- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- High Courts Weekly Roundup [June 7,...
High Courts Weekly Roundup [June 7, 2021 – June 13, 2021]
Akshita Saxena
13 Jun 2021 7:47 PM IST
![High Courts Weekly Roundup [June 7, 2021 – June 13, 2021]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2021/05/09/750x450_393154-high-courts-weekly-roundup-1.jpg "High Courts Weekly Roundup [June 7, 2021 – June 13, 2021]")
Allahabad High Court 1. Disregard Shown By Senior Officials To Court's Orders Has Grave Consequences On The Rule Of Law In Country: Allahabad High Court [Sanjay @ Mausam v. State of UP] A Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed that the disregard shown by the senior-most officials to the orders passed by the Court has grave consequences on the rule of law in the country. It...
Allahabad High Court
1. Disregard Shown By Senior Officials To Court's Orders Has Grave Consequences On The Rule Of Law In Country: Allahabad High Court [Sanjay @ Mausam v. State of UP]
A Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed that the disregard shown by the senior-most officials to the orders passed by the Court has grave consequences on the rule of law in the country. It further remarked that it has repeatedly noticed the failure of the police authorities to provide instructions to the learned Government Advocate of bail applications from time to time.
"Once the police authorities have been alerted to the fact that there failure to provide instructions in time strikes at the root of law. It often leads to unjustified incarceration of an accused in jail," the Court added.
2. Woman's Conversion To Islam Not To Be A Relevant Fact While Ensuring Protection To Interfaith Couple: Allahabad High Court [Yashi Devi & Anr. v. State Of UP & Ors.]
Dealing with the plea of an inter-religious couple who alleged that private respondent/s is interfering with their marital life and liberty, a Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai clarified that the fact of the petitioner (Girl) having converted to Islam would not be a relevant factor while ensuring that there is no interference in the liberty of the petitioners. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522, the Court observed that Law is settled that it is the right of couples to live peacefully without any interference in case they are major.
It was hearing the plea of a Girl (aged 20 years who converted to Islam) and Man (aged 40 years) and they sought direction upon the respondents not to interfere with their marital life and liberty. They claimed that they are major and have solemnized marriage out of their own free will and also alleged that private respondent/s is interfering with their marital life and liberty.
3. Gram Panchayat Polls- "Evident That Mismanagement Was Flashed On Twitter By Him": Allahabad HC Grants Interim Bail To Journalist [Shiv Prasad @ Shiv Prasad Harijan & Anr. v. State of UP & Anr.]
A Single Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh granted interim Bail to a Journalist and others who have been accused of trying to destroy the ballot box and firing during the Gram Panchayat Polls in Uttar Pradesh. It observed that: "It is evident that mismanagement of the authorities was flash(ed) on twitter by the applicant No.1 who is the journalist and other applicant is related to him, therefore, the applicants are entitled to interim bail."
4. Allegation Of Forceful Conversion- After UP Ordinance Came Into Being She Suddenly Got Aware Of Her Rights: Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Man [Munna Khan @ Asfaq Khan v. State of UP]
Doubting the conduct of the Victim who alleged that the Bail applicant used to ravish her and started compelling her to change her religion, a Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi granted bail to the accused. It observed that the bail applicant and the victim were in a relationship for the last four years when there was no ordinance [U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020] and also there was no objection or resistance from the side of the victim to the relationship.
"All of a sudden, after coming this Ordinance into existence, she got aware about her rights. Her mental thinking exposes about her conduct," added the Court.
5. Case Registered Under Cow Slaughter Act Based On Alleged Conversation Over-Heard By Police: Allahabad HC Grants Bail, Seeks SP's Explanation [Suraj v. State of UP]
A Single Bench of Justice Abdul Moin granted Bail to a person accused of offences under UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 while noting that the case was registered on the basis of alleged conversation of the applicant which was overheard by the police party. "The culpability of the applicant under the Act,1955 is clearly not attracted. Consequently, it is prima facie apparent that Section 3 and 8 of the Act,1955 have wrongly been invoked against the applicant," the Court held.
It also directed the concerned Superintendent of Police to file his personal affidavit, specifically adverting to the averments made in the bail application as well as indicating as to how the cognizance of Sections 3 and 8 of the Act, 1955 have been invoked against the applicant.
Other developments:
- Allahabad High Court Amends Its Rules To Allow Use Of A4 Size Paper
- Allahabad High Court Rejects Samajwadi Party MP Azam Khan's Pre Arrest Bail Application
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Observing that Liposomal Amphotericin B allocated by the Centre to the State is not sufficient to treat the patients of black fungus, a division bench comprising of Justice K Vijayalakshmi and Justice D Ramesh sought Central Government's response with regards to its allocation to different States based on the patient load. It also requested the State Government to start awareness campaigns highlighting the cause, effect and preventive measures to be taken to tackle Mucormycosis or black fungus disease.
"We are conscious of the fact that there is acute shortage of the subject drug to treat black fungus and that the Union of India is making all efforts to procure the same to meet the requirement. As the memo filed by the Central Government is not clear with regard to the allocation of the subject drug to different States basing on the number of patients, Union of India is directed to file a status report in this regard by the next date of hearing." the bench directed.
Bombay High Court
1. GST On Intermediaries : Bombay High Court Delivers Split Verdict On Constitutionality Of Section 13(8)(b) IGST Act [Dharmendra M. Jani v. Union of India & Ors.]
A Division Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Abhay Ahuja delivered a split verdict on the constitutionality of Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act, which imposes GST liability on services provided by intermediaries to persons located outside India. While Justice Bhuyan held the provision to be unconstitutional, Justice Ahuja dissented. Justice Ahuja said that he will release a separate opinion on June 16, recording his reasons for disagreement with Justice Bhuyan.
As per Section 13(8)(b) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, the place of supply of intermediary services is deemed as the location of the supplier of the services. As a result of this deeming provision, the services given by intermediaries like agents, brokers etc., to overseas clients are brought under tax liability. The export of service by tan intermediary would be treated as intra-state supply of services under section 13(8)(b) read with section 8(2) of the IGST Act rendering such transaction liable to payment of central goods and services tax (CGST) and state goods and services tax (SGST).
