High Courts Weekly Roundup [May 24, 2021 – May 30, 2021]

1. Devise Policy For Vaccination Of Physically Disabled: Allahabad High Court To Govt. In Suo Moto COVID19 Case [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…]

Days after the Supreme Court asked the Allahabad High Court to pass realistic orders and stayed its directions for upgrading medical facilities in the state, a Division Bench comprising of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar expressed satisfaction with the steps taken by Uttar Pradesh Government for enhancing the medical infrastructure in the smaller districts of Bahraich, Shravasti, Bijnor, Barabanki and Jaunpur.

Further, the Court has directed the Central Government to come up with a stand with regard to vaccination to physically challenged persons, who find it difficult to approach the vaccination centres, in compliance with its order dated May 11.

2. 'Let No One Die Of Hunger': Allahabad HC Quashes UP Govt Order Providing Preference To Self-Help Groups In Allotment Of Fair Price Shops [Haripal v. State of UP & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi quashed an order dated July 7, 2020, issued by the UP Government to give preference to self-help groups in allotment of fair price shops, to the exclusion of all other categories of persons. It held that the impugned GO seeks to create a "monopoly" in favour of the Self-help Groups that generally have a "weak legal identity" for the purposes of fixing accountability and thus, any such body is susceptible to "worsen" the objects of Public Distribution System instead of bringing about any reform.

It observed that the rural population has already suffered much on account of non-supply of food grains leading to food scams. It thus opined that preference of a self-help groups, which it dubbed as "loosely packed" institutions, in allotment of fair price shops, would be "counterproductive" and shall not serve the real purpose.

Also Read: COVID- Allahabad High Court Requests Supreme Court To Deal With The Issue Of Distribution Of Food Grains To Vulnerable Section Of People

3. Accused Has Right To Have His Bail Plea Heard In Reasonable Time: Allahabad HC Seeks Time Bound Procedure For Supplying Instructions To Govt Advocates [Sahil v. State of UP]

"Failure of the police authorities to provide timely instructions to the Govt Advocate/ Additional Govt Advocate in bail applications causes delay in the hearing of the bail applications, and often leads to unjustified incarceration of an accused in jail," a Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed.

It therefore directed the Director General of Police, UP, to ensure that a fair, transparent and clear procedure is created for supplying instructions to the GA/AGA in bail applications before the High Court. It has ordered that the procedure shall be framed within a period of 8 weeks and it shall include the designation of the officials, the tasks or duties which they have to discharge, and a definite time frame for such purpose.

4. Sexual Offence Against Woman- Any Form Of Compromise/Marriage With Accused Shouldn't Form Part Of Bail Condition: Allahabad High Court [Imran v. State Of UP]

A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held that while granting bail in sexual offences against a woman, bail conditions which is/are against the mandate of "fair justice" to the victim shouldn't be imposed such as to make any form of compromise or marriage with the accused.

It also ruled that the Court, while granting bail in such cases, shall take into consideration the directions passed by Supreme Court in Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, LL 2021 SC 168, viz.:

"Imposing (Bail) conditions that implicitly tend to condone or diminish the harm caused by the accused and have the effect of potentially exposing the survivor to secondary trauma, such as mandating mediation processes in non-compoundable offences, mandating as part of bail conditions, community service (in a manner of speaking with the so-called reformative approach towards the perpetrator of sexual offence) or requiring tendering of apology once or repeatedly, or in any manner getting or being in touch with the survivor, is especially forbidden."

5. Allahabad High Court Reprimands UP Government For Not Accepting E-Notices [Mohd. Ahmad & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Gupta and Gautam Chowdhary pulled up the UP Government for forcing the litigants to move out of their houses amid the Covid-19 pandemic merely for serving copies of petitions/ applications filed by them.

It observed, "At the moment, on account of pandemic, the Court proceedings are being held by virtual mode. To avoid physical contact between individuals, various relaxations have been made by this Court in relation to the filing of the writ petitions by virtual mode so that no one is forced to travel long distance or physically come to the High Court only for the purpose of filing a petition. In such a scenario, insistence on part of the State respondents to serve a hard copy of the petition in their office is not acceptable, particularly when service of notice by e-mail is now a legally recognised mode of service."

