- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- High Courts Weekly Roundup [October...
High Courts Weekly Roundup [October 25, 2021 To October 31, 2021]
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
1 Nov 2021 4:55 AM GMT
![High Courts Weekly Roundup [October 25, 2021 To October 31, 2021]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/images/750x450_high-courts-weekly-round-up.jpg "High Courts Weekly Roundup [October 25, 2021 To October 31, 2021]")
Allahabad High Court 1. Marriage Increasingly Being Used As A Tool To Coerce People Into Religious Conversion': UP Govt Defends 'Anti-Love Jihad' Law The Uttar Pradesh Government has defended its Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 before the High Court by submitting that since marriage is being used as an instrument to convert an individual's religion...
Allahabad High Court
The Uttar Pradesh Government has defended its Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 before the High Court by submitting that since marriage is being used as an instrument to convert an individual's religion against his/her will, therefore, the Act seeks to remedy this malady. This submission has been made by the UP Government before the High by way of an affidavit, filed in response to a batch of public interest litigations challenging the Act.
2. Respecting Constitutional Dignitaries Including President, PM Is Citizens' 'Bounden Duty': Allahabad HC Grants Bail In PM's 'Objectionable' Pic Case [Mohd. Afaaq Kuraisi v. State of U.P.]
Stressing that it is the bounden duty of every citizen of the country to respect all the Constitutional dignitaries including the President and Prime Minster of 'this great nation', the High Court granted bail to one Mohd. Afaaq Kuraisi booked for posting objectionable image of Prime Minister, Narendra Modi on a WhatsApp group.
Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan also observed that it is to be known to one and all that the Prime Minster of this country or any Constitutional dignitary could not be confined to a particular class or religion as he is representing each and every citizen of this country.
3. Witness Protection- "Surprising That Despite Accepting Threat To Life, Witness' Security Was Reduced": Allahabad HC Restores Security Arrangements [Vrijendra Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. & Ors]
Expressing surprise over the decision of a committee headed by the District Judge to reduce the security provided to a witness (in a criminal trial) despite accepting a threat to his life, the High Court restored the security arrangements of the witness/petitioner till further orders.
Essentially, the bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta was hearing the plea of one Vrijendra Pratap Singh, who is a witness in a criminal case and who was earlier provided with one gunner round the clock in view of threat perception to his life at the hand of the accused.
Also Read: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Arrested For Allegedly Possessing 349 Kilogram Of Ganja
4. Confession To NDPS Officer Inadmissible : Allahabad HC Grants Bail In Case Of 628 Kg Ganja [Rajveer Singh v. Union of India]
The High Court granted bail to a man booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) in a case involving the alleged recovery of 628 Kilograms of Ganja. The Court noted that the case against the accused was based only upon the statement given by the co-accused implicating him and also upon a statement given by the accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh granted bail to the accused.
4. NDPS Case- 'False Implication' Is A Stereo Typed Defence Of Accused Who Are Found In Possession Of Contraband: Allahabad HC [Shridam Adhikari v. Union of India through Directorate of Revenue Intelligence]
Referring to the cases registered under the NDPS Act in general, the High Court observed that the plea of 'false implication' is a stereotyped defence, which is raised in every case where the accused are found in possession of contraband. This assertion came from the bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh while dealing with the bail pleas of 4 NDPS Act accused booked under section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for possessing 650.740 kgs of Ganja.
6. Need To Look At Live-In Relations From The Lens Of Personal Autonomy Rather Than Notions Of Social Morality: Allahabad HC [Shayara Khatun v. State of Uttar Pradesh]
The High Court observed that live-in relationships are required to be viewed from the lens of personal autonomy rather than the notions of social morality The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed thus while dealing with two protection pleas filed by interfaith live-in couples. This assertion by the court came while dealing with two pleas filed by Shayara Khatun and her partner (both major in live-in-relationship with each other since last more than two years) and Zeenat Parveen and her partner (both major and in a live-in relationship since last 1 year)
Bombay High Court
1. Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Aryan Khan & 2 Others In Cruise Ship Drug Case
The High Court granted bail to Aryan Khan on October 28, in connection with the alleged cruise ship drug case. He was released from custody on October 30, following completion of all formalities.
Justice NW Sambre also allowed bail to his friends and co-accused in the matter, Arbaaz Merchant and Munmun Dhamecha. They have been restrained from leaving the country without prior leave from the Court, among other bail conditions.
Read Khan's arguments here. Read NCB's arguments here.
NCB Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede has moved the Bombay High Court on Thursday requesting a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into allegations of corruption levelled against him. In the plea filed, Wankhede has sought relief from the Court stating that in case any probe into extortion allegations need to be carried out, it must be done by either the CBI or the National Investigating Agency (NIA).
Calcutta High Court
1. Calcutta High Court Bans Firecrackers In West Bengal During Diwali & Other Festivals [Roshni Ali v. State of West Bengal]
The High Court imposed a complete ban on the usage and sale of all kinds of firecrackers including green crackers throughout the State of West Bengal during the upcoming Diwali/Kali Puja festivities. Such an order on complete ban of firecrackers shall persist for all remaining festivities this year including Chhath Puja, Guru Nanak Jayanti, Christmas and New Year's celebrations.
