Is Mandatory": MPHC [Ojef Khan V. State of M.P.]

The Court held that it is mandatory for Juvenile Justice Board to take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts while conducting a preliminary assessment with regard to a child's (in conflict with the law) mental and physical capacity to commit a heinous offence.

The Bench of Justice Shailendra Shukla has held that for the preliminary assessment by Juvenile Justice Board as to whether a Juvenile ought to be tried by Children Court under Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015, the Assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts would be mandatory.

4. 'Beating Of Doctors And Other Hospital Staff By Attendants Of Patients Has Become A Very Regular Feature': MP High Court Directs State Gov To Amend Law To Curb Such Violence [Dr. Sanjay Maheshwari v. State of M.P. and other]

The Jabalpur Bench expressed strong reservations against the increasing practice of beating, manhandling and attacking doctors and other paramedical staff in hospitals by the attendants of the patients.

The Court was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition which had been registered on the basis of a letter dated November 18, 2013 written by Dr. Sanjay Maheshwari, Head of M.P. Birla Hospital & Priyamvada Birla Cancer Research Institute, Satna (M.P.) and addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court.

5. "He Suffered From Schizophrenia": MP High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Man Accused Of Outraging 10-Yr-Old Modesty [State of Madhya Pradesh v. Raghunath]

Observing that the accused was suffering from 'Schizophrenia' at the time of the incident, the Court recently upheld the acquittal order passed in favour of a POCSO accused was liable to be upheld but modified the reason of his acquittal

With this, the Court dismissed an appeal filed by the State against his acquittal order, in which the accused was absolved of the charges of outraging a 10-year-old girl's modesty.

Madras High Court

1. Madras HC Issues Notice On Plea Filed By Film Maker Leena Manimekalai Challenging Impounding Of Her Passport Over Criminal Defamation Case Against #MeToo Allegations [Leena Manimekalai v. The Regional Passport Officer]

The Court issued notice on a plea moved by Filmmaker, poet and civil rights activist Leena Manimekalai challenging an order passed by the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai, to impound her passport.

The impounding order was passed citing the pendency of a criminal defamation case against her. Manimekalai had come out with sexual harassment allegations against film director Susi Ganesan during the 2018 #MeToo movement. Consequently, Ganesan had filed a criminal defamation case against her in 2019 before a Magistrate's Court in Chennai. On September 9 this year, the Passport Officer impounded Manimekalai's passport under section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967 on the ground of a criminal case pending before her.

2. Respond to AIADMK's Plea On Local Body Elections: Madras High Court Directs TN Election Commission [AIADMK v. Tamil Nadu State Election Commission and Anr]

The Court directed the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission (TNSEC) to respond to a representation made by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) to deploy government staff such as CRPF and CISF personnel for the local body polls that are slated to take place on October 6 for 9 districts in Tamil Nadu.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P Audikesavalu was informed by senior advocate Vijay Narayan appearing for AIADMK that the State Election Commission had failed to respond to a representation dated September 14 containing AIADMK's suggestions.

3. 'Every Citizen Has The Right To Comment On Govt. Policies': Madras HC Directs TN Bar Council To Enroll Law Graduate Who Participated In Anti-Sterlite Agitation [K Siva v. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry and Ors]

Coming to the aid of a law graduate who had participated in the protests for the closure of Vedanta's Sterlite Copper plant in Thoothukudi because of which he had been denied enrolment as an advocate, the Madurai Bench recently directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to enroll him as an advocate on its roll.

A Bench comprising Justices M Duraiswamy and Murali Shankar pertinently observed, "The right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms are fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution of India ... every citizen is having right to comment on the policies of Governments and to have their own views with respect to the such policies."