Other developments:

• "Ensure That Local Police Don't Interfere In Married Life Of Muslim Woman Who Adopted Hindu Religion": Allahabad High Court To SSP
• FB Post Against Smriti Irani- "Post May Promote Ill-Will/Hatred Between Different Communities": Allahabad High Court Denies Pre Arrest Bail To Professor
• Black Marketing Of Oxygen In Ghaziabad Amid Covid-19: Allahabad High Court Seeks Inquiry Report, Personal Affidavit Of District Magistrate

Andhra Pradesh High Court

1. Andhra Pradesh High Court Seeks Centre's Response On Procurement & Allocation Of Medicines For Treatment Of Black Fungus

A Division Bench of Justices D. Ramesh and K. Suresh Reddy sought response from the Central and State Government regarding the steps being taken by them for procurement and allocation of medicines for treatment of Black Fungus patients in the State.

It also asked the State to check whether adequate transport (ambulances) is available for shifting patients from Covid centres to hospitals, in case of emergency.

Bombay High Court

1. 'He Needs Treatment' : Bombay High Court Orders Transfer Of Stan Swamy To Private Hospital From Prison

A Division Bench of Justices SS Shinde and NR Borkar directed the Maharashtra government to transfer ailing Father Stan Swamy, an 84-year-old tribal rights activist - to the Holy Family Hospital from Taloja Central Jail for treatment. He is accused in the Bhima Koregaon - Elgaar Parishad case.

Swamy had interacted with another vacation from prison last week and refused to get admitted to any hospital, especially JJ Hospital. "I don't think it would make any difference. Whatever happens to me, I would like to be with my own," Swamy had said, adding, he would prefer to possibly die in prison if he was not granted interim bail. On Friday, Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, assisted by advocate Mihir Joshi informed the bench that Swamy's blood pressure is dropping, and he continues to feel weak.

Also Read: Don't Discharge DU Professor Hany Baby From Hospital Till June 1 : Bombay High Court

2. 'Insensitivity Of Union Health Ministry': Bombay High Court Shreds Centre's Affidavit Defending 'Faulty PM CARES Ventilators' [Registrar (Judicial), Bombay High Court v. Union of India & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and BU Debadwar at Aurangabad lashed out at the Central Government for virtually defending "defective ventilator manufacturer" Jyoti CNC and claiming that the doctors and paramedics are not properly trained to handle the ventilators.

It said the Under Secretary G.K. Pillai (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare), who filed the affidavit, should have avoided a "blame game" and shown sensitivity towards "patients." It added, "We are unable to accept the contentions of the ASGI that the ventilators are in perfect operating conditions, and it is the hospitals who do not have trained personnel to operate them properly. The affidavit before us has a semblance of virtually defending the manufacturer and declaring the ventilators are in immaculate condition."

Also Read: 'Let Government Realize They Supplied Inferior Ventilators' : Bombay HC Seeks Action On Faulty Ventilators Got Under PM CARES Funds

3. Probe How Celebrities, Politicians Got COVID Drugs : Bombay High Court Tells State [Sneha Nirav Marjadi v. State of Maha & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Justices AA Sayed and GS Kulkarni urged the State not to drop the ball on its inquiry into the private distribution of Remdesivir injections by politicians and celebrities after noting discrepancies in the responses received by the Drug Inspector.

The bench said that while manufacturers seem to have told the Union of India that they have provided Remdesivir only to the Government, Sonu Sood foundation's response to the Drug Inspector's notice indicated they had contacted manufacturers, and they provided certain drugs.

Also Read: Bombay High Court Asks Maharashtra Government To Give Wide Publicity To Free-Treatment Policy For Mucormycosis (Black Fungus)

4. Bombay High Court Directs Trial Court To Redact References On Victim's Identity In Tarun Tejpal Judgment

A Single Bench of Justice SC Gupte directed the District and Sessions Court trying the Tarun Tejpal sexual assault case to redact the victim's identity while uploading the acquittal order on its website. It also granted 3 days' time to the State, to amend the grounds of appeal against the acquittal order dated May 21, that was made available on May 25.

On Tuesday, the State filed an appeal against the Tejpal acquittal on all charges by the District and Sessions Court at Mapusa, Goa. He was accused of forcing himself on the woman, against her wishes, inside an elevator of the Grand Hyatt, Bambolim, Goa on November 7 and 8, 2013, during the newsmagazine's official event - the THiNK 13 festival.