2. Calcutta HC Directs Health Secretary To Meet Protesting Doctors In Plea Alleging Disruption Of Medical Facilities At R.G. Kar Medical College Hospital [Sri Nand Lal Tewari v. State of West Bengal]
The High Court directed the Health Secretary of the West Bengal government to meet protesting medical students and junior doctors of the R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata on October 29. The Court was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition alleging that in light of the ongoing agitation by a section of the interns and the students the medical services to the public at the hospital have been adversely affected.
3. Calcutta HC Adjourns Hearing Of Anticipatory Bail Applications Of BJP Leader Kailash Vijayvargiya, 2 Others In Sexual Assault Case [Kailash Vijayvargiya v. State of West Bengal]
The High Court adjourned the hearing of anticipatory bail applications of BJP Leader Kailash Vijayvargiya, RSS member Jisnu Basu, and Pradeep Joshi in a sexual assault case in view of the fact that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed before the Supreme Court against an order of the High Court setting aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore and directing the lodging of an FIR against the accused persons.
Chhattisgarh High Court
1. Alleged Hate Speeches Against Christianity- "Open To Move Complaint Before Magistrate": Chhattisgarh HC Refuses To Direct FIR Registration [Chhattisgarh Christian Forum v. State of Chhattisgarh]
The High Court refused to direct the registration of an FIR against a man, Sohan Potai, who allegedly delivered hate speeches against the Christian Religion. The Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, however, gave the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Judicial Magistrate First Class having territorial jurisdiction over the place of offence for filing of a complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C or Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
Delhi High Court
1. Marriage Permissible Only Between Biological Man & Woman; Navtej Johar Case Doesn't Recognize Same-Sex Marriage: Centre Tells Delhi High Court [Abhijeet Iyer Mitra v. Union of India (and other connected petitions)]
"The law as it stands...marriage is permissible between biological man and biological woman," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Central Government told the Delhi High Court in a batch of pleas seeking recognition and registration of same-sex marriages under the law.
The bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh has now posted the matter for final hearing on November 30 and has meanwhile granted time to all the parties to complete their pleadings.
Also Read: Delhi High Court, District Courts To Completely Resume Physical Hearings From November 22
2. Investigation In Sexual Harassment & Assault Complaint Made In 2014 Pending Till Date: Delhi High Court Directs Appearance Of DCP [Reetu Rani v. State of NCT Delhi & Ors]
The High Court has sought personal appearance of a DCP of Delhi Police in an "unfortunate" case where the police has failed to take any steps to complete the investigation qua an FIR for sexual harassment registered in 2014. Justice Subramonium Prasad, while directing the DCP to appear before the Court on Friday, expressed its displeasure for the second time in the matter. The State has now been directed to clarify the exact stage of investigation.
3. High Court Seeks Delhi Govt's Stand On Infrastructure, Medical Staff In COVID Care Facility Inside JNU [JNU Teachers' Association & Ors. v. JNU & Anr.]
The High Court has sought the stand of Delhi Government with respect to the infrastructure and medical staff facilities in the proposed COVID care facility inside JNU campus. Justice Rekha Palli granted time to the Delhi Government to seek instructions in the matter and posted it for further hearing on January 13. The development came after Advocate Abhik Chimni appearing for the petitioner, JNU Teachers Association, apprised the Court that even though JNU had already earmarked a space in the Sabarmati Dormitory for setting up of a Covid Centre in the Campus, the situation on the ground remains the same as was on August 13.
4. Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Election Commission On Plea For Regulation Of Internal Elections In Political Parties [C. Rajashekaran v. Election Commission of India]
The High Court has issued notice to the Election Commission of India on a PIL seeking regulatory oversight of internal elections in political parties. The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh has asked the EC to file its counter affidavit in the matter, to be next heard on December 23. The petition has been filed by Advocate C. Rajashekaran. He was represented by Advocates Abhimanyu Tewari and Aatrayi Das.
5. Delhi High Court Slams UP Police For Making Arrests After Couple's Marriage [Teenu & Anr v. Gnctd]
"UP Mein Chalta Hoga Yaha Nahin" remarked the Delhi High Court on Thursday as it slammed the Uttar Pradesh Police for arresting father and brother of a man who got married to a woman, against her family's wishes. The couple is a major. The arrests were made without informing the Delhi Police. "This will not be permitted here in Delhi. You cannot do illegal acts over here," Justice Mukta Gupta said.
6. Relief Can't Be Granted Against Registration Of FIR/ Criminal Proceedings In A PIL: Delhi High Court Imposes 25K Cost [We Are Saath v. Union of India]
The High Court imposed cost of Rs. 25,000 while dismissing a public interest litigation, seeking status report of foreign nationals lodged in jails and framing of guidelines for their deportation. The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh, while dismissing the plea filed by an organisation namely We Are Saath, observed,
"It ought to be kept in mind that whenever any offence is registered against any person, then relief cannot be granted without appreciating the facts of the case. This writ petition is preferred as a PIL and therefore reliefs as prayed for cannot be granted by this court for those foreign nationals against whom offences are registered and who are in lawful custody of the Court."