4. 'So Called Important Persons Must Not Be Exempted': Madras High Court Upholds Ban On Use Of Crash Guards, Bull Bars In Motor Vehicles [LD Lenin Paul v. The Principal Secretary / Transport Commissioner and Ors]

The Court upheld a notification issued by the Central government dated December 7, 2017 directing all State governments and Union Territories to prohibit the use of crash guards and bull bars in motor vehicles.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu observed that the Court cannot interfere in such policy matters and accordingly ruled, "At the end of the day, it appears that public interest may have impelled the Central Government to issue the notice and, on a matter of policy where the Central Government perceives that a thing is necessary in public interest, the court would not willy-nilly intervene unless it finds the policy to be absurd or objectionable to the meanest mind."

Also Read: "Need To Instill A Sense Of Fear In Persons Indulging In Wanton Illegal Mining": Madras High Court Asks Govt To Recover Compensation

5. Animals Are Best Left In The Wild': Madras HC Orders Injured Elephant 'Rivaldo' To Be Kept In The Wild, Monitors Recovery [ Dr T. Murugavel v. The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and others]

The Court opined that wild animals are best left in their natural habitat even if they suffer from physical deformities unless it involves a question of their survival.

The Court was adjudicating upon a plea moved by S Muralidharan, founder-trustee of Indian Centre for Animal Rights and Education (INCARE) who had sought the Court's intervention to prevent the release of an elephant popularly known as 'Rivaldo' back into the wild.

6. 'Show Cause Why Immediate Action Should Not Be Taken For Disrespecting Court': Madras HC Raps HR&CE Joint Commissioner For Cavalier Affidavit On Encroached Temple Land [Elephant G Rajendran v. The Secretary and Ors]

The Court came down heavily on a Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department for filing a reply in a "cavalier manner" to a PIL petition filed against the encroachment of almost 400 acres of land belonging to the Bhaktavatsala Perumal temple at Tirukannamangai in Tiruvarur district.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and PD Audikesavalu expressed strong reservations against the 'cavalier manner' in which the counter affidavit by the Joint Commissioner had been filed.

7. Draft EIA Notification Will Be Published In Local Languages: Centre Informs Madras High Court [B Ramkumar Adityan v. Union of India]

The Central government informed the Court that it has decided to release the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2020 in local languages. The Court was adjudicating upon a batch of petitions seeking the translation of the Draft EIA notification, 2020 into vernacular languages.

Advocate Kumaraguru appearing for the Union government apprised a Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu that such a decision had been taken by the Centre pursuant to an order of the High Court in a related matter.

Also Read: Lawyer Says Judge Shouldn't Hear Case Like 'Thanjavur Landlord': Madras High Court Judge Recuses From Case

8. Deity In A Temple Is A 'Minor', Must Be Protected Against Illegal Encroachment: Madras High Court [K Senthilkumar v. The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Tourism, Culture and Religious Department and Ors]

The Court has recently reiterated that fraudulent or illegal encroachment of temple properties is a crime against society at large. The Court was adjudicating upon eviction proceedings against a man who had claimed to be the leaseholder of certain temple property belonging to the Arulmigu Agatheeswara Swamy Thirukkoil, Chennai.

Justice SM Subramaniam observed, "Fraudulent and illegal encroachments of temple properties is a crime against the society at large. Temple properties are allowed to be looted by few greedy men and by few professional criminals and land grabbers. These lapses, negligence, dereliction of duty on the part of such public officials are also to be viewed seriously and all appropriate actions in this regard are highly warranted."

9. 'Complainant Was Conscious Of The Fact That Marriage May Not Take Place': Madras High Court Dismisses Rape Charges On False Promise To Marry [D. Santhanam & Priya v. State]

The Court ruled that an offence of rape under Section 376 IPC on the pretext of false promise to marry is not made out when the complainant willingly engages in the sexual act knowing that the intended marriage may not take place at all on account of her own marital status.

The Court was adjudicating upon a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking the quashing of the FIR instituted against the accused.