In her 527-page judgement, Special Judge Kshama Joshi extensively commented on the woman's non-rape victim like behaviour and faulty investigation to grant Tejpal the benefit of the doubt.

Calcutta High Court

1. State Should Ensure That Victims Of West Bengal Post-Poll Violence Can Go Back To Homes: Calcutta High Court

A 5-judge bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justices IP Mukerji, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Subrata Talukdar orally remarked that the West Bengal Government has the obligation to ensure that people, who got displaced during the post-poll violence, are able to return to their homes. "Irrespective of all allegations, State has the obligation to ensure that people can go back to their houses", the bench remarked.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by Advocate Priyanka Tibrewal, who alleged that more than 200 persons got displaced due to the violence and that they are now unable to return to their homes due to fear of backlash.

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Grants Interim Bail To 4 Trinamool Leaders In Narada Case

Delhi High Court

1. Traceability Rule Will Break End-To-End Encryption; Can Put Privacy Of Journalists, Activists, Politicians At Risk : WhatsApp Tells Delhi High Court

In its plea to challenge the traceability clause as mentioned under Rule 4(2) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021, WhatsApp has contended that the aforesaid requirement will "force it to build the ability to identify the first originator for every message sent in India on its platform upon request by the government forever."

Relying heavily on the judgment of KS Puttuswamy v. Union of India, WhatsApp contends that the said requirement does not pass the tests enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution, is manifestly arbitrary in violation of Art. 14, is violative of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression and sec. 79 and 69A of the Information Technology Act.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Restrains WhatsApp & Telegram From 'Illegally Circulating' Copies Of Times Of India, Navbharat Times E-Newspapers

2. Right To Be Forgotten- Delhi High Court Directs Google, Indian Kanoon To Remove/Block Judgment Of American Citizen Acquitted In NDPS Case [Jorawer Singh Mundy v. Union Of India & Ors.]

In a case involving the question of Right to Privacy of a person and Right to Information of public and maintenance of transparency in judicial records, single judge bench comprising of Justice Pratibha Singh granted interim protection to an American Citizen of Indian origin by directing Indian Kanoon to block the judgement of his acquittal under NDPS Act from being accessed by using search engines such as Google/Yahoo etc.

It observed thus: "It is the admitted position that the Petitioner was ultimately acquitted of the said charges in the case levelled against him. Owing to the irreparableprejudice which may be caused to the Petitioner, his social life and his career prospects, inspite of the Petitioner having ultimately been acquitted in the said case via the said judgment, prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner is entitled to some interim protection, while the legal issues are pending adjudication by this Court."

3. Black Fungus: "Show Current Status On Imports Of Liposomal Amphotericin B": Delhi High Court Seeks Centre's Response On Augmentation Of Drugs

A division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh directed the Centre to file a detailed current status of the imports of Liposomal Amphotericin B. it also directed the Centre to explain as to how the figure of 2 lakh 30 thousand was arrived at and whether there was availablity of the drug which was being imported.

The development came after the Bench was apprised by ASG Chetan Sharma that in the consolidated status report filed by the Centre, it has been disclosed that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 24th May called upon the Minister of External Affairs to take steps to procure 2,30,000 vials of Liposomal Amphotericin-B from Australia, Russia, Germany, Argentina, Belgium and China.

Also Read: Black Fungus- "Centre Should Consider Complete Waiver On Import Duties Of Amphotericin B": Delhi High Court

Also Read: Consider GST Relief On COVID Imports Purchased For Donations To States: Delhi High Court To Delhi Govt., GST Council

4. "Examine Whether Claims Can Be Considered For Those Who Were Unable To Get Insurance Benefit For Not Getting Hospital Beds": Delhi HC Directs IRDAI [Rakesh Malhotra v. GNCTD & Ors.]

A division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh directed IRDAI (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India) to examine as to whether the claims of people who were unable to get the benefits of insurance policies for not getting hospital beds can be considered owing to the "dearth of medical infrastructure" in wake of the second covid wave.

It also directed that any such consideration may take place by consultation between IRDAI and insurance companies. Noting that the IRDAI has taken steps to mitigate the suffering of people at large on account of covid 19 pandemic, the Bench addressed couple of issues which must be considered by the IRDAI.