7. Damocles Sword Can't Be Hanged Over Accused's Head Merely On Assumption That Proceeds Of Crime May Be Higher: Delhi High Court [Ankit Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement]
The High Court has observed that while considering bail, damocles sword cannot be allowed to hang over the accused's head merely on the assumption that the proceeds of crime may be higher. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to a man in connection with a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate, related to the alleged fertilizers scam.
The High Court has passed a detailed order concerning the procedure to be followed by the Enforcement Directorate upon receiving letters of requests from a contracting State under Section 60 of the PMLA and other connected issues. Justice Pratibha M Singh, who was of the opinion that the request for freezing or seizure of assets/property must have a reasonable basis having sufficient grounds for taking action.
9. Delhi High Court Issues Summons To Baba Ramdev On Doctors' Suit For Allegedly Spreading Misinformation About Allopathy Amid Covid [Resident Doctors Association, AIIMS (Rishikesh) & Ors. v. Ram Kishan Yadav alias Swami Ramdev & Ors]
The High Court issued summons to Yoga guru Baba Ramdev in a suit filed against him by several doctors' associations for allegedly spreading misinformation about COVID cure through his statements against allopathy. Justice C Hari Shankar, who granted four weeks time to Ramdev and other defendants in the matter to file their written statements, clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits or the relief sought in the suit.
The High Court has reinstated a woman, working as an Editor in an Akademi, who was terminated from the job after she accused the organisation's Secretary of sexually harassing her. The woman hailing from the North-East had alleged that the Secretary used to make inappropriate sexual advances towards her and made racist and sexist comments. While reinstating her, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that the Secretary in the matter was an employer in terms of section 2(g) of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act for the reason that the day to day affairs of the Office where the woman was employed were managed and controlled by him.
11. Sharing Beneficiaries' Personal Info With Fair Price Shop Owners Counterproductive To Doorstep Ration Delivery Scheme: Delhi Govt Seeks To Recall HC Order [Delhi Sarkari Ration Dealers Sangh Delhi v. Commissioner Food And Supplies]
The Delhi High Court sought the response of Centre and Delhi Sarkari Ration Dealers Sangh in an application moved by Delhi Government, seeking recall of the order wherein it was directed to issue communications to all fair price shop holders informing them about the persons who have opted for receiving rations at their doorsteps.
"...the data sought by the Petitioner Association such as details of the Head of the Family, his/her Aadhar number, mobile number, residence etc. is confidential in nature, and the disclosure thereof would be counter productive to public interest and would lead to harassment and coercion of these beneficiaries who indisputably belong to the poorest strata of society," the Delhi Govt has said in its application.
12. No More Politics, Get Down To Some Real Work': Delhi High Court Slams Govt Over Poor Implementation Of Street Vendors Act [New Delhi Traders Association v. GNCTD]
"No more of politics, populism…Please get down to some real work," the High Court today told the Delhi government over poor implementation of the Street Vendors Act, 2014. The Division Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh, while hearing a batch of pleas related to alleged illegal street vending activities in the national capital orally remarked,
"Unfortunately, when it comes to implementation of good legislations, authorities concerned are not acting in spirit of the Act. They are trying to score points, advance their own political interests. This is why you have not been able to make a headway."
The High Court rejected the plea filed by Future Group seeking an ad interim stay on the order passed by a Singapore based Arbitration Tribunal, refusing to interfere with the Emergency Award restraining it to continue with the Reliance deal. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre last week had rejected Future Group's plea to vacate the interim stay on the company's deal with Reliance passed in October last year.
14. Economic Offences Corrode Fabric Of Democracy, Against National Economy And National Interest: Delhi High Court [Umesh Verma v. State]
The High Court observed that economic offences corrode the fabric of democracy and are against the national economy and national interest of the Country where innocent investors are duped of their hard earned money. The observation came from Justice Anu Malhotra while denying bail to a man accused in a crypto currency chit fund scam for allegedly inducing people to invest in the crypto currency in his firm on the assurance of high return upto 20-30% per month.
15. "Resignation Once Accepted Cannot Be Taken Back": Delhi High Court Dismisses Professor's Plea For Rejoining Jamia Milia Islamia [Moharram Ali Khan v. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors.]
Observing that a resignation once accepted cannot be taken back, the High Court dismissed the plea filed by a former Professor of the Jamia Milia Islamia University, seeking to rejoin the duty after one year of tendering his resignation. Justice V Kameswar Rao dismissed the plea of Moharram Ali Khan, who was appointed as a professor of Mathematics at JMI in 2007. Khan had sought directions on the University to permit him to re-join his duty as professor in the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Basic Sciences of JMI. He had returned to India after one year of service at a University in Saudi Arabia.
16. Delhi High Court Directs Police To Reconsider Plea Of Lawyer Engaged In Ram Janmbhoomi Case Over Withdrawal Of Security [Ravi Prakash Mehrotra v. Union of India]
The High Court directed the Delhi Police to reconsider within two weeks the plea filed by a Supreme Court lawyer, who represented Ministry of Home Affairs and Archaeological Survey of India in the Ram Janmbhoomi case before the Allahabad High Court, aggrieved by withdrawal of security provided to him in 2013. Justice Rekha Palli also sought a report to be filed in the matter while listing the case for further hearing on November 15.