2. 'Wrong Caste Certificate Deprives Genuine Persons Of Benefits' : Bombay High Court Cancels 'Fraudulent' Caste Certificate Of MP Navneet Kaur Rana [Anandra Vithoba Adsul v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]
Observing that Amravati MP, Navneet Kaur-Rana has committed 'systematic fraud', a bench comprising Justices RD Dhanuka and VG Bisht cancelled her caste certificate and the Caste Scrutiny Committee's (CSC) 2017 order validating her "false" claim of belonging to the 'Mochi' Schedule Caste. The Court directed Rana to pay Rs. 2 lakh as costs to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority and gave her six weeks to surrender the certificate.
The court observed that such acts might deprive genuine candidates of the reserved category of all benefits he/she may be entitled to under the Constitution of India. It further commented on the CSC's abysmal conduct, which accepted Rana's claims despite several complaints against her, thus putting its "imprimatur," or approval on her fraud.
In a 'show of his magnanimity,' Justice SS Shinde, the third senior-most judge of the Bombay High Court, sought to pacify rather than admonish a lawyer who was expressing outrage over a perceived 'insult' by the judge in an earlier proceeding.
"Once our Bench took up the petiton filed by her, I did ask her about the grounds she had incorporated. We are like one family, advocates and judges, sometimes my words may be harsh…if my words have caused you mental [harassment] then I regret it. Beyond this, I don't think there can be an issue," Justice Shinde said.
4. 'Early Decisions Could Have Saved Lives' : Bombay High Court Tells Centre On Door-to-Door Vaccination [Dhruti Kapadia v. Union of India]
Hearing a PIL seeking door-to-door vaccination for the elderly and immobile, a Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni observed that the Centre was making decisions for the public benefit. However, those decisions seemed delayed in the current scenario where a "surgical strike" on the virus is required.
The bench was referring to the Centre's Near to Home Covid Vaccination Centres Policy devised recently, following several court orders. As per the Centre's affidavit, its National Expert Group on Vaccine Administration for Covid-19's (NEGVAC) found near-to-door vaccination more appropriate than door-to-door inoculation, for now.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni asked the Union Government to consider increasing the allocation of the Amphotericin B injection to Maharashtra in view of the spike in patients suffering from Mucormycosis or black-fungus. The court also sought details on state-wise allocation of the injection from the Union government to assess its equitable distribution.
Maharashtra's Advocate General, Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, informed the bench that as on June 7, there were 6,287 mucormycosis patients in the State, of which 518 had lost their lives, 1,695 were discharged and 4,033 were under treatment. Another 41 patients had taken discharge against medical advice. The court was also informed that though the in-house manufacturing at Haffkine Institute in Mumbai would yield about 40,000 vials by June 10, it was still insufficient to treat the over 6,200 cases as each patient required four-five injections per day for three-four weeks.
A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar disposed of a petition seeking Z-plus security for Adar Poonawalla , CEO of vaccine major, Serum Institute of India (SII), following the State's assurances that it would provide Poonawalla with the necessary protection on his request, if and when he lands in India. It observed it had entertained the plea "more than necessary" and wouldn't grant relief when it was unaware if Poonawalla even knew such a plea existed or agreed with the petitioner's contentions.
The court's observation was in response to Chief Public Prosecutor Deepak Thalare's statement on behalf of the State that Poonawalla will be given security when he lands in India, depending on his requirement, and the threat perception at that time.
Other developments:
- Bombay High Court Extends Octogenarian Stan Swamy's Hospital Stay Till June 18
- NDPS Act : Should Weight Of Blotting Paper Carrying LSD Be Considered To Determine If Contraband Is Of "Commercial Quantity"? Bombay High Court To Decide
Calcutta High Court
1. Narada Case : Will Alleged Unlawful Arrests Give Right To 'Mobocracy'? Calcutta High Court Asks
Even if arrests are assumed to be illegal, will they give a right to indulge in 'mobocracy', a 5-Judge Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, and Justices IP Mukherjee, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Arijit Banerjee asked during the hearing of CBI's transfer application in the Narada Scam case.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for one of the four arrested Trinamool Congress leaders, pondered upon (in)validity of arrest and claimed that since arrest was illegal, the question of police custody would not arise. In this regard, he pointed out that that MLA Madan Mitra was picked up from his house on May 17 at 8.10 am, without any warrant or grounds. However, as per CBI's affidavit, the time of arrest is 8.45 am.
"Does that give a right to mobocracy?" ACJ Rajesh Bindal then asked.
2. Narada Case : Calcutta High Court Refuses To Go Into Sanction Issue Saying It Might Affect Trial
A 5-Judge Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, and Justices IP Mukherjee, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Arijit Banerjee refused to make any remarks on the Sanction issue raised by accused, as the same is yet to be decided by the Special Judge. "We are today concerned with whether court proceedings were vitiated. Sanction issue is pending before Special Court," Justice Soumen Sen said.
Singhvi had pointed out that virtue of accused being MLAs, permission of Speaker of Legislative Assembly is mandatory to arrest them. So far as arrest of sitting Ministers is concerned, he said, sanctioning authority is the Council of Ministers. Whereas, in the instant case, arrest was effected based on Governor's sanction.
3. Delayed Investigation, Filing Of Chargesheet In Heinous Crimes Doesn't Reflect Good On Investigating Agency: Calcutta HC Takes Suo Moto Cognizance [In Re: Delayed Investigation in Criminal Cases]
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Arijit Banerjee took suo moto cognizance regarding Delayed Investigation in Criminal Cases. It noted that as per the information received, there are 999 cases where the charge sheet had not been filed within the time permitted in different statutes. Some of the cases are more than a decade old.
In terms of an order dated January 29, 2021 passed by the Jalpaiguri Bench, information was received from the Criminal Investigation Department of the State of West Bengal which was placed before the Chief Justice (Acting), and the matter was directed to be taken on the judicial side as a PIL for the reason that delayed investigation and filing of charge sheet in Court in cases involving heinous crimes does not reflect good on the investigating agency.
Delhi High Court
1. No Stay On Use Of Sushant Singh Rajput's Name & Image For Movies; Delhi High Court Refuses Father's Plea [Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla S Sarogi & Ors.]
