High Courts Weekly Roundup [June 14, 2020 – June 20, 2020]

1. 'Incomplete & Defective Gang Charts In UP Resulting In Easy Bail For Accused, Giving Ample Room For Miscarriage Of Justice': Allahabad High Court [Nishant@Nishu v. State of UP]

A Single Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi has taken serious note of "half backed" gang-charts being filed under the UP Gangster Act 1986, that ultimately helps alleged gangsters in "easily obtaining bail", thereby threatening the order of the civil society. It observed that in the age of internet, where information of entire world is on one's finger tips, the concerned authorities are expected to prepare extensive gang-charts that will help the Court to effectively adjudicate bail pleas.

The Bench therefore directed the Principal Secretary (Homes), Lucknow and the Director General of Police, Lucknow to Start an exercise to frame proper Rules under the 1986 Act, latest by 31^st December, 2021. Meanwhile, they shall issue proper circular to all the SSP/SPs of the District to appoint any officer at least CO Rank, to become authority concern and author of gang chart and act as Nodal Officer of all the police stations within the district.

2. 'Virus Is Going To Stay For Long. What Is Your Plan For Future?' : Allahabad High Court Asks UP Govt [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Yadav and Justice Prakash Padia asked the UP Government to come up with a road map for tackling the Covid-19 pandemic, which it anticipated is going to "stay for a long time". "We want to know the status regarding action you have taken up till now to meet the challenge of this pandemic. It appears that this virus is going to stay with us for long. What is your plan for the future, unseen challenges?" it asked AAG Manish Goyal, appearing for the State.

The Bench made it clear that it will not take adversarial view in a public interest matter and is inclined to grant more time to the State to come with an action plan. "State is doing its duty. We cannot interfere in policy matters. There is no timeline which can be fixed for the state. Is there any timeline for the virus?" the Chief Justice remarked when intervenors in the matter sought time bound directions.

3. Can't Give Custody Of Minor 'Husband' To 'Wife' As It Would Be Sanctioning Cohabitation Between Adult & A Child: Allahabad High Court [Manish Kumar & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors.]

Noting that if a minor boy would be placed under the custody of his wife, it would be permitting an offence under the POCSO Act, a Bench of Justice JJ Munir refused to give custody of a minor 'husband' to his 'wife'. It held that their marriage was voidable and if the minor boy is placed under the custody of his wife, it would amount to sanctioning cohabitation between a major and a minor.

The Court noted that just as there cannot be the case of a minor Hindu wife being married to a major and the husband regarded as her natural guardian under Section 6(c) of the Act of 1956, the POCSO Act, similarly works to prohibit sex between a man, who is a minor and a woman, who is a major.

4. 'If Death Occurs, Is It State's Responsibility?': Allahabad HC Refuses To Entertain Plea For Disposal Of Dead Bodies Buried Near Ganga

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Yadav and Justice Prakash Padia refused to entertain a petition seeking disposal of the dead bodies buried near Ganga River at different ghats in Prayagraj, questioning the petitioner as to whether it is the State's responsibility if there is a death in a family. It asked the Counsel Pranvesh as to what had been his personal contribution to the cause and as to whether he himself dug out and cremated the bodies.

Further, when Advocate Pranvesh argued that it was the responsibility of the state to perform cremation according to religious rites, and dispose of the dead bodies buried alongside the Ganga River, the Chief Justice asked: "Why should the state do that? If there is a death in a family, is it the state's responsibility?"

Also Read: COVID Death Allegedly Due To Hospital's Inaction: "Case Involves Disputed Facts, Article 226 Not Appropriate Remedy For Compensation": Allahabad HC

5. "We Are Not Against Live-In Relation But Can't Give Protection When One Of The Live-In Partners Is Married": Allahabad High Court [Chhaya & Anr. v. State of UP]

In what could be termed as a clarification, a Division Bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Dinesh Pathak said that it is not against the live in relationships, but rejected a protection plea by a couple who wanted to live in relation as the plea was filed during the subsistence of marriage of one of the petitioners.

"We are not against the live in relation. Yesterday we have rejected a matter seeking protection by a couple who wanted to live in relation. The reasons were that the protection to live in relation was sought for by the petitioners during subsistence of marriage of one of the petitioners…We fail to understand how such a petition be allowed permitting illegality in the society," it observed.

Also Read: Married Woman In Live-In Relation- "Can't Permit Such An Illegality": Allahabad High Court Dismisses Protection Plea With 5k Cost

6. Section 138 NI Act- Not Mentioning Date Of Service Of Demand Notice Is Not Fatal To Case: Allahabad High Court [Anil Kumar Goel v. State of UP & Anr.]

A Single Bench of Justice Vivek Varma held that a complaint for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, cannot be dismissed merely because it does not mention the date on which the demand notice was served upon the alleged defaulter/ drawer.

"The complaint cannot be thrown at the threshold even if it does not make a specific averment with regard to service of notice on the drawer on a given date. The complaint, however, must contain basic facts regarding the mode and manner of the issuance of notice to the drawer of the cheque," the Court ruled.

Andhra Pradesh High Court

1. Andhra Pradesh HC Seeks Centre's Response On Supply Of Amphotericin B Injections, Establishment Of PSA Units

Asking the authorities to take rear-guard action as necessary to meet the challenges of Covid-19 pandemic, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami and Justice Ninala Jayasurya response of the Centre as to by which date the 15 Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) Units will be established in the State and also regarding the augmentation of supply of Liposomal amphotericin B injections for treating Black Fungus.