17. Vague Answers': Delhi High Court Directs Personal Appearance Of Medical Superintendent In Minor's Plea For Donating Liver To Ailing Father [Saurav Suman through his mother v. GNCTD & Anr.]
The High Court directed personal appearance of Medical Superintendent of Institute of Liver & Biliary Sciences (ILBS) through video conferencing tomorrow in the plea filed by 17 year old minor, seeking directions to permit him to donate part of his liver to his ailing father, who is suffering from advance stage of Liver Failure. Justice Rekha Palli passed the order after observing that the counsel appearing for ILBS was not in a position to inform details of the tests required to be conducted on the minor petitioner.
Other developments:
- High Court Seeks Delhi Govt's Response On Allocation Of Funds To Juvenile Justice Fund, Setting Up JJBs In All Districts
- Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Complainant's Plea Challenging Anticipatory Bail Of MP Prince Paswan In Rape Case
- 'Doubt How Petitioner Collated Information Of Those Stranded': Delhi High Court Disposes Plea For Evacuation Of Indians From Afghanistan
- "Appalling, Complete Lackadaisical Approach": Delhi HC Pulls Up Centre Over Non Compliance Of Orders, Delay In Filing Response
- Long Pendency Of NIA Cases In Special Courts: Delhi High Court Seeks Reasons For Delay In Trials By Dec 17
- Court Security: Delhi High Court Grants Last Opportunity To All Stakeholders To File Suggestions By Oct 29
- Maintenance Amount Awarded By Family Court Must Be Realistic & Reasonable; Order Should Be Clear & Reasoned: Delhi High Court
Karnataka High Court
1. Karnataka High Court Drops Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Man Who Threatened To Kill SC Judges, Advocates [High Court Of Karnataka v. S V Srinivasa Rao]
"We have left you at this stage but be careful, don't spoil your old age, otherwise next time we will not leave you," the Court told a 72-year-old man who had threatened to kill Judges and Advocates.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum has dropped the suo-motu criminal contempt proceedings initiated against him in response to a letter he had written to the High Court registry claiming that he has decided to kill two erring Judges amongst the "highly corrupt 28 Judges of this Court and the Apex Court along with two corrupt Advocates".
2. 'Not Interested In Any Awards': Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea For Declaring Judges Eligible For Padma/ State Awards [Dr Vinod G Kulkarni v. Union Of India]
"We are not interested in getting awards. We are only interested in working," said Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi of the Court. The remarks were made while dismissing a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Union and State government to declare that sitting judges of the Supreme Court and High court are also eligible for Padma/ State awards.
3. 'Provisions Of Parole/ Furlough Structured On Humanistic Grounds': Karnataka High Court Partly Allows Murder Convict's Plea [Suma v. State of Karnataka]
The Court has said the provisions of parole/furlough are structured on humanistic grounds for the reprieve of those lodged in jails for long. The main purpose of releasing a serving convict on parole is to afford him an opportunity to solve his personal & family problems and to enable him to maintain his links with the civil society.
Justice Krishna S Dixit, while partly allowing a petition filed by the wife of a murder convict seeking parole leave for attending his daughter's marriage said, "One cannot forget every saint had a past and every sinner has a future; a person is convicted and put behind the bars, does not render him a destitute of all liberty & dignity; humanistic approach needs to be adopted qua the convicts. A convict has to keep in contact with the civil society, although not very regularly, so that his roots there do not dry up when he languishes here; otherwise when he returns from the prison after completing the term, he will be a total stranger and life would prove hard to him."
4. No Precipitative Action Against Online Gaming Companies For Now; Advocate General Assures Karnataka High Court [All India Gaming Federation v. State Of Karnataka]
Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi orally assured the court that no precipitative action would be taken against online gaming companies for the time being.
The oral statement was made before a single bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit, which is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021, by which the state government has banned all online gambling and betting, and provide maximum imprisonment of three years and penalty upto Rs 1 lakh for violation of the provisions.
5. Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Kerala CPI(M) Leader's Son Bineesh Kodiyeri In PMLA Case [Bineesh Kodiyeri v. Directorate Of Enforcement]
The Court allowed the bail application filed by Bineesh Kodiyeri, son of Kerala CPI (M) leader Kodiyeri Balakrishnan who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
A single Judge bench of Justice M G Uma pronounced the order today the court said "The criminal petition is allowed subject to conditions." The report will be updated once the detailed order is made available. Bineesh Kodiyeri was arrested a year ago, on October 29, 2020, and since then he has been under custody.
6. State Govt Opposes Petitions Challenging Ban On Online Gambling In Karnataka, Says 'No Harm In Preventing Public From Squandering Their Hard Earned Money' [All India Gaming Federation v. State Of Karnataka]
The Court began hearing on a batch of petitions filed challenging the Constitutional validity of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021, by which the state government has banned all online gambling and betting, and provide maximum imprisonment of three years and penalty upto Rs 1 lakh for violation of the provisions.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appearing for the All India Gaming Federation submitted, "We have challenged the validity of the amendment made to the Karnataka Police Act. New provisions are liable to be struck down. For legislative competence and on grounds of violation of Article 14 and 19."