A single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed an application filed by Sushant Singh Rajput's father Krishna Kishore Singh seeking to restrain filmmakers from using the name, lifestyle or likeness of the late actor in proposed movies on his life. It refused to grant ex-parte, ad-interim injunction to restrain filmmakers from using Sushant Singh Rajput's name, caricature, lifestyle or likeness in their forthcoming films or projects.
Sushant Singh Rajput's father has filed a civil suit against the proposed biopics on the late actor's life. The Court has however directed the defendants in the suit - the makers of the proposed biopics - to submit that all details of royalty, licensing, profits made from the movies being to the Joint Registrar.
Also Read: Sushant Singh Rajput Case : Are Celebrity Rights Available Posthumously? Delhi High Court To Decide
2. Law Firm Cannot & Ought Not To Report On Ongoing Proceedings Being Prosecuted By It, In Its Blog Or Website : Delhi High Court [Society for Tax Analysis and Research v. Union of India & Ors.]
A division bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Talwant Singh held that a law firm "cannot, and ought not, run the website/blog, in respect of the proceedings, which are being prosecuted by it, as there is every likelihood of losing objectivity in the reportage of proceedings."
The bench held that a law firm cannot report details of the cases through their website/blog for the reason that "any slant in such reporting may lead to multifarious problems which may affect the proceedings and the respective counsels."
3. "Objectionable And Abusive Language": Delhi High Court Restrains TRACTOR2TWITTER From Making Defamatory Posts Against AajTak On Social Media [TV Today Network Limited v. TRACTOR 2 TWITTER & Ors.]
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli restrained TRACTOR2TWITTER, claiming itself to be an online community of persons interested in Farmers Protests, from making defamatory posts against news channel AajTak on its social media accounts, after forming a prima facie opinion that the alleged posts uploaded by it were defamatory that used objectionable and abusive language.
In its interim order, the Court observed thus: "Having perused the various tweets which have been published by Defendant Nos.1 to 3 as well as the posts of Defendant No. 1 on its Facebook page, Instagram account and official Telegram channel, I am of the prima facie opinion that they contain wild allegations, are defamatory and use objectionable and abusive language against the plaintiff, its Aaj Tak new channel and its employees. Such a campaign against the Plaintiff, its 'Aaj Tak' news channel and its employees can be extremely damaging to their reputation and also cause personal injury to them."
4. S. 50 Of NDPS Act- Presence Of Magistrate During Search Of Contraband Articles Not Mandatory If Accused Waives His Right: Delhi High Court [Nabi Alam alias Abbas v. State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi)]
A Division Bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh held that once a suspect under the NDPS Act is informed about his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer/ Magistrate but he chooses not to exercise that right, then the empowered officer can conduct the search of such suspect without producing him before a Gazetted Officer/ Magistrate, for the said purpose.
"There is no requirement to conduct the search of the person, suspected to be in possession of a narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance, only in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, if the person proposed to be searched, after being apprised by the empowered officer of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate categorically waives such right by electing to be searched by the empowered officer," observed the Court while answering a Single Bench reference on the issue.
5. 'Dhobi Ghat Jhuggi' Dwellers Can't Be Left On The Streets To Fend For Themselves: Delhi High Court Directs Govt. To Make Proper Arrangements [Dhobhi Ghat Jhuggi Adhikar Manch v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.]
Observing that while their right to rehabilitation is yet to be determined, a Single Bench of Justice Najmi Waziri remarked that Dhobi Ghat Jhuggi Dwellers cannot be left on the streets to fend for themselves, finding themselves evicted from a place where they claim to have been living for the past two decades.
Noting that due arrangements must be made immediately, it directed the Delhi Government to make necessary arrangements for them and the costs of the same would be reimbursed by the DDA.
6. "Directed Private Hospitals, Nursing Homes To Strictly Administer Covaxin To Those Eligible For Second Dose Between 18-44 Yrs": Delhi Govt Tells High Court [Ashish Virmani v. Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.]
The Delhi Government informed a single judge bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli that it has directed all Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes to ensure that Covaxin shall be given only to those who are eligible for recieving second dose from the age group of 18-44yrs during June till further orders. It was also apprised by the Centre that it has allocated additional 40,000 doses of Covaxin to the Delhi Government vide letter dated 4th June for the purpose of such priority Vaccination.
The development after the Court had observed that the failure to administer the second dose would compromise and frustrate the very exercise of administering the initial dose. While observing so, the Court had asked the Delhi Government and the Centre to place on record the communications exchanged between them with regards to the persons who have not been administered the second dose of Covaxin till date falling between the age group of 18-44 years.
7. "Delhi Govt Not Opened Up To Reality": Delhi HC Issues Directions For Complying To JJ Act, Protection Of Children Orphaned, On Streets In Covid [Rakesh Malhotra v. GNCTD]
Observing that the Delhi Government has not yet opened up to reality for coming up with enough mechanism to safeguard the rights of children, a division bench comprising of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh issued slew of directions to the GNCTD for ensuring that it complies to the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 in view of providing protection to children who have lost one or both parents in the wake of covid therby being orphaned and also for children left on streets without having necessary covid 19 facilities.
Opining that there is a complete bankruptcy in the departments of the Delhi Government, a ordered thus: "Even though the Juvenile Justice Act was enacted in 2015 when the GNCTD has full fledged department mandated to enforce provisions of the Act, little progress appears to be made on ground."
The High Court dismissed an application seeking the postponement of the Foreign Medical Graduate Exam, 2021, (FMGE) on an application moved by the Association of MD Physicians.
Also known as the Medical Council of India Screening Test, FMGE is a licensure examination conducted by the National Board of Examinations (NBE) in India as a mandatory requirement, for an Indian citizen who has a medical degree from a college outside India, to practice medicine in the country. The exam is scheduled to be held on June 18.
9. Merely Because Co Accused Are Absconding Cannot Be A Ground To Deny Benefit Available Under High Powered Committee Recommendations: Delhi High Court [Shekh Rahim v. State Of NCT Delhi]
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli observed that merely because other co accused persons are absconding, cannot be a ground to deny benefit to an undertrial prisoner under the recommendations made by the High Powered Committee. The observation came while granting interim bail to an undertrial prisoner of 27 years of age for a period of 45 days, accused in a murder case.
The Court noted that the petitioner, being a young man of 27 years, having good conduct in jail and not alleged to be previously involved in any case must be granted the relief under HPC guidelines.