It also sought State Government's response indicating the developments on all the aspects concerning covid 19 pandemic in the State and also the number of persons in serious condition requiring Liposomal amphotericin B injections and the number of injections available.

2. Sedition Charge- Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Suspended Judicial Officer Who Expressed Dissatisfaction With Govt. Functioning [S. Rama Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh]

A Single Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao granted Bail to a suspended Judicial Officer who expressed his disaffection in the manner in which the Government was being run and was thereafter booked under Sections 124-A, 153, 153-A of IPC. The Court observed that the petitioner is a suspended Judicial Officer, and it is highly unlikely that he would seek to abscond.

The complaint made against the petitioner/now suspended Judicial Official was that in the course of a television debate, he had made intemperate statements against the Government and also against the Chief Minister wherein he allegedly stated that he is looking forward to cutting off the head of the Hon'ble Chief Minister.

Bombay High Court

1. No Prohibition Imposed By Centre On States Doing Door-to-Door Vaccination : Bombay High Court [Dhruti Kapadia v. Union of India]

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni observed that the Central Government has not explicitly prohibited State governments from providing door-to-door vaccination for the elderly and disabled citizens, who would not be able to visit immunization centres.

It therefore asked the Maharashtra Government to decide if it will undertake door-to-door vaccination by June 22. It added that the State need not wait for its orders to implement such guidelines if they were finalized.

Also Read: 'CoWIN Vaccination Slots To Open Up At A Fixed Time, Preference For 18-44 Yrs With Comorbidities' : State Tells Bombay High Court

2. Deccan Chargers Owner Was In 'Unquestionable Breach' Of Contractual Obligations To BCCI: Bombay High Court [BCCI v. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd.]

Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. (DCHL), owners of the IPL franchisee from Deccan Chargers - was rewarded despite being in unquestionable breach of its contractual obligations towards the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI), a single bench of Justice Gautam Patel said while setting aside the Rs 4814 crore arbitral award to DCHL.

It passed the order on BCCI's appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against the sole arbitrator, retired Supreme Court Judge C K Thakker's July 17, 2020 decision. Justice Thakker had held that BCCI illegally terminated its contract with DCHL, owners of the Hyderabad franchisee, in 2012.

Also Read: Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Apply Public Law Principles Or Article 14 Against Public Body : Bombay High Court

3. 'CBI FIR Simply Copy-Pastes Param Bir's Petition; This Is Overreaching Court Order': Maharashtra Govt Argues In Bombay High Court [State of Maharashtra v. CBI]

The Maharashtra Government has concluded its arguments in their petition before division bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar, challenging certain portions of CBI's FIR against former state Home Minister Anil Deshmukh and unknown others.

The two unnumbered paragraphs pertain to dismissed Assistant Police Inspector - Sachin Waze's reinstatement, and alleged corruption and political influence in police transfers. The Court heard Senior Counsel Rafique Dada canvas arguments on the merits of the case and the state's locus, as the CBI has questioned the plea's maintainability.

Other developments:

• "Findings Are That He Is Critical And Require Intensive Care": Bombay High Court Extends Stan Swamy's Hospital Stay Till July 5
• Application Is Vague": Bombay high Court While Issuing Notice On Kangana Ranaut's Plea For Passport Renewal

Calcutta High Court

1. West Bengal Post-Poll Violence - 'No Concrete Steps Taken By State': Calcutta HC Asks NHRC To Examine Complaints [Susmita Saha Dutta v. Union of India & Ors.]

A 5-judge Bench of ACJ Rajesh Bindal, Justices IP Mukerji, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Subrata Talukdar ordered the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to constitute a committee that will examine complaints filed by persons who were displaced during the post-poll violence in West Bengal.

Upon noticing that the State Government has not even responded to some of the complaints filed by the displaced persons, the High Court remarked, "In a case like where the allegation is that life and property of the residents of the State is in danger on account of alleged post poll violence, the State cannot be allowed to proceed in the manner it likes. The complaints required immediate action... It is the duty of the State to maintain law and order in the State and inspire confidence in the residents of the State."

2. Tarpaulins Theft Case: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Stay Probe Against BJP MLA & LOP In WB Assembly Suvendu Adhikari [Suvendu Adhikari & Anr. v. State West Bengal & Anr.]

A Single Bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh refused to stay police probe in connection with Tarpaulin theft in which leader of the Opposition in the West Bengal State Assembly, Suvendu Adhikari has been named as an accused in the related FIR.

The Court said that it was not inclined to pass any interim order at the instant stage without perusal of the case diary and the materials collected by the investigating agency. The interim order prayed for is refused at this stage. However, the Court granted the petitioners, the liberty to renew their prayer for an interim order on the next date fixed for hearing.

3. West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee Moves Calcutta High Court Challenging Nandigram Election Results

West Bengal's Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has moved an Election Petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging Suvendu Adhikary's election win from the Nandigram constituency in the West Bengal Assembly Polls.

The legislator, who was defeated by a BJP candidate in the Nandigram Vidhan Sabha Constituency, has objected to listing of the matter before a Bench of Justice Kaushik Chandra, who was an active member of BJP. Banerjee further said that Chandra is yet to be confirmed as a permanent Judge of Calcutta High Court, and she has conveyed her objections and reservations to such confirmation.

Also Read: 4 TMC Leaders Who Lost West Bengal Assembly Polls File Election Pleas Before Calcutta High Court

4. Transfer Power Must Be Exercised Rarely As It Reflects On Judge's Conduct: Siddharth Luthra Tells Calcutta High Court In Narada Case

Opposing CBI's application for transfer of Narada Case, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra argued that power to transfer under Section 406-409 of CrPC is not to be exercised lightly because it has a "reflection on the conduct of a judicial officer, functionality of the justice system".