7. 'Can't Enforce Any Particular Language On Students': Karnataka High Court Asks State To Reconsider Policy Making Kannada Compulsory In Degree Courses [Samskrita Bharati Karnataka Trust v. Union Of India]
The Court directed the State government to reconsider its policy decision, making compulsory the Kannada language as a subject for every student enrolling in a degree course in the State.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, "We adjourn the matter today with the understanding that the state will reconsider the policy. We are not putting it in black and white, but learned Advocate General, is here. He will advise the concerned."
8. Disclosing Details Of Ongoing Investigations To Media: Karnataka High Court Directs Police To Strictly Follow Govt Circular [H Nagabhushan Rao v. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting]
The Court has directed police officers who are in-charge of investigations to strictly follow the circular issued by the State government and not to divulge information regarding criminal cases to the media before the investigation is completed.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum while disposing of a petition filed by H Naghabhushan R. said, "We have given our anxious consideration to the directions issued by the respondent/State to the police officers not to disclose information regarding details of cases under investigation. The directions are detailed at clauses (a) to (f) of circular dated 11.08.2021."
9. Hospitals Overcharging Covid Patients: Karnataka High Court Seeks ATR; Status Of Refunds [Mohammed Arif Jameel v. Union Of India.]
The Court directed the State government and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to inform as to what action has been taken against those hospitals who are found guilty of charging exorbitant amounts from Covid-19 patients.
It has also sought information, by the next date of hearing, as to whether the said amount has been refunded to the patients, or not.
10. 'Nothing To Show They're Going To Persecute Christians': Karnataka HC Refuses To Stay Church Survey Order [People Union For Civil Liberties And State Of Karnataka]
The Court issued notice to the state government on a petition filed by People's Union For Civil Liberties, challenging the communication issued by the State government dated July 7, seeking to collect information about churches in the state.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum refused to pass an interim order sought for staying the operation of the impugned letters and directing the respondents not to take any coercive action pursuant to or under the impugned communications. The bench said "There is nothing on record to show such an urgency that an interim order is to be passed at this stage."
11. Wild Karnataka Documentary: High Court Further Extends Interim Order Restraining Makers From Dealing With The Film Till Nov 17 [Ravindra N Redkar v. Additional Chief Secretary To Government]
The High Court continued its interim order passed earlier, restraining the makers of the documentary 'Wild Karnataka' from dealing with the film in any manner. The film is a 52-minute natural history documentary based on the state's rich biodiversity, which first premiered on March 3, 2019.
At the 67th National Film awards ceremony held in Delhi, the Wild Karnataka documentary won two awards. The best exploration film (non-feature) award, while famous English broadcaster and environmentalist Sir David Attenborough, received a National Award for 'Best Narration/Voice Over' for the film. The awards were declared in March.
Kerala High Court
1. NEET-UG Candidate Alleges Manipulation In Her OMR Answer Sheet: Kerala High Court Directs NTA To Conduct Enquiry [Rithu Sibi v. Union of India & Ors]
A NEET candidate has approached the Court alleging that the OMR sheet attached to her application number has been manipulated.
Justice N. Nagaresh directed the National Testing Agency to conduct an enquiry into the matter after taking note of all the discrepancies on the produced OMR sheet.
2. 'Took The Entire System For A Ride, Has Alleged Links With Expatriate Associations': Kerala High Court In Controversial Antique Dealer's Case [Ajith E.V. v. The Commissioner of Police & Ors.]
The Court raised significant questions and concerns in the ongoing investigation by a Special Investigating Team against the controversial fake antique dealer Monson Mavunkal and his alleged links with expatriate associations.
Justice Devan Ramachandran questioned why the police took so long to take action against the dealer when some of the officers were suspicious about his famed collection of antiques.
3. Capable & Committed To Conduct Truthful, Unbiased Probe Against Mavunkal: DGP Assures Kerala High Court [Ajith E.V. v. The Commissioner of Police & Ors.]
Responding to the alleged links of controversial antique dealer Monson Mavunkal with senior police officials, the Director General of Police (DGP), Anil Kant IPS assured that the investigation was in safe hands before the Court.
"It is humbly submitted that the present Special Investigation Team is fully capable and committed to conduct a truthful, unbiased and sustained investigation into all the allegations raised in the matter and to take all the cases to its logical conclusion."
4. [Gold Smuggling] 'No Evidence Of Terror Financing; Provisions Of UAPA Not Attracted': Swapna Suresh Tells Kerala High Court; Judgment Reserved [Mohammed Shafi P. v. National Investigation Agency & connected matters.]
The Court reserved its judgment in the appeals filed by some of the accused, in the infamous gold smuggling case in the State.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C Jayachandran extensively heard the submissions of all parties involved before reserving its judgment today. The Court notified that the judgment will be released within a week's time.