Other developments:
- "Central Govt Should Seriously Consider This Proposal": Delhi High Court Bats For Collaboration Of RWA Camps With Private Hospitals
- Delhi High Court Grants Interim Custody Bail To Asif Iqbal Tanha For Preparation And Writing Final Year BA Programme
- Plea To Ensure Operation Of All Non-Functional Hospitals & Mohalla Clinics in Delhi: Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Delhi Govt.
Gujarat High Court
"No Express Bar Of Application Of Anticipatory Bail Under Sec. 438 CrPC To Children In Conflict With Law Under JJ Act": Gujarat High Court [Kureshi Irfan Hasambhai v. State Of Gujarat]
A Single Judge bench comprising of Justice AY Kogje observed that there is no express bar of application of anticipatory bail under sec. 438 CrPC to the children in conflict with law as covered by the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
"…this Court is of the opinion that there is no expressed bar of application of Section 438 of the Code to the children in conflict with law covered by the Act, 2015 and in absence of expressed bar of application of Section 438 of the Code, there is no reason to imply such bar more particularly in the facts of the present case where the applicant who is juvenile is not even named as an accused and has raised a apprehension for being impleaded on extraneous consideration," it observed.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
1. 'Traditions & Customs Have To Yield To The National Interest': Jammu & Kashmir High Court Declines Plea For Handing Over Covid Dead Bodies To Families [Court on its own motion v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.]
"Larger public interest always prevails over personal rights and the traditions and customs have to yield to the national interest especially in these unprecedented times," observed a Bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul while refusing to pass directions for handing of over dead bodies of Covid-19 victims to their next of kin.
It observed that the guidelines issued by the Centre on Covid-19 dead body management sufficiently takes care of the religious sentiments of the family members and do not require any interference. It noted that the guidelines accord permission to view the face of the dead body by unzipping the bag and to perform last rites and rituals without touching the body.
2. Once Superior Officer Approves Closure, It Isn't Open For Officer Inferior In Rank To Direct Re-Investigation Of Case: Jammu & Kashmir High Court [Ajeet Chopra v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar ruled that once a superior officer of Police approves the closure of a case (as not admitted), it is not open to an officer who is inferior in rank to direct reinvestigation of the case. It added that if at all there was any scope for re-investigation of the case, the officer who is inferior in rank could have placed his opinion before his superior officer, instead of taking it upon himself and directing further reinvestigation of the case.
With these observations, the High Court, quashed an order issued by Superintendent of Police, City South, Jammu directing for re-investigation in a case, which was already closed by his superior, Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, and gave the liberty to the relevant authorities of the Police Department: "To take appropriate disciplinary action against respondent No.3 (Superintendent of Police, City South, Jammu) for having acted in a manner which smacks of insubordination."
Jharkhand High Court
1. COVID- Jharkhand High Court Seeks Centre's Response On Action Taken By It's Competent Authority For Controlling Price Of Critical Medical Equipments [Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. Union of India & Ors.]
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad sought Centre's response on the action taken by its competent authority for controlling the price of critical medical equipments such as pulse Oximeters and oxygen concentrators included under the Drugs Price Control Order, 2013.
It was dealing with a petition seeking directions to bring COVID-19 Vaccines including Covishield and Covaxin etc. under price control by invoking Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and National Disaster Management Act, 2005.
2. 'Public Service Commission Has No Power To Relax Recruitment Norms' : Jharkhand High Court Quashes Civil Service Exams Result [Rahul Kumar & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand]
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi quashed the merit list of the 6th Combined Civil service Examination, 2016 which was conducted by the State Public Service Commission (JPSC) to fill 326 positions. It quashed the result upon noting that the merit list was not prepared by the JPSC by following the criteria of minimum qualifying marks in each paper.
The Petitioners' contention was that the action of the JPSC in adding the total marks obtained by the candidates and not the minimum qualifying marks in each paper and the marks of Paper-I of General Hindi and General English while preparing the merit list is illegal It was stated that the purpose of this paper is merely to test the working minimum working knowledge of the persons and not their merit otherwise. The JPSC had admitted that marks of Paper-I were added in the merit list of the Mains examination, and that minimum qualifying marks of each paper were not taken into consideration and only total marks were considered for preparing the merit list.
Karnataka High Court
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindraj allowed the State Police to release over 1.5 lakh vehicles that were seized for violation of lockdown norms. The owners of the vehicles can now make an application to the jurisdictional Police Officers and to and seek the return of the vehicle on a deposit amount, instead of approaching the magistrate. It passed the following order on the application made by the state government.
The State Government referred to the Karnataka High Court's own order dated April 30, 2020, allowing the Bengaluru police to release 35,000 vehicles that were seized for violation of lockdown norms. At the outset, the Court took into account the fact that 1,37,503 two-wheelers, 7,432 four-wheelers, and 7,123 other vehicles have been seized in the entire State and that it would be difficult for the police to find out a proper place for parking of so many vehicles. "Moreover, the Courts of jurisdictional Magistrates will be overburdened if the owners of the vehicles apply separately for return of vehicles," added the Court.
The State Government informed a division bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar that an estimated 20 percent of students studying in Government and government aided schools in the state have no access to any gadgets or television or any virtual mode for taking instructions from teachers.
It expressed concern over this submission and said: "This percentage of students who are not attending classes virtually is of great concern. In fact if these students happen to be girls students and not attending classes virtually, in absence of schools remaining shut, there is possibility of such girls students being married off particularly in rural areas. Their safety is also concerned in as much as the threat of trafficking of children including minor boys is significantly high."
3. Filing Common Chargesheet In Multiple Cases Against Same Accused Impermissible : Karnataka High Court [State of Karnataka v. Greenbuds Agro Form Ltd. Co.]
A single bench of Justice K Natarajan said filing of a common charge-sheet for complaints filed by the individual investors against the same accused in different police stations is against the law and filing amalgamated charge-sheet is impermissible under the CrPC.
It said "The offences which are similar in nature committed by the same accused within twelve months can be tried together by framing a common charge as per Section 219 of the Cr.P.C, but the question of filing a common charge-sheet in multiple crimes or complaints is impermissible."