CBI moved the High Court seeking transfer of Trial proceedings from the Special CBI Court to the High Court on the ground of 'mobocracy' and perception of common man. A 5-Judge Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, and Justices IP Mukherjee, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Arijit Banerjee is seized of the matter.

Also Read: Police Custody Is Not Permissible After Submission Of Charge Sheet: Sr Adv Siddharth Luthra Argues Before Calcutta High Court In Narada Case

Also Read: CBI's 'Mobocracy' Argument, Based On Newspaper Reports, Not Grounds For Transfer Under CrPC : Luthra Argues In Narada Case

Latest Update: Narada Case : Supreme Court To Hear Pleas Of West Bengal Govt, Law Minister On June 22; Urges Calcutta High Court To Defer Hearing

Chhattisgarh High Court

1. 'No Prima Facie Case': Chhattisgarh High Court Stays FIR Against Ex-CM Raman Singh, BJP Spokesperson Sambit Patra Over 'Congress Toolkit' Tweet [Dr. Raman Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas stayed investigation in the FIR lodged against Dr. Raman Singh, BJP National Vice President and former Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, in connection to his tweet claiming that the Congress party has prepared a toolkit to tarnish the image of the country in the foreign media. The Court also granted same relief to BJP Spokesperson Sambit Patra with respect to the same FIR.

It held that the FIR dated May 19, 2021, has been lodged by a political person with political motives. It further observed that the FIR has been lodged by the police without examining the truthfulness of the complaint and no case is made out from the face of the FIR. Hence, continuation of investigation on basis of impugned FIR will be nothing but an abuse of process of law.

2. Convict Awarded Sentence Lesser Than His Period Of Detention As Undertrial: Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Compensation [Nitin Aryan @ Satish Kumar Sonwani v. State Of Chhattisgarh]

Holding that denial of right to speedy trial to an accused is a "grave miscarriage of justice", a Single Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal ordered the State to compensate a criminal offender who remained in jail as under­trial for a period of 4 years, 6 months and 7 days, whereas he was awarded punishment of 3 years only.

It noted that the accused remained in jail in excess (one year and six months) for more than the sentence awarded by concerned trial Magistrate, on account of delay in conducting the trial, despite two reminders by the High Court for concluding the trial expeditiously. In this backdrop, the Single Judge allowed the Petitioner's application for compensation and awarded an amount of Rs. 1.87L (calculated at semi-sSkilled labour rate) with 6% interest.

Delhi High Court

1. Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal And Asif Iqbal Tanha in Delhi Riots case

A division bench of Justices Sidharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani allowed bail to Asif Iqbal Tanha and Pinjra Tod activists Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case under UAPA.

The Court found that offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) are not made out prima facie against student leaders. Therefore, the division bench said that the rigour of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA against the grant of bail was not attracted against the accused, and hence they were entitled to grant of bail under the ordinary principles under CrPC.

Also Read: "Should This Court Wait Till Right To Speedy Trial Fully Negated?": Delhi High Court While Granting Bail To Delhi Riots Accused Asif Iqbal Tanha

2. "In Its Anxiety To Suppress Dissent, In The Mind Of State, Line Between Right To Protest And Terrorist Activity Seems To Be Getting Blurred": Delhi HC In Natasha Narwal's Bail Order [Natasha Narwal v. State Of Delhi NCT]

We are constrained to express, that it seems, that in its anxiety to suppress dissent, in the mind of the State, the line between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity seems to be getting somewhat blurred" observed division bench comprising of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup J. Bhambhani while granting bail to Natasha Narwal in the Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case involving sections under the UAPA. It also observed that "If this mindset gains traction, it would be a sad day for democracy."

Narwal, a student pursuing MPhil-Ph.D. Programme from the Jawaharlal Nehru University, had been accused of various offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as the provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in connection with the North East Delhi riots that broke out in the national capital last year.

Also Read: 'Right To Protest Not 'Terrorist Act' Under UAPA' : Delhi High Court Finds No Prima Facie Case Against Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal & Devangana Kalita

3. 'Terrorist Acts' Under UAPA Only Deal With Matters Impacting 'Defence Of India' And Not Ordinary Law & Order Problems : Delhi High Court

While granting bail to Delhi-riots accused Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita in Delhi Riots "larger conspiracy" case, a bench comprising Justices Sidharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani defined the contours of otherwise "vague" Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (UAPA).

It held: (i) "terrorist act" u/s 15 UAPA should not be used lightly so as to trivialize them; (ii) "terrorist activity" is that which travels beyond the capacity of law enforcement agencies to deal with under ordinary penal law; (iii) every terrorist may be a criminal, but every criminal cannot be labelled "terrorist"; (iv) "terrorist act" not to be equated with a usual law & order problem in state; (v) "terrorist act" can't be casually applied to cases falling within conventional offences under IPC; (vi) for laws with serious penal consequences (like UAPA) courts must ensure only those intended so by legislature are roped in; (vii) "terrorist activity" under amended UAPA implies matters of profound impact on "defence of India" – nothing more, nothing less; (viii) usual offences no matter how grave, egregious or heinous are not covered under UAPA; (ix) presumption of offence under S. 15 as provided in S. 43e only if arms, explosives or other substances recovered from accused; (x) to bring case within chapter IV of UAPA, state can't call upon court to draw inferences & conclusions; and (xi) burden to demonstrate prima facie case on the prosecution.