5. 'A Conscious Effort To Malign Police': State Submits Before Kerala High Court In Sabarimala Virtual Queue Case [Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board]
The State and the Kerala Police are being subjected to unnecessary criticism...A conscious effort is being made to malign the police," the Kerala Government told the Court while defending the Sabarimala Pilgrim Management System for virtual darshan queue.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar was hearing a PIL challenging the legality of the Pilgrim Management System, implemented by the Kerala Police. It is alleged that it restricts Darshan in Sabarimala to only those who avail the Virtual Queue Services.
6. Reopening Of Schools: Kerala High Court Disposes Plea Seeking Vaccination Of Students With Homoeopathic Medicines [Adv. M.S. Vineeth v. State of Kerala & Ors.]
The Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation seeking immediate administration of homoeopathic medicines for Covid-19 to willing students, taking into account the fact that schools will reopen next month.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly upon noting that the State had taken adequate steps in favour of the plea, disposed of the petition recording the submissions made by the State in the matter.
7. Sabarimala Virtual Queue: Kerala High Court Suggests Introducing Cancellation & Refund Provisions On The Website [Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board]
The Court extensively heard the objections raised against the virtual queue system in Sabarimala, as the pilgrimage season is fast approaching.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar upon recording the submissions of the petitioner, urged the respondents to make a provision in their portal for cancellation of booking and means to provide a refund for the cancelled bookings if cancelled within a time frame.
8. 'A Tragedy Of Mammoth Proportions': Kerala High Court Expresses Distress In Church Feud Case [St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church v. State of Kerala]
Dissatisfied by the developments ensuing in the never-ending dispute between the Orthodox and Jacobite factions in the State, the Coburt made significant observations in the matter on Tuesday.
Calling the entire matter a 'tragedy', Justice Devan Ramachandran orally remarked: "The problem here is that blood is being shed at the cost of faith. Is it worth it? Who benefits from this? I have to say, this is a tragedy of mammoth proportions and it will take a dangerous turn if we don't interfere now."
9. Kerala High Court Grants KSRTC Further Time To Install Tracking System, Emergency Buttons In Public Vehicles [Jaffer Khan v. Union of India]
The Court acceded to the request put forth by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's (KSRTC) seeking further extension in time to comply with the Court's directive to install tracking systems in public vehicles.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran granted more time to the Corporation to equip all public transport vehicles with tracking devices and emergency buttons.
10. Kerala High Court Quashes FIR Against Pakistan Nationals Who Came For Medical Treatment; Terms It 'Clear Abuse Of Law' [Imran Muhammad & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.]
The Court quashed an FIR registered under the Foreigners Act against two Pakistan nationals who had reached the State for medical treatment.
Noting that they had followed all the procedural formalities, Justice K Haripal allowed the writ petition preferred by the Pakistan nationals: "In no stretch of imagination, the act of the respondents in registering a crime against the petitioners can be justified...In my view, in fact, such an act of the second respondent has only brought ignominy to our system. The petitioners have taken extra care to follow the procedural formalities."
11. 'Indicates A Collapse Of Policing System': Kerala High Court Expresses Shock Over Handcuffing Of Man To Station Handrails [Rajeev K v. State of Kerala & Ors.]
The Court came down heavily on the police force in a matter where a Dalit man was handcuffed to the handrail of the Police Station merely for asking for the receipt of a complaint he had preferred before the Station.
Expressing shock over the incident, Justice Devan Ramachandran orally observed: "How will ordinary citizens have confidence in the system if this is what happens in a Police station? How can people walk into a police station in such a situation?"
Also Read: Appeal Against Ad-Interim Order In A Pending Writ Petition Not Maintainable: Kerala High Court
12. 'A Case Of Abduction': Missing CPM Worker's Wife Moves Kerala High Court With Habeas Corpus Plea [Sajitha Sajeevan v. Station House Officer & Ors.]
A CPM worker's wife has moved the Court with a habeas corpus plea alleging that her missing husband was abducted for reasons associated with the upcoming CPM branch election.
The petitioner was prompted to approach the Court owing to no progress being made at the investigation despite the passage of one month since her husband went missing.
13. Walayar Rape-Death Case: Prime Accused Move Kerala High Court Seeking Bail [Madhu Alias Valiya Madhu v. Central Bureau of Investigation]
The prime accused in the infamous Walayar case that had built up public outrage in the State have moved bail applications before the Court.
Advocate Sadik Ismayil appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that the Central Bureau of Investigation was planning to submit a statement in the matter, and sought some more time for the same.
14. Include Hospital Security Personnel Within Scope Of Kerala Healthcare Service Persons Act: High Court Proposes To State [Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. Advocate Sabu P Joseph]
The Court suggested the inclusion of security guards and managerial staff of hospitals within the ambit of the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Services Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act 2012.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Kauser Edappagath was considering a matter where several attacks on medical personnel were brought to the fore:
15. 'Junior Lawyers Forced To Run Tea Stalls To Survive': Kerala High Court Lashes Out At Bar Council For Prolonged Inaction In Implementing Stipend [Advocate Dheeraj Ravi & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors]
The Court yet again pulled up the State Bar Council for its undue delay in implementing the 2018 Government Order directing to pay a stipend of Rs. 5,000 each to junior lawyers, despite repeated directions from the Court.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan orally remarked during the proceedings: "There are lawyers here who don't even earn ₹1,000 and have to run tea stalls to make a living. There are lawyers who I know personally selling tea to survive. The Government passed its order to provide them with a small amount but the Bar Council has still not amended or framed a Rule in this regard."