4. 'Unwise To Scuttle Investigation' : Karnataka High Court Dismisses Amazon & Flipkart Pleas Against CCI Probe [Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India]
A single bench of Justice PS Dinesh Kumar dismissed the writ petitions filed by e-commerce giants Amazon and Flipkart challenging an order passed by the Competition Commission of India for a preliminary investigation into their alleged anti-competitive practices. The Court cited the limitations of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with a probe ordered by an expert specialized body. "...it would be unwise to prejudge the issues raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions at this stage and scuttle the investigation", the Court said in the judgment.
The impugned order was passed by the CCI in January 2020 under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act directing the Director General to investigate into the allegations against Amazon and Flipkart. The order came on a complaint filed by Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh (an organization of retailers) who alleged that Amazon and Flipkart were giving preferential treatment to a select set of vendors by having indirect control on their operations, especially the launch of smartphones. The DVM alleged that the e-commerce companies were abusing their competitive position. The CCI, finding prima facie merit in the complaint, a probe into the practices of Amazon and Flipkart like discounting practices, exclusive tie-ups and private labels.
Other developments:
Kerala High Court
A Single Bench of Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi ruled that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act merely for passing a wrong order, without any material to demonstrate that such order was deliberately passed by him for extraneous considerations or on oblique motives.
The plea filed by P.Sunil Kumar, the then Tahsildar of Udumbanchola, seeks to quash an FIR filed against him for passing an order unfavourable to the government. The said FIR alleged that the petitioner was actuated by extraneous considerations in passing it. The question that came up in the Court was whether a public servant, who acts as quasi judicial authority under a statute, can be held criminally liable under the Act for passing a wrong order.
While allowing the petition, the Court held that dishonest intention on the part of the public servant cannot be presumed to be a reason behind passing a quasi judicial order in favour of a party. There should be satisfactory material to proceed against the officer. In fact, a bare perusal of Section 13(1)(d)(ii) reveals that a public servant can be prosecuted only if he has abused his position and obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
2. Qualified Homeopathic Doctors Can Prescribe Preventive And Add On Medicines To Covid 19 Patients: Kerala High Court [Jayaprasad Karunakaran v. Union of India & Anr.]
A Single Bench of Justice N Nagaresh held that qualified homeopathic doctors can dispense prescribed adjuvant medicines for Covid-19 patients apart from the preventive medicines, citing that there is no prohibition imposed by the Government of India on Homoeopathy for treatment of patients in its AYUSH recommendations.
The petition was filed by filed by homeopathic practitioner who asserted that the Kerala State Health Department threatened to take action against him under the Disaster Management Act if he treats Covid 19 patients, which was alleged to be a violation of Article 19(1)(g).
3. Kerala High Court Issues Guidelines To Be Followed By Courts Before Acting Upon The "Pleading of Guilty" By An Accused [Raseen Babu KM v. State of Kerala]
A Single Bench of Justice VG Arun while reversing the conviction imposed upon the petitioner, issued a set of guidelines to be followed in cases of an accused pleading guilty for the offences charged against him.
Courts are hereupon mandated to comply with the following requirements before acting upon the plea of guilty of an accused: (i) The Magistrate should frame the charge, specifying the offences alleged against the accused; (ii) Such charge should be read over and explained to the accused; (iii) The accused should be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offences charged against him; (iv) The accused should plead guilty after understanding the seriousness of allegations and the implications of pleading guilty. The plea should be voluntary and expressed in clear and unambiguous terms; (v) The Magistrate should record the plea of guilty in the words of the accused, to the extent possible; (vi) The Magistrate should exercise his discretion and decide whether to accept the plea of guilty after considering all relevant factors; (vii) If the plea is accepted, the accused can be convicted and suitable punishment may be imposed.
A Bench of Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Kauser Edappagath held that casting aspersions of impotency or erectile dysfunction by one spouse against other in matrimonial proceedings will constitute cruelty. The respondent had accused the appellant of suffering from erectile dysfunction and sexual incapacity in her written statement, which was contradicted by her own statement and lack of evidence.
The appeal was filed by the appellant husband represented by Adv. NK Subramanian, against the order of the Family Court, Thrissur which denied a decree of dissolution of marriage to the appellant. The High Court allowed this appeal and set aside the order of the Family Court to the extent of rejecting the claim for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.
5. FIR In Corruption Cases To Be Registered After Preliminary Enquiry: Kerala High Court [Jude Joseph v. Director General Of Police & Anr.]
While dismissing a writ petition seeking the registration of certain corruption complaints, a Single Bench of Justice VGArun ruled that the FIR in corruption cases need be registered only after conducting preliminary enquiry. During the course of arguments, it was also established a writ jurisdiction should not be invoked for directing the police to register FIR, and that alternative statutory remedies are available to the aggrieved complainant under CrPC.
This comes after the petitioner Jude Joseph, Vehicle Supervisor at the Vizhinjam KSRTC Depot, challenged the failure to register FIR based on his allegations of certain officials involving in grave financial misappropriation of public money in the internal audit of its accounts for 2012-2015.
6. Centre Cannot Give Charge of a Debt Recovery Tribunal of One State to Presiding Officer of Another State: Kerala High Court [Kerala Fashion Jewellery & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.]
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly ruled that the Centre cannot give the charge of a Debt Recovery Tribunal of one state to the Presiding Officer of another State. It observed that a plain reading of Section 4(2) of RDB Act clearly reveals that the appellants were right in their interpretation.
The appeal was filed by Kerala Fashion Jewellery, challenging the order issued by a Single Bench of the Court that upheld a notification issued by the Centre entrusting the charge of Ernakulam DRT with the Presiding Officer of the DRT in Bangalore. The appellants argued that the Single Bench had misinterpreted the amended. The provision only empowered the Central Government to authorize the Presiding officer of any other Tribunal established under the law to discharge the function of the Presiding Officer of DRT in case of a vacancy.
7. Can An Accused Who Is On Bail Be Allowed To Go Abroad For His Employment? Kerala High Court Answers [Arun Baby v. State of Kerala & Anr.]
A Single Bench of Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi while hearing a petition seeking permission to go abroad allowed to the accused on bail to go to UAE to rejoin his duty. It was observed that the right of the accused to carry on his occupation cannot be curtailed while ensuring the culmination of legal process. The Court observed that although the general rule mandates that evidence be taken in the presence of the accused, evidence can be taken in his absence as long as his counsel is present in the court, provided the accused has been exempted from attendance.