4. 'Trial Court Cannot Be Lax Once There Is A Bail Order' : Delhi High Court On Issue Of Students Activists' Release In Riots Case

A division bench comprising Justices Sidharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that the trial court must consider "with alacrity" the issue of release of student activists who were granted by bail by the High Court in the Delhi riots case.

It was considering the urgent applications filed by student activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by the Delhi High Court on June 15 in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, challenging the trial court 's action in deferring orders their release.

5. "MEA Has Taken Proactive Steps": Delhi High Court Disposes Of Widowed Mother's Plea Seeking Directions To Get Visa, Medical Assistance For Critical Son Abroad [Inderjeet Kaur & Anr. v. Union Of India]

Recording the submissions of Ministry of External Affairs that it has taken proactive steps in the matter, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Navin Chawla disposed of the plea filed by a widowed mother and another relative seeking directions on the Ministry of External Affairs for facilitating them in getting visa from the Australian High Commission for her critical son abroad and also to supervise and provide medical assistance to him.

"I find that the respondent is taking proactive steps in the matter. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to file afresh, in case need so arises in the future," the Court said.

6. 'Memory Of Second Wave Hasn't Left Us' : Delhi High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of COVID Protocol Violations

Taking suo motu cognizance about concerns regarding mass violations of Covid-19 protocol in overcrowded Delhi markets since the unlocking of the city, a bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Asha Menon sought status reports from the Centre and Delhi governments on the issue.

It remarked on pictures produced by an AIIMS doctor with the court, "The memory of the second wave has not left us, yet people behave in this manner. This is very unfortunate." The images received via WhatsApp showed people without masks not following Covid-19 appropriate behaviour such as social distancing in crowded marketplaces.

7. "Prima Facie False, Misleading And Defamatory" : Delhi High Court Directs To Block Defamatory Tweet, Social Media Posts Against India Today [TV Today Network Ltd. v. The Cognate & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula directed 'TheCognate' to block the tweet in the form of infographic and other social media posts made against India Today News Channel alleging to show that there has been a contrasting and biased approach in its reporting against Muslim community concerning COVID protocol violations relating to religious gatherings at Kumbh Mela and Mecca Masjid.

Observing that the imputation that India Today News Channel having two different approaches while reporting events pertaining to Hindu and Muslim community can serve as a death knell for a fair news channel, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Sanjeev Narula granted the interim relief in favour of India Today.

8. "No Territorial Jurisdiction Simply Because CBSE Head Office In Delhi": Delhi High Court [Riddhima Singh v. CBSE & Ors.]

Refusing to entertain a plea by a school student in Ghaziabad against an increase in her CBSE-affiliated school's fees, a Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan said that as a central body, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) can defend proceedings anywhere in the country and that the Delhi High Court does not have territorial jurisdiction in all matters of CBSE merely because its head office is in Delhi.

Observing that the plea has more to do with the state of Uttar Pradesh than just the CBSE, the court ruled that basis the principle of forum non-conveniens the jurisdictional High Court in Uttar Pradesh would be a more effective forum for the petitioner to agitate her grievances. The court further said that it does not have territorial jurisdiction over litigation involving the CBSE simply because the Board's head office was in Delhi.

Other developments:

• Delhi High Court Seeks Response From MSME Facilitation Councils Alleged To Be Defunct
• Section 125 CrPC- "Obligation Of A Father To Maintain His Son Will Not Come To An End When He Attains Majority": Delhi High Court
• "Prima Facie Insulting SC/ST Communities":Delhi High Court Upholds Order For Registering FIR For Caste-Based Questions In Recruitment Exam By DSSSB
• Delhi High Court Seeks Facebook, Instagram Reply On Plea Against "Abusive" Posts On Hindu Goddesses

Gauhati High Court

1. "We Hope State Govt Is Not Playing Politics With Installation Of RT-PCR Diagnostic Lab In City Hospital" : Gauhati High Court [LH Lalzarzoliana v. State of Mizoram & Ors.]

Taking note of Directorate of Information & Public Relation's news report dated 15th June last year highlighting the recommendation to set up RT-PCR diagnostic laboratory in Civil Hospital, Lunglei, a division bench comprising of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Nelson Sailo directed the State Government to inform steps taken by it for establishment of the aforesaid laboratory and the number of RT-PCR machines put to use in various districts in Mizoram.

Observing that the 'flip flops' made by the State Government was quite apparent, the Court observed: "It is the requirement of the State Government to give the best to the people that it has to serve. The documents on record, though few, however gives rise to an inference that the State Government is not serious in trying to utilise the gifted RT-PCR machine. The flip-flops made by the Government is quite apparent as the letter dated 07.05.2021 issued by the Director, Hospital & Medical Education clearly shows that the RT-PCR machine can be installed in the Microbiology Department at Civil Hospital, Lunglei."

2. Attack On Medical Workers- Specify Measures Taken To Curb Such Incidents, Ensure No Weapon Allowed Inside Hospitals: Gauhati HC To Assam Govt [X v. Govt of Assam & Ors.]

Taking note of alleged brutal attack on frontline medical workers (Doctors, Nurses & ward boys by attendants of a covid patient and group of persons in the Udali Model Hospital, Hojai District of Assam on June 1, 2021, a Bench of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak sought Assam Government's reply.

It directed the Assam Government to specify measures taken by the Government or the measures it proposes to take to ensure that such incidents do not happen in future within two weeks.