Other Developments:
- Can Insurance Companies Incur Immediate Treatment Costs Of Motor Accident Victims? Kerala High Court To Examine
- Child Pursuing Elementary Education Entitled To Be Admitted To Age-Appropriate Class Despite Non-Production Of Transfer Certificate: Kerala HC
- 'Arrest & Detention Not To Be Taken As Luxury By Prosecution': Kerala High Court While Granting Pre-Arrest Bail To Four
- Policy Decision Interdicting Self-Financing Institutions From Commencing New Courses In State Legally Unsustainable: Kerala High Court
- Company Entitled To Acquire Properties Dehors Cancellation Of Its Registration As NBFC: Kerala High Court
Madras High Court
1. PG Medical Admissions : Madras HC Issues Notice On Plea Challenging 'Grossly Disproportionate' Reservation For In-Service Doctors [Dr. Parkaviyan R. and Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu]
The Madras High Court on Wednesday issued notice in a petition challenging the extent of reservation granted to in-service doctors under the prospectus for admission to post-graduate degree or diploma courses in Tamil Nadu government medical colleges and government sets in self-financing medical colleges affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr MGR Medical University for the 2021-22 session.
The petition moved by twelve doctors challenging Clause 29 (c) of the October 6, 2021 prospectus which provide that 50 percent of seats in the State Government will be exclusively allotted to in-service candidates. Additionally, the provision also allows in-service candidates to apply in the remaining "open-category" in State government seats i.e. the 50 percent of the 50 percent government seats.
2. Don't Melt Temple Jewellery Unless Trustees Appointed: Madras High Court Tells State On Gold Monetisation Scheme [Indic Collective Trust and Anr v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr]
The Madras High Court on Thursday ordered the Tamil Nadu government to refrain from taking any decision on melting temple jewellery into gold bars, as part of the recently announced Gold Monetisation Scheme, until Trustees are appointed to Hindu temples in the State.
A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu was adjudicating upon a batch of public interest litigation (PIL) petitions moved by the Indic Collective Trust through its President, TR Ramesh.
3. 'Employers Exploited This Unprecedented Situation': Madras HC Seeks Report On Workers Laid Off Due To Covid-19 In Violation Of Labour Laws [Labour Liberation Front and Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu]
The Court observed with concern that many employees or workers who were laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic were not subsequently reinstated despite the relaxation of lockdown regulations and resumption of business and commercial activity. Justice M.S Ramesh remarked that many employers had taken undue advantage of the pandemic by violating express labour laws.
"Some of the employers seem to have exploited this unprecedented situation and have effectively disengaged the services of some their workers/employees, without following the procedure for such disengagement under the Labour Laws", the Court observed.
4. Madras High Court Seeks Report On Demolition Of Statues Constructed In Public Places, In Contravention Of SC Directions [Rajesh Das v. State of Tamil Nadu]
The Court directed the Chief Secretary to submit a report outlining the steps undertaken to demolish unauthorised statues erected on government lands and public places in the State, in contravention of Supreme Court directions or government notifications.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu observed, "The Chief Secretary should indicate the steps taken in terms of the Supreme Court directions and the manner in which statues that have been put up at public places in contravention of the directions or in violation of Government notifications issued in this State would be brought down."
5. Madras High Court Asks Leena Manimekalai, Susi Ganeshan To Appear In Person On November 1 In Challenge To Impounding Of Passport [Leena Manimekalai v. The Regional Passport Officer]
The Court directed filmmaker Leena Manimekalai and film director Susi Ganesan to appear in person before the Court on November 1 around 1 pm while hearing a plea moved by 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 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.
6. 'Medical Practitioners Must Be Protected From Onslaught Of Frivolous Complaints': Madras High Court Issues Guidelines For National Medical Council [Dr. P. Basumani v. Tamil Nadu Medical Council]
The Court quashed an order dated May 4, 2021 of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council (TNMC) suspending a gastroenterologist by observing that principles of natural justice were not given credence to. The Court also laid down exhaustive guidelines that are to be included in the new Regulations that are to be framed under the National Medical Council (NMC) Act, 2019 for effective handling of complaints against medical practitioners.
Justice R Mahadevan observed, "It is the responsibility of the Medical Council to proceed against the medical practitioners.. At the same time, the Medical Council also owes a duty to protect the medical practitioners, who are rendering yeomen service for the betterment of the general public, from the onslaught of frivolous complaints or to proceed against them in a hasty manner."