The plea filed by Arun Baby mentioned that he is employed as General Electrical Engineer in the UAE, and that the visa granted to him would expire on 15.07.2021. The petitioner urged that It was necessary for him to return to U.A.E sufficiently early.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
1. "Right To Live Report Court Proceedings Can't Be Disputed": Madhya Pradesh High Court Reserves Order On Interim Relief In 4 Journalists Plea [Nupur Thapliyal & Ors. v. Madhya Pradesh High Court]
A Division Bench of Justice Prakash Srivastava and Justice Virender Singh reserved order on interim relief on a plea by 4 Legal Journalists who have moved the High Courts seeking permission for Live-reporting.
It orally observed that the Right to Live report the court proceedings cannot be disputed, however, the bench also remarked that the matter could be sent to the E-Committee as a representation of the Journalists so that it could take a concrete decision on this matter.
2. "District Judiciary Extremely Tight-Twisted In Granting Bail": MP HC Issues Directions To Police, Judicial Magistrates For Implementing Arnesh Kumar Guidelines [Zarina Begum v. State of Madhya Pradesh]
Observing that the district judiciary is "extremely tight twisted" while granting bail, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Atul Sreedharan issued guidelines to the Police authorities and Judicial Magistrates in the State for implementation of guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar judgment while dealing with the bail applications.
It observed thus: "The hesitancy of the District Judiciary to adhere to the rule of 'bail and not jail' is understandable. There exists a widespread fear amongst judges of the District Judiciary that they may be questioned by the High Court, or complaints may be preferred against them by disgruntled lawyers or litigants whenever they pass orders granting bail which in turn, results in a vigilance enquiry against them."
Access full report to read guidelines
Madras High Court
1. 'LGBTQIA+ Community Cannot Be Left In A Vulnerable Atmosphere' : Madras HC Issues Guidelines Against Police Harassment [S. Sushama & Anr. v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.]
In a significant judgment upholding the rights of members of LGBTQIA+ community, a single bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh issued a slew of guidelines to ensure that they are not harassed by police in missing complaints lodged by their parents.
While considering a writ petition filed by two lesbian women against police harassment, the Court noted that a societal change is needed in the approach towards LGBTQIA+ relationships. The hostilities they face are due to the fact that their relationship do not enjoy societal sanction. It issued a total of 8 guidelines, detailing a procedure that may be followed by the community in case of harassment. This includes assistance from Centre approved NGOs, monetary support, legal assistance, skill development, etc.
2. Prohibit Attempts To Medically 'Cure' Or Change Sexual Orientation Of LGBTQIA+ People : Madras High Court [S. Sushama & Anr. v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.]
A single bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the Union and the State Government to take steps to prohibit attempts by physical and health professionals to medically "cure" or change the sexual orientation of people belonging to LGBTQIA+ community. The Court has also directed that action should be initiated against the concerned professional involving themselves in any form or method of conversion "therapy", including withdrawal of license to practice.
These directions were passed by a while considering a writ petition filed by two lesbian women seeking protection from police harassment at the instance of their parents. While holding that the LGBTQIA+ people cannot be left in a vulnerable atmosphere where there is no guarantee for their protection and safety, the Court issued a slew of guidelines.
3. 'IT Rules Offend My Rights As An Artist & Cultural Commentator' : Musician TM Krishna Moves Madras High Court [TM Krishna v. Union of India & Anr.]
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy issued notice to the Union Government on a writ petition filed by acclaimed Carnatic vocalist and Ramon Magsasay awardee TM Krishna challenging the constitutional validity of the Information Technology (Guidelines For Intermediaries And Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, notified by the Centre on February 25, as imposing "arbitrary, vague,disproportionate and unreasonable" restrictions on digital news media and social media intermediaries.
During the brief admission hearing, Advocate Suhrith Parthasarathy, representing Krishna, submitted that the rules were violative of the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and privacy and also ultra-vires the parent statute, the Information Technology Act. In the writ petition prepared by Internet Freedom Foundation and Advocate Vrinda Bhandari, Krishna says that the rules affected his rights as an artist and a cultural commentator.
4. 'Many Things Claimed To Be Discovered & Equated With Scientific Objective Were Said Here Centuries Ago In Spiritual Sphere' : Madras HC Stresses Need To Conserve Cultural Heritage [Suo Moto v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors.]
While issuing a set of directions for the preservation of ancient temples and monuments in Tamil Nadu, a division bench comprising Justices R Mahadevan and PD Audikesavalu waxed eloquent about the richness of the cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu and the need to pass it on to the future generation with all its grandeur preserved. "The younger generation hyping upon science and technological development needs to understand that many things claimed to be discovered and equated with scientific objective were said and laid down here before centuries in spiritual sphere", it observed in the prelude of the 224-page order.
"The intelligence, knowledge and skill of the people of this land have been far superior and precocious even in fields that science is yet to find answer.In proof, not only have the primogenitors of this land left behind theories beyond human comprehension, but also astonishing and illuminating monuments and scriptures. The object of such creation was not just a personal achievement, but a conscious effort to leave a historical imprint for future generations", the bench added.
The Court directed that the Central Government shall implement the Ancient Monuments Act in letter and spirit, by declaring all religious structures more than 100 years old including temples, temples' tanks, mutts, temple chariots, jewels, art, artefacts, and sacred groves etc., including private denomination temples, as 'national monuments' with immediate effect.
5. Whether Woman In Live-in Relationship Entitled to Pensionary Benefits? Madras High Court Refers Question To Larger Bench [Malarkodi @ Malar v. Chief Internal Audit Officer & Ors.]
A single judge bench comprising of Justice S Vaidhyanathan referred to the larger bench a question as to whether a woman, living in a continued live-in relationship during the man's lifetime, attains status of wife after the death of his first wife in order to get the Pensionary Benefits following husband's death.
The development came in a petition filed by the second wife of a deceased man seeking quashing of the order passed by the Superintendent Engineer, TANGEDCO rejecting her application seeking withdrawal of pension amount on account of husband's death. The petitioner, sister of the deceased's first wife, was added as a nominee in his pension account after his first wife died in 2009 due to cancer.