Gujarat High Court

1. Vigorously Follow 'Testing, Tracing & Treatment' Strategy: Gujarat High Court Asks State To File Action Plan For Tackling Third Covid-19 Wave [Suo Moto v. State of Gujarat]

Concerned by the potential third wave of Covid-19, a Division Bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Bhargav D. Karia asked the State Government to adopt the '3T Model' to curb the outbreak and devise a preventive action plan. The State has been advised to vigorously follow 'Testing, Tracing and Treatment' strategy.

"As on today the cases of Covid have reduced and therefore, it would be easy for administration to trace the contacts, quarantine such contacts and test them and treat them accordingly, so as to see that public at large is saved from the third wave of pandemic which is expected as per the experts' opinion somewhere in October-November 2021," it said.

2. "Stark Example Of PIL Abuse" Gujarat HC Dismisses Plea Regarding Use Of VVPATs, Listing Of Irregularities By State Election Commission With Cost Of Rs.500 Niranjan Ghosh v. State Election Commission]

Observing that the petitioner had filed a successive PIL raising identical issues similar to an earlier PIL rejected by the Court, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Biren Vaishnav dismissed with cost of Rs. 500, a PIL pertaining to reservation of seats in local body elections, use of VVPAT machines and listing of illegalities practiced by State Election Commission.

It observed thus: "Easy access to judicial redressal mechanism particularly through Public Interest Litigation is at times misused/abused. This case by a successive Public Interest Litigation by the party-in-person is one such stark example of such abuse/misuse."

Karnataka High Court

1. After Report About CM's Son's Temple During Lockdown, Karnataka High Court Issues Strict Directions For Enforcement

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the State Government to immediately issue directions through the Muzrai department to all temples under the control of the Government to ensure that ban on entry into temples is not violated by anyone.

It issued the direction on going through the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Mysuru district which stated that son of the Chief Minister of Karnataka, BY Vijendra and his family members, visited the district of Mysore from another district and entered the Nanjundeshwara temple on May 18.

2. Amit Shah's Rally : Why FIR Names Only 6 Out Of Thousands Without Masks? Karnataka High Court

After being pulled up earlier by the High Court, the Belgavi Police have filed a FIR against the organisers of a political rally over violation of COVID protocols of wearing masks and maintaining social distancing. The rally was led by Union Home Minister Amit Shah at Belagavi on January 17. Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi informed the court today that on June 14, an FIR has been registered and further investigations are on.

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj expressed surprise that only six persons were named in the FIR. "On what basis the Commissioner has made a statement that only six persons were there at the rally who were not wearing masks?. In the rally of thousands, he is bold to say only six persons were not wearing masks. Can anyone believe this?", the Chief Justice asked.

3. Don't Announce II PUC Results For Freshers : Karnataka High Court

A division bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Hanchate Sanjeekumar restrained the State government from announcing the II PUC examination results for fresher students. It said "In the circumstance awaiting a comprehensive decision by the state govt. The State shall not announce the results of those students who have to take the second PUC exams this year for the first time."

It added "It is needless to be observed that a comprehensive decision shall be taken bearing in mind all categories of students."

Also Read: Karnataka II PUC Exam : How Can There Be Different Yardsticks For Repeaters, Freshers & Private Students? High Court Asks

4. 'Accused Not Heard Before Extending Time To File Chargesheet' : Karnataka High Court Grants Default Bail To 115 UAPA Accused In Bengaluru Riots Case [Muzammil Pasha & Ors. v. NIA]

A bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty granted default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC to accused in a case regarding violence that took place within the limits of the DJ Halli and KG Halli police station, on August 11, 2020. It also set aside the order of the special NIA court extending time to the agency for filing chargesheet.

The court observed : "The fundamental right of an individual recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be defeated other than in accordance with law. Since the order passed by the trial court on the application filed by the prosecution seeking extension of time for completion of the investigation is already held to be bad in law, the statutory right that has accrued to the petitioners/accused immediately after the completion of the first 90 days of period which right has been availed of by them by filing an application under Section 167(2) of the Code, seeking statutory bail and also offering surety cannot be denied to the petitioners/accused."

5. Issue Directions To Control Police Leaking Information About Investigation To Media: Karnataka High Court

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the state government to issue comprehensive directions to the State police, to ensure that before investigation is completed no information is divulged by the police to the media about the ongoing probe.

The Court said "We are of the view that very comprehensive directions are required to be issued to the police for ensuring that before completion of investigation they do not divulge the nature of investigation, material revealed during investigation, etc." It added "The other direction will have to be regarding disclosing identity of complaint and accused."

6. Senior Citizens Act - Section 23 Can't Be Invoked If Release Deed Is For Consideration: Karnataka High Court [Anupama & Anr v. Assistant Commissioner]

A single bench of Justice Hemant Chandanagoudar held that a senior citizen cannot invoke Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, when the release of property was not out of natural love and affection but for a consideration.

It allowed the petition filed by two medical practitioners challenging the order dated 26/6/2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Dharwad), whereby the release deed dated 11/7/2018, executed by the respondent No.2 (Suma) in favour of the petitioners is cancelled.

Other developments:

• Decide On Free Treatment To Mucormycosis Patients : Karnataka High Court To State
• Compulsory Rural Service : Karnataka High Court Issues Notice On MBBS Graduates' Plea Against Govt Notification
• 'Police Personnel Are On Streets Doing Duty Diligently During COVID' : Karnataka HC Dismisses PIL For Action Against Alleged Police Atrocities During Lockdown
• Karnataka High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea For Free Car Parking Space In Malls, Multiplexes

Kerala High Court

1. 'Premature' : Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Lakshadweep Draft Regulations [KP Noushad Ali v. UT of Lakshadweep]

A Division bench comprising of Justices SV Bhatti and Murali Purushothaman dismissed a PIL challenging the draft Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation and other regulatory actions observing that they were still under active consideration by the Administrator, and hence the examination of their legality is completely premature.