Meghalaya High Court

1. 'Impedes Upon Fundamental Rights Of Residents': Meghalaya HC Objects To Establishment Of Facilitation Centres Under Meghalaya Resident Safety and Security Act [Ibahunlang Nongkynrih & Ors. Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors]

The Court expressed strong reservations against sections 17 and 18 of the Meghalaya Resident Safety and Security Act (MRSSA), 2016 which allow for the creation of 'facilitation centres' for the purpose of 'weeding out any known anti-social elements and wanted criminals'.

The Court was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition moved challenging the constitutional validity of MRSSA, 2016.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

1. Affidavit On Marital Status Must In Protection Pleas Filed By Couples : P&H High Court [Harwinder Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab & Ors]

The Court has recently directed that the High Court Registry must ensure that before any protection plea is adjudicated upon, affidavits of both the petitioners disclosing their marital status must first be taken on record.

The Court was adjudicating upon a petition moved by a married couple seeking protection of their life on the ground that the couple had got married against the wishes of their parents and thus apprehended threat to their life and liberty.

Also Read: Senior Advocate D. S. Patwalia Appointed As The New Advocate General Of Punjab

2. Marriage Of Minor Becomes Valid If Not Declared Void Till Age Of 18, Dissolution U/S 13B Of Hindu Marriage Act Allowed: P&H High Court [Yogesh Kumar v. Priya]

The High Court held that if a girl marries before attaining the age of 18 years, she can seek separation through a decree of divorce, if till attaining the age of majority, the marriage was not declared void under the Hindu Marriage Act.

A Division Bench of Justices Ritu Bahri and Arung Monga added that such a marriage cannot be declared a nullity under Section 13(2)(iv) of HMA, as that provision is applicable to a girl whose marriage was solemnised before she attained the age of 15 years.

Rajasthan High Court

1. '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."

Sikkim High Court

1. Hope Govt Will Continue To Take Curative Strides In Containing Pandemic: Sikkim High Court Suspends Suo Motu Monitoring Of Covid-19 Situation [In Re Covid Managament]

The Court has suspended its suo motu monitoring of the Covid-19 situation in the State, upon being convinced that the State Government has taken appropriate steps for establishment of all requisite infrastructure and other necessities to control the situation.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai and Justice Bhasker Raj Pradhan disposed of the PIL initiated for Covid management in the State observing thus: "...we are of the considered opinion that the anxieties raised in the instant PIL have been addressed by the State Government and steps are also being taken in the right direction for establishment of all requisite infrastructure and other necessities."

Tripura High Court

1. "Interference With State's Policy Decision Unwarranted": Tripura High Court Rejects TMC's Plea To Hold 'Protest' Rally In State [All India Trinamool Congress & Another v. The State of Tripura and 6 Others]

The Court dismissed a plea filed by the All India Trinamool Congress seeking permission to organize a protest rally despite State Government's order prohibiting all meetings, procession, public gatherings by any political party in the Sadar area till Diwali festival, 2021.

The petitioners argued that the government had actuated with malice in issuing the said prohibitory order dated 20.09.2021 and it is aimed only to restrain them from organizing any rally in the city of Agartala (scheduled for September 22 and was to be addressed by TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee).

2. Tripura High Court Stays Investigation Against TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, WB Minister & Others In Khowai PS Incident

The Court stayed investigation against Trinamool Congress General Secretary Abhishek Banerjee, MP Dola Sen, West Bengal Minister Bratya Basu, and 3 others in a case registered against them on a suo-moto complaint in the Khowai police station incident which took place on August 8.

The Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi was hearing the plea seeking quashing of the complaint for offence punishable under Section 186 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

3. Tripura High Court Issues Notice To State Govt. On PIL Seeking Probe Into Political Violence In State By HC Judge

The Court issued notice to the State Government on a PIL seeking probe into the recent political violence in the state by an existing or retired Judge of the High Court.

Looking to the seriousness of the issues involved, the Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice S. G. Chattopadhyay issued notice to the respondents so as to gather further information before deciding further course of action.