6. Court Cannot Issue Mandamus Directing All COVID Victims To Be Compensated: Madras High Court [R. Boomiraj v. Govt of Tamil Nadu]
Hearing two different pleas seeking compensation to kith and kin of people who have died due to COVID (including the Advocates), a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the Court cannot issue a mandamus directing all COVID victims to be compensated, irrespective of the financial position that the families may be in.
Regarding the plea seeking compensation for dependents or heirs of deceased advocates, particularly those who were victims of Covid, the Court said: "It is a matter of policy for the State to decide whether to give compensation to a class of persons to and to what extent. There is no doubt divers classes of people will be seeking compensation and it is a matter within the exclusive domain of the State. The Court cannot pick and choose advocates for preferential treatment because most functionaries in this field are advocates."
7. Plea Seeking Directions To Officials Not To Disturb Chief Minister On Sundays: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea With 10K Cost [G. Vivekanandan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.]
A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed a plea with 10,000/- cost which sought directions the Chief Secretary and other officials not to circulate any file or seek any orders or disturb the Chief Minister, except in extraordinary circumstances on Sundays. The Court called it "an utterly ridiculous petition" and said that any reasonable person should have thought many times over it, before disturbing the Court.
The categorical prayer in the petition was to direct the Chief Secretary and other officials not to circulate any file or seek any orders or disturb the Chief Minister, except in extraordinary circumstances on Sundays. To this, the Court said that it was entirely a matter between the head of a government and the officials as to how files should be placed before the Chief Minister and how the Chief Minister will function.
8. Toon Controversy- "Can't Teach Ethics To People; Cartoon Will Lose Life If Taken Without Context": Madras HC Quashes Criminal Defamation Case [Balamurugan v. State]
While quashing a criminal defamation case filed against a person who had published an alleged humiliating and defamatory cartoon on his Facebook page, a Bench of Justice G. Ilangovan ruled that the Court cannot teach ethics to the people and it is for the Society to evolve and follow the ethical standards.
Elaborating on the Toon Controversy, the Court said: "In the recent times another problem, which was created by a cartoonist throughout the world is the "Toon Controversy". That cartoon was about the Prophet Mohammed, which created controversy throughout the World. The discussion emanated from this episode is as to the limitations of freedom of speech and expression and as well as the principles of hate speech and expression."
9. Article 227 Petition Maintainable Against Domestic Violence Act Proceedings : Madras High Court [Muthulakshmi & Anr. v. Vijitha]
A single bench of Justice GR Swaminathan held that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable to seek the quashing of proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. It held that regardless of whether DV Act proceeding is civil or criminal in nature, powers under Article 227 of the Constitution are available against it.
The bench observed that Article 227 is "forum-neutral", which makes no distinction between civil court and criminal court. In other words, the power under Article 227 can be exercised both over civil Courts as well as the criminal Courts. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be ousted.
"I therefore hold that irrespective of whether the proceedings under Central Act 43 of 2005 are civil or criminal, the power under Article 227 of the Constitution would always lie to quash the proceedings, if a case is really made out", Justice Swaminathan said in the order.
Other developments:
- Farmers' Distress- "Policy Needed To Take Care Of Paddy Sacks Which Get Drenched In Rain": Madras HC Takes Suo Moto Cognizance
- Chalk Out Holistic Plan For General Treatment Of Stray Animals Across State; Vaccinate Dogs, Cats If Necessary: Madras High Court To Govt
- No Proposal Initiated To Live Stream Court Proceedings: Madras High Court Says In RTI Reply
- "A Number Of Citizens Have Been Driven To Poverty During Lockdown": Madras High Court Takes Judicial Notice Of Reports
- Madras High Court Asks State To Consider Priority Vaccination For Transgender Persons, Citizens Required To Undertake International Travel
Manipur High Court
1. Take Punitive Action Against Hospitals Denying Admission To Non-Covid Emergency Patients: Manipur High Court Tells State [Khwairakpam Tomba Singh v. State of Manipur & Anr]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Kh Nobin Singh asked the State Government to take necessary punitive action against such erring hospitals/medical establishments that deny treatment to patients requiring emergency medical care due to serious illness or owing to accidents, on the ground that priority is given only to Covid-19 patients.
The direction was made after it was informed that even though the Government has already issued an order instructing all Government hospitals and private hospitals to ensure that all patients who reach their facilities are attended to promptly, yet there is no implementation of this order.
Orissa High Court
1. Orissa High Court Upholds Centre's Notification Abolishing Odisha Administrative Tribunal [OAT Bar Association, Cuttack v. Union of India & Ors.]
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice BP Routray upheld the notification issued by the Department of Personnel and Training of the Central Government dated 2nd August 2019 which abolished the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT). It observed that there was sufficient material to support the view of the State Government that OAT did not serve the purpose of delivery of speedy justice to the litigants.
"It appears that with passage of time in the experimental phase of ATs (Administrative Tribunals), a call had to be taken by many of the State Governments about the efficacy of continuing with the SATs based on their performance and the outcomes. They have tried the experiment for over three decades and feel the need for a change. It may not be proper for the High Court to decide to overturn that decision only because a different view is possible. Again from the point of view of the litigant unless the 'bypass' of a Tribunal is as good as the 'highway' of a High Court, the assurance of equal and fair justice may be rendered illusory," the Court observed.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
1. Protection Plea- Married Woman & Unmarried Man In A Live-In Relation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs SSP To Look Into Their Grievance [Gurjeet Kaur & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.]
A Bench of Justice Vivek Puri directed SSP, Faridkot to look into the grievance of an already married woman and an unmarried man living together in a live-in relationship and seeking protection of life and liberty against private parties.
It disposed of their plea with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot to look into the grievance of the petitioners (married woman and unmarried man) as projected in their representation.
2. Husband Is The Natural Guardian Of Minor Hindu Girl Who Is Married To Him With Her Own free Will : Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes Kidnapping Charges Against Man [Vikas Tomar v. State of Haryana & Ors.]
Dealing with the case of a minor girl who performed the marriage with a man with her own free will, a Bench of Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill ruled: "The husband is in relationship with the Girl and in terms of Sections 19 and 21 of the Guardians and Wards Act read with Sections 6, 10 and 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, he (husband) has a right to hold as the natural guardian of the minor Hindu girl who is married to him which as per the statute is the girl's husband." It added it cannot be said that there is an element of taking away or enticing her.