7. 'Court Has Been Deceived By False Promises': Madras HC Imposes 25 Lakh Costs For Disobeying Order Directing Payment Of Outstanding Dues [M/s. Gemini Film Circuit and ors v. M/s.Venkateswara Financiers and Anr]
The Court imposed costs to the tune of Rs 25 lakhs on a film production studio after observing that it had needlessly dragged on an appeal filed before the Court by deceiving the Court through 'false promises' to repay the amount owed by it.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu observed, "Defaulting borrowers, like the present Appellants, take advantage of the existing judicial system and prey on its shortcomings. This is because more often than not, courts do not pass appropriate order for costs and do not take matters to their logical conclusion by taking action in perjury in respect of false affidavits."
8. "Not Studied English As A Separate Subject": Madras HC Upholds NMC's Decision To Not Issue Eligibility Certificate To OCI Medical Student To Practice In India [Mrs. Ouwshitha Surendran v. National Medical Commission and Ors]
The Court has refused to interfere with a decision taken by the National Medical Commission (NMC) to not allow a student who had pursued medical education in China to write the screening test, Foreign Medical Graduate Examination required to be cleared before commencing practice in India, because she had not studied English as a separate subject during her higher secondary education.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed, "Admittedly, the Petitioner has not undergone English as a separate subject in the Higher Secondary Course. The experts in their wisdom have stipulated an eligibility criteria and this court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, cannot sit over judgment upon this stipulation made by the experts. The individual opinion of a judge cannot come in the way while deciding cases of this nature and this court has to necessarily satisfy itself as to whether a candidate fulfils the qualification prescribed in the regulation. The law on this issue is well settled."
9. Cannot Expect Any Eye Witness Or Independent Witness As Culprits Assault Children When Alone: Madras HC Upholds Conviction Of POCSO Accused [K Ruban v. State]
The Court has recently reiterated that an accused can be convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act solely based on the testimony of the victim child if such evidence is 'cogent, consistent, trust worthy and inspires the confidence' of the Court.
Justice P Velmurugan observed, "In a cases of this nature, we cannot expect any eye witness or independent witness. The culprit will take a chance of the loneliness of the child and will commit the offence by trying to exploit the innocence of age of the children. It is settled proposition of law that when the evidence of prosecutrix is cogent, consistent and trust worthy and inspires confidence of the Court, conviction can be recorded solely based on the evidence of the victim, unless there is a reason to discord or disbelieve the evidence of the sole witness."
Madhya Pradesh High Court
1. MP High Court Orders Inquiry Against Public Prosecutor For Giving Up 'Important' Eye Witness In A Murder Trial [Shivsingh Tomar v. State of MP]
The Gwalior Bench directed the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs/District Magistrate, Bhind to conduct an inquiry against a Public Prosecutor who gave up an 'important' eye witness/father of the deceased in a murder trial.
The Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia has also directed the Public Prosecutor, Bhind to withdraw all the Sessions Trial involving offence under Sections 302, 307, 376/POCSO Act and all other important matters from the said Public Prosecutor Till the inquiry report is received.
2. Criminal Contempt Reference- "More Thoughtfulness & Sensitivity Required From Bar Members Toward Lady Judges": MP High Court [In Reference The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pankaj Mishra]
Dealing with a reference made to it by the court presided over by a lady Judicial Magistrate regarding the 'contemptuous conduct' of an advocate before her court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed that in view of the multitasking performed by a lady judge, more thoughtfulness and sensitivity is required from bar's end.
"…it is expected from the Bar members that they will appreciate the multitasking performed by a lady judge while taking care of her home, family as well as work front and therefore, more thoughtfulness and sensitivity is required in this regard," observed the Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anand Pathak.
Meghalaya High Court
1. Meghalaya HC Issues Notice To UOI, State On PIL Alleging Non-Availability Of Modern Cancer Care Facilities In Meghalaya [Lurshaphrang Shongwan Vs. Union of India & 6 Ors.]
The Court issued notice to the Union of India and State Government on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed alleging inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in establishing comprehensive and modern cancer care facilities in the State of Meghalaya.
Noting that the PIL raises a 'serious' issue, the Bench of Chief Justice R. V. More and Justice H. S. Thangkhiew called upon the respondents to submit their responses and thereafter, listed the matter for further hearing on November 29.
Patna High Court
1. Advocate, His Wife Allegedly Withdraw Over 10 Lakh From Client's Account Dishonestly: Patna High Court Refuses Bail To Advocate [Santosh Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar]
The Court denied bail to an Advocate who, along with his wife, has been accused of dishonestly withdrawing over 10 lakh money which belonged to his clients (husband-wife) as compensation money on account of the death of their only son.
The Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad denied him bail as it noted that the Advocate had allegedly indulged in withdrawing the money, thereby committing a breach of trust being an attorney and that he wasn't even ready to return the money.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
1. Representative Of People Should Be A Man Of Clear Antecedent: P&H High Court Dismisses Akali Leader's Plea For Stay On Conviction [Yadwinder Singh @ Yadu v. State of Punjab]
Underscoring that the representative of the people should be a man of a clear antecedent, the High Court dismissed the plea of a Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leader who sought to seek a stay on conviction in a 2002 criminal case.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Sant Parkash was hearing the plea of one Yadwinder Singh, a SAD leader intending to contest upcoming assembly elections in Punjab and therefore, seeking stay on conviction.
Rajasthan High Court
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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).