It further observed that the petitioner, a permanent resident of Malappuram and not Lakshadweep, never had any direct participation or concern with the people, affairs, or administration of Lakshadweep Island, thus failing to convince the Bench his standing on the affairs of the island to entertain the PIL.

2. Kerala High Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To Lakshadweep Filmmaker Aisha Sultana In Sedition Case

A single bench of Justice Ashok Menon granted interim anticipatory bail for a week to Lakshadweep filmmaker Aisha Sultana in the sedition case registered over her the 'bio-weapon' remark made while criticizing the regulations of the island administration in a channel debate.

It also ordered that she should appear before the Kavaratti police for interrogation on June 20 as per the notice served on her under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, in the event of her arrest, she should be released on bail, the court ordered. In case an arrest is recorded after her interrogation, she is entitled to demand the presence of her counsel as per Section 41D CrPC, the Court added.

3. Section 164(2) Companies Act Not Retrospective; Default Before 2014-15 FY Can't Be Considered : Kerala High Court [Zacharia Maramkandathil Mohan & Ors v. Union Of India]

A Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the disqualification of around 250 Directors of Companies under Sections 164 and 167 of the Companies Act. This came after approximately 250 writ petitions were filed before the Court raising common questions of law. All the petitioners were disqualified u/s 164(2) for failure of their respective companies to file Financial Statements/Annual Returns.

The Court held: (i) S.164(2) and 167(1) not ultra vires Art. 14 or 19(1)(g); (ii) Disqualification u/s 164(2) is by operation of law: Audi Alteram Partem Not Applicable; (iii) Disqualification based on default prior to 01.04.2014 bad in law and set aside; and (iv) Provisos to Section 164(2) & 167(1)(a) to have retrospective effect.

4. Registration Of Crime Under Section 102 CrPC Illegal, Its An Enabling Provision To Make Seizure By Police : Kerala High Court [Akhil C. v. State Of Kerala]

A Single Bench og Justice N. Anil Kumar quashed proceedings against a 21 year old man holding that Section 102 of CrPC is not an offence and that registration of crime against the petitioner under this provision is illegal.

It observed that registration of crime under Section 102 is not in accordance with the scheme of the Code. Section 102(1) only enables a Police Officer to seize any property which may be 'alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence'.

5. Does Compassionate Allowance Have All Attributes Of Pension? Kerala High Court Answers [V. Kesavan Nair v. Union of India]

A Division Bench of Justices Alexander Thomas and K. Babu while dismissing an appeal filed by a former CISF employee, held that compassionate allowance does not have all the characteristics of pension covered by Rules 35 to 40 of the Pension Rules, and observed that the authorities have absolute discretion in deciding the date from which payment of compassionate allowance has to be paid.

Other developments:

• Kerala High Court Seeks Response From Indian Railways Regarding Compliance With Guidelines On Safety Of Passengers
• Kerala High Court Permits Couple Residing Abroad To Register Marriage Through Video Conferencing

Madhya Pradesh High Court

1. "No Two Opinions About Right To Access Courts", Madhya Pradesh High Court To Provide Court's VC Weblinks, Allows 4 Journalists Plea [Nupur Thapliyal & Ors. v. Madhya Pradesh High Court]

While hearing a writ plea filed by 4 Journalists seeking media access to Court's Proceedings, a Division Bench of Justice Prakash Srivastava and Justice Virender Singh orally observed that the High Court administration has decided to "give you, what you (Journalists) wanted".

It orally observed "you people have in fact assisted the Court and the E-Committee of the High Court has taken a decision to provide the live web links of the hearings being conducted through virtual mode on its website". However, the Court did add that reporting of Court proceedings should continue to be accurate and responsible and that the exceptions as provided under the Swapnil Tripathi case should be taken care of.

Also Read: Journalists' Plea For Live Reporting: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Its IT Wing To Share VC Links 'Without Unnecessary Delay'

Also Read: Madhya Pradesh High Court Decides To Provide Weblink To Access Live Court Proceedings

2. Police Often Claims That CCTV Cameras At Police Station Are Dysfunctional To Cover Up Instances Of Unlawful Detention: Madhya Pradesh HC [Ritwik Kaushal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh]

A Single Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan while hearing a plea against alleged unlawful detention of the Petitioner by local Police authorities in the state, made a prima facie observation that in order to escape liability, the Police often take a false stand that the CCTVs installed at Police station are not functioning.

It added that such a stand taken by the Police does not augur well for the ordinary citizens of the State as it creates an environment of giving an opportunity to the Police to act with impunity in complete disregard to human rights and personal liberty and enables them to detain anyone in the police station and conveniently give an explanation that the CCTV cameras were dysfunctional during the period which the citizen says that he was unlawfully detained in the police station.

3. Take Steps To Protect Food Grains Lying In Open From Rains : Madhya Pradesh High Court [Gulab Singh v. Union of India & Ors.]

On a petition alleging that a substantial quantity of wheat, lying out in open areas across various parts of the state, got damaged after it was submerged with water during recent rains, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla directed that the Government to take immediate steps for protection of food grains.