3. Live In Relation- "Not For The Court To Judge Couple's Decision To Reside Together Without Sanctity Of Marriage": Punjab & Haryana High Court [Seema Kaur & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice Sant Prakash observed that in a case wherein a couple has taken a decision to reside together without the sanctity of marriage then, it is not for the courts to judge them on their decision. One cannot also lose sight of honour killings which are prevalent in northern parts of India, particularly in parts of States of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Honour killing is a result of people marrying without their family's acceptance, and sometimes for marrying outside their caste or religion. Once an individual, who is a major, has chosen his/her partner, it is not for any other person, be it a family member, to object and cause a hindrance to their peaceful existence. It is for the State at this juncture, to ensure their protection and their personal liberty," it observed.
The petitioners in this case (Girl aged 17 years and Boy aged 20 years) sought protection of their life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, who are none other than the immediate family members of the Girl.
4. It Is Necessary To Remind States To Eradicate Child Marriage Menace: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Daya Ram & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]
Hearing the protection plea of a runway couple who are yet to attain the marriageable age, a Single Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj declined to provide them protection, and the writ petition was dismissed while noting that that the issue to eradicate child marriage menace needs to be considered by the State.
"The practice of early marriage or child marriage even if sanctified by tradition and custom may yet be an undesirable practice today with increasing awareness and knowledge of its detrimental effects and the detrimental effects of early pregnancy. Should this traditional practice still continue? We do not think so and the sooner it is given up, it would be in the best interest of the girl child and for society as a whole," the Court observed.
Rajasthan High Court
1. COVID- Consider Making Policy Decision On Maintenance Of Ventilators, Life Saving Equipments In Govt Hospitals: Rajasthan High Court Directs State [Vijay Pathak v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Satish Kumar Sharma directed the State Government to consider making a policy decision on the issue concerning maintenance of ventilators and other life saving equipments available in government hospitals in the State.
It ordered thus: "We take this opportunity to direct the State Government to consider making a policy decision on the issue of maintenance of ventilators as well as life saving equipments available in all government hospitals in the State of Rajasthan. The objective is to try and ensure operational availability of all such life saving equipments at any time."
2. Live-In-Relationship Between A Married & Unmarried Person Not Permissible: Rajasthan High Court
Dealing with a plea of the Petitioners (Woman-Man) who sought the protection of life and liberty, a Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari after noting that Petitioner No. 2 (Man) was already married, ruled that: "A live-in-relationship between a married and unmarried person is not permissible."
The Court further observed that the pre-requisites for a live-in-relationship as held by the Apex Court in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469 is: (i) That the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses, and; (ii) Must be of legal age to marry or qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
Telangana High Court
1. A Premature Release Policy Must Be Backed Up With a Proper Rehabilitation Plan: Telangana High Court
Comprehensive policy for rehabilitation should be made and premature release should be made as part of the said policy. The focus of criminal justice system should be to punish those deserving a sentence. After the purpose of sentence has been served, attempt should be made for re-socialization of prisoners. A premature release policy must be backed up with a proper rehabilitation plan. Thus, the society can get the benefit out of release of a prisoner. It is highly idealistic to consider the idea of reformation in Indian Jails, but a system of premature release based on irrational criteria does not help. This can ultimately be linked to the absence of a proper sentencing regime," observed a single judge bench comprising of Justice K Lakshman.
2. Serious Mental Health Issues Have Cropped Up As Fallout Of COVID-19 Infection: Telangana High Court Seeks Action Plan From State [R. Sameer Ahmed v. State of Telangana]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Hima Kohli and Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy sought a blue print from the State government for treatment of persons suffering mental trauma as a fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic. "How do you handle mental health of Covid patients or the attendants who lost their loved ones," it asked G. Srinivasa Rao, the Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, appearing before the Bench virtually.
Rao informed the Court that the Government may avail the services of Institute of Mental Health in this regard. Justice Kohli then suggested that the Institute should tie up with NGOs and reach out by conducting webinars and making CDs on the subject. She ordered, "Having regard to the fact that serious mental health issues have cropped up as a fallout of the COVID-19 infection, it is directed that a blueprint be prepared and placed on record showing how the State proposes to deal with the said issue."
Tripura High Court
1. "Might Create Incongruity To Constitutional Protection Under Art. 20": Tripura High Court Directs Centre To Amend Sec.27A Of NDPS Act Without Delay [Court on its Own Motion v. Union of India]
A division bench comprising of Justice S Talapatra and Justice SG Chattopadhyay directed the Central Government, Ministry of Home Affairs to take appropriate steps for amending sec. 27A of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (punishment for financing illicit traffic and harboring offenders) without further delay.
Observing that no amendment was done for substituting sec. 2(viiib)(i-v) under sec. 27A of the Act, the Court observed thus: "We would hold that until the appropriate legislative change occurs by amending Section 27A of the NDPS Act appropriately, sub-clauses (i) to (v) of clause (viiia) of Section-2 of the NDPS Act shall suffer effect of deletion and bringing in sub-clauses i-v of the clause viii-b of Section-2 of the NDPS Act in that place. We are worried this effect might create an incongruity to the constitutional protection provided under Article-20."
Uttarakhand High Court
Reviewing the COVID situation in the State, a Bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma observed that it was concerned with the possibility of the opening of the Char Dham, as is being contemplated by the State Government.
The Court also issued a slew of directions for the State Government keeping in view the fact that the Scientist community has cautioned of a third COVID wave in the near future and looking at the rising cases of Black Fungus. The Court also observed: "The State will have to be well prepared to tackle the menace of both the third wave of COVID-19 and the continuation of Mucormycosis."
2. 'Is Interim Compensation Granted To Affected Families': Uttarakhand High Court Asks In Chamoli Disaster Case [PC Tewari v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice RS Chauhan and Justice AK Verma issued notice on a PIL seeking compensation for families affected by the glacial disaster that took place on February 7 in Uttarakhand's Chamoli district. It has inquired if any interim compensation has been granted to the affected families, whose houses were uprooted in the disaster.
The petition states that the concerned authorities omitted in taking proper measures post disaster to ensure proper registration of those who went missing, in searching for those missing in the debris, issuing death certificate, making a proper rehabilitation scheme and payment of compensation to the immediate relatives of those who lost their lives in the disaster.