"State shall immediately conduct a survey in all districts of the State through Collectors concerned and find out where the food-grains are lying in open and take immediate remedial measure, and make necessary arrangements, for their protection from rains, by use of tarpaulin/plastic sheets or by any other similar material or make any other arrangement as may be required, including by raising peripheral masonry walls and submit a report thereabout in the Registry of this Court before the next date of hearing," it ordered.

Other developments:

• Plea Alleges Social Media Platforms Objectifying Women, Defaming Govt, Judiciary, Breaching Users' Privacy: MP High Court Issues Notice
• "PIL Filed To Gain Publicity": Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Congress MLA's Plea Seeking Disaster Management Committee Dissolution
• Set Up 'Public Land Protection Cells' Across State To Check Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court To State Govt

Madras High Court

1. Advocates Not Above Law; Bar Council Must Act Suo Moto Against Lawyers' Unruly Conduct : Madras High Court [Tanuja Rajan & Anr. v. State & Anr.]

A single bench of Justice M Dhandapani observed that the Bar Council should initiate suo moto disciplinary actions against advocates who demean the legal fraternity with unruly conduct in public. If such incidents come to the notice of the Bar Council through visual or print media, then the Bar Council should initiate suo moto action, without waiting for any formal written complaint, the High Court observed.

The Court made these significant observations while considering the anticipatory bail application of a lawyer, who was accused of publicly intimidating police officials who had stopped her vehicle for travelling in violation of lockdown. The visuals of the lawyer threatening the cops had got public in media.

Also Read: Madras High Court Initiates Criminal Contempt Against Advocate For Sharing 'Derogatory' WhatsApp Audio Messages Against Judge

2. Man Alleges Registry Not Allowing His Cases To Be Taken Up By Benches- "Petitioner Requires Psychiatric Help": Observes Madras High Court

In a matter wherein the Petitioner alleged that whenever he attempted to mention any matter on the virtual mode or participate in any hearing of his matters, he was deliberately muted by the operators, a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the Petitioner requires psychiatric help.

It observed that there was no material in support of the general apprehension of the petitioner that the Registry is interested in not allowing his matters to be taken up by the Benches. "There is no doubt that any matter that the petitioner has filed, whether frivolous or meritorious, will be listed in the usual course and dealt with in accordance with law," stressed the Court.

3. Child Pornography: "Only 'Bharatiya Culture' Can Act As A Bulwark; Can Tackle Menace By Inculcating Right Values": Madras High Court [PG Sam Infant Jones v. State]

While granting anticipatory bail to a man who was arrested for sharing child pornographic content, a Single Bench of Justice G. R. Swaminathan observed that the menace of child pornography can be tackled only if all of us inculcate the right values.

Noting that child pornography is a very serious issue warranting a firm approach, the Court made the distinction between a onetime consumer and those who transmit or propagate or display or distribute in the digital domain. It that the moment one steps into digital space, one comes under the surveillance either of the State or those manning the social networking sites. "If one is zealous about privacy, the only option is to stay outside such networks. Of course, in the current world, it is not a viable option," added the Court.

4. 'Don't Stick To Technicalities': Madras High Court Directs State To Not Insist On RTPCR Report While Deciding Compensation Claims If CT-Scan Test Confirmed Covid-19 [B. Varalakshmi v. Union of India & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh ordered the Health authorities of Tamil Nadu Government to process the claim for compensation of the Petitioner, widow of a private medical practitioner who contracted Covid-19 infection on duty and succumbed to it, without insisting for his RT-PCR report. It deprecated the practice of "sticking to technicalities" and held that the authorities need not insist on production of RT-PCR report for processing the claim when a more "clinching" evidence, i.e., CT-Scan report is produced.

5. "Criticism A Democratic Right, Part & Parcel Of Free Society": Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Kamal Haasan For 'Mahabharat' Comment [Kamal Haasan v. Aadinath Sundaram]

Noting that criticism is not only the human right, but also democratic right upon which the democracy thrives and society evolves to a new desired polity, a Bench of Justice G. Ilangovan quashed a criminal case lodged against actor and politician Kamal Haasan over a comment he made in the year 2017. The Court specifically observed that criticism is part and parcel of the free society.

The private complainant alleged that he watched a programme in March 2017, on Puthiya Talaimurai TV Channel, wherein, the host of the show, put a specific question on the increasing violence against women in India, more particularly against women in the Cine Field to Kamal Haasan.

6. Amendment To Law Officer Appointment Rules Upheld By The Madras High Court [A Kannan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Justices TS Sivagnanam and Justice S. Ananthi disposed of a petition filed assailing the validity of an amendment that was made (in the year 2019) to the rules under the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules, 2017 which govern the appointment of government advocates. It upheld the validity of sub-clause (k) in Rule 4(i), which stipulates the eligibility for being appointed as Government Advocates.

Taking note of the Judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of V. Vasanthakumar vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, the Court observed: "The task of selection of Government Advocates is in the exclusive arena of the Government and/or its instrumentalities, judicial review of such appointments would be limited only to examining as to whether the process of appointment is vitiated by any irregularity, illegality, perversity or irrationality."

Other developments:

• Specify Mechanism In Place For Taking Action Against Advocates Who Misbehave With Officials On Duty: Madras High Court To Bar Council
• Madras High Court Issues Notice To NDMA On Plea For Payment Of Ex-Gratia To Families Of Persons Who Succumbed To COVID-19
• Criminal Cases Against MPs/MLAs: Infrastructure In Place, Special Courts To Dispose Of Cases Quickly: Madras High Court Closes Suo Moto Plea

Orissa High Court

1. Advocate's Clerks Cannot File Affidavits On Behalf Of Parties On Original Side: Orissa High Court [Thabir Sagar v. State of Odisha]

Reiterating the significance of personal affidavits of parties and their ensuing probative value in smooth administration of justice, the Orissa High Court has held that the practice of Advocate's clerks filing affidavits on behalf of parties is unacceptable. Such a practice is in gross violation of Rule 26 of the Orissa High Court Rules.

Significantly, Rule 4(iii) of the Orissa High Court Rules makes a specific exception in cases where Court exercises appellate powers, or powers of revision/ review. It provides that the affidavit by the parties may be dispensed with and the accompanying affidavit can be filed by an advocate's clerk.

"This specific exception was made, perhaps, keeping in mind that in certain cases, as aforementioned, the records of the case are already present in the records of the Court. In such a situation, the advocate's clerk is not required to furnish any additional new information or put forth any original fact. That is the only extent to which such an exception may be made," the Court clarified.

2. Orissa High Court Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Plea Of Journalist Suman Chattopadhyay In Chit Fund Scam Case [Suman Chattopadhyay v. Republic of India]

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Satrughana Pujahar dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by Journalist Suman Chattopadhyay apprehending arrest by the CBI in connection with the Chit Fund Scam case. Forming a prima facie opinion that his nexus with Saradha Group cannot be denied, the Court observed thus:

"The petitioner being an influential person and a journalist having connection with politicians, possibility of his using such contacts for growth of the ponzi firms is also not ruled out and the same can only be unearthed on custodial interrogation of the petitioner, as stated by the C.B.I. So, the allegation being serious in nature and the offence committed being economic offence and the petitioner is being investigated, custodial interrogation is much more fruitful as held by the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram (supra), this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out no case for his release on pre-arrest bail, more particularly when present is prima-facie not a case where the allegations brought against the petitioner can be said to be frivolous or groundless."

3. 'Lazy PIL, No Effort Made To Understand Constitutional Right To Privacy': Orissa HC Dismisses Plea For CCTV Coverage Of Treatment Given To Covid-19 Patients [Bharatiya Bikash Parisada v. State Of Odisha & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice KR Mohapatra dismissed a PIL seeking installation of CCTV cameras and display boards in all the COVID-19 hospitals "to make the treatment to Corona patients more transparent and accountable to public".

It observed that the Petitioner did not take into account the implications that such a move may have on the privacy of patients admitted in various hospitals. The Bench said that no attempt has been made by the Petitioner to understand the legal position concerning the constitutional right to privacy as explained in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India.

Patna High Court

1. States Obligated To Provide Accurate Info On Deaths Occurred During COVID But Bihar Govt. Reluctant To Do So: Patna High Court Issues Directions [Shivani Kaushik v. State of Bihar]

A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar observed that the Government of Bihar is most reluctant to put in the public domain the number of deaths that occurred in Bihar during the last one year, i.e. during the time of Pandemic Covid-19.

"In our considered view, the resistance is uncalled for, for such action is neither protected by any law nor in consonance with good governance's settled principles," said the Court. It reminded the State Government that to cover with the veil of secrecy, the common routine business is not in the interest of the public.

2. Patna High Court Grants Bail To Student For Allegedly Posting 'Objectionable' Facebook Pics Of Hindu God, Goddess After 10 Months In Custody [Jawed Akhtar v. State of Bihar]

A Single Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Sinha granted bail to a student who allegedly shared some objectionable Facebook photograps of Hindu God and Goddess and who remained in custody for over 10 months and had no criminal antecedents.

His counsel submitted that he had not committed any offence in the manner alleged and there was no intention of the petitioner to hurt the religious feelings of other communities. The Counsel further submitted that from a perusal of the First Information Report it was evident that the petitioner had shared the post of one Reehan Khan and that post in question was not originated from the Facebook account of the petitioner.

Punjab & Haryana High Court

1. "Farmers' Agitation Against Farm Laws An Extraordinary Situation": P&H High Court Forms Committee To Ensure Free Movement Of Food Grains In Punjab [Adani Wilmar Ltd. & Anr. v. State Of Punjab & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul observed that farmers' agitation across the country against the farm laws has thrown up an extraordinary situation, and more so in the States of Punjab and Haryana. It thus formed a committee to ensure that free movement of foodgrains etc., is not hindered from and to Adani Wilmar Limited's facility at Ferozepur.

Sikkim High Court

1. 'Can't Enter Into A Fishing Enquiry Based On Conjectures': Sikkim High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Misappropriation Of Covid-19 Funds [Mani Kumar Subba v. State of Sikkim & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Justices Meenakshi Madan Rai and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan dismissed a PIL seeking enquiry into alleged misappropriation of funds under Covid-19 package provided to the State Government by the Centre. In the absence of any material evidence on record in support of the allegations, it observed, "We cannot enter into a fishing and roving enquiry based on the surmises and conjectures of the Petitioner, neither is this Court an Investigating Agency."

Uttarakhand High Court

1. Chardham Yatra Amid COVID: Uttarakhand High Court Seeks Details On Preparedness Of State Government, Issues Directions

While seeking a response from the State Government as to whether it has decided to open up the Char Dham Yatra, a Bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma also asked the Government to inform the Court with regard to the different phases in which the Char Dham Yatra is to be opened.

Access full report to read directions

Also Read: Vaccination Of Prisoners- "Vaccines Not Available, Inoculation Programme Progressing Slowly": Govt. Tells Uttarakhand High Court