5. "Found Under Suspicious Circumstances, Police Authorised To Seize": Delhi High Court Denies Relief To Matrix Cellular Limited [Matrix Cellular (International) Services Ltd. v. State (Nct Of Delhi)]

Prima facie observing that the acts of Matrix Cellular Limited was in violation of Office Memorandum issued by Government of India, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Yogesh Khanna denied relief in its plea seeking immediate release of oxygen Concentrators seized by Delhi Police after observing that the said items were "found under suspicious circumstances" and that the police was authorised in seizing the same.

The Court observed thus: "Thus, a conjoint reading of the FIR, invoices and receipts produced by the petitioner along with the fact that the seized oxygen concentrators were allegedly sold at a huge profit margins in contravention of laws, rules and executive orders pointed out above. The facts show the petitioner was engaged in selling untested oxygen concentrators to people desparate for these devices and at an exorbitant prices through false representations, especially, when the State and the whole country saw a unprecedented surge of covid-19 infections and sever lack of oxygen cylinders and/or concentrators."

6. "Gautam Gambhir Has Done Disservice; Even With Best Of Intentions They Are Malpractices" : Delhi HC Directs Drug Controller To Investigate Hoarding Of Covid Drugs

A division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh directed the Drug Controller to conduct inquiry or investigation into three specific allegations against BJP MP Gautam Gambhir and AAP MLAs Preeti Tomar and Praveen Kumar for hoarding and illegally stocking covid 19 medicines and drugs.

The Court was dealing with a plea seeking registration of FIRs against leaders of political parties indulging in hoarding and illegally distributing covid 19 medicines denying the access to the said medicines to the public at large.

"Since the aspects in relation to violation of Drugs and Cosmetics Act fall within the domain of drug controller to be inquired into, let the documents collected be placed at the disposal of Drug Controller. The Drug Controller may conduct investigation/inquiry and file a status report within a week from today," the Court directed.

7. Delhi High Court Declines To Entertain PIL Against Media Trial Of Wrestler Sushil Kumar

A division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh declined to entertain a PIL filed before it seeking directions against the media trial of wrestler Sushil Kumar in the Chhatrasal Stadium murder case.

The counsel for the petitioner moved Court stating that, Kumar's reputation and career had been "completely sabotaged" by the sensationalized reporting by several media channels in the matter. He attributed this to the fact that while "there are many judgments of the Supreme Court (on media trials)," "in no case have any guidelines been laid down about reporting in criminal matters."

Declining to entertain the PIL, the court said that as the petition was making a case of defamation against one man, he himself had to come to court seeking due remedy, and that a 'public interest litigation' would not lie in such matters.

8. 'Assessment May Continue But No Final Order': Delhi High Court Issues Notice In Robert Vadra's Plea Against Black Money Act Proceedings

A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh issued notice to the Central Government, Central Board of Direct Taxes and Tax Department authorities in Robert Vadra's Plea challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent Authorities under Black Money Act and also for quashing the notices issued to him under sec. 10(1) of the Act dated December 4, 2018 and December 18, 2019 respectively.

It granted three weeks' time to Vadra for filing replies to the notices issued to him by the authorities and also ordered that the Income Tax Department may continue with its proceedings relating to assessment but will not pass any final order.

9. 'Not Urgent' : Delhi High Court Adjourns Media Houses' Pleas Challenging IT Rules 2021 Till August

A Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh adjourned the hearing of the petitions filed by digital mediahouses 'The Quint' and The Wire' challenging the Information Technology (Guidelines For Intermediaries And Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, to August 4 on grounds of non-urgency.

Counsel for one of the individual petitioners in the batch of pleas contended that the matter was urgent due as it concerned the infringement of fundamental rights. However, the bench expressed that the matter was not urgent and adjourned the hearing till August 4. On Wednesday, the Government of India also wrote to various social media platforms enquiring about compliance with the abovementioned rules.

10. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Compensatory Extra Chance To Appear, Register In JEE Mains Examination 2021 [Isha Jaiswal & Ors v. National Testing Agency]

Observing that the position has been answered by the Supreme Court in the UPSC Extra Chance case, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed a plea seeking a compensatory extra chance for appearing and registering in the JEE Mains Examination being conducted in 2021 in the months of February, March, April and May.

11. "His Identification Before Trial Court And This Court Is At Variance": Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Riots Accused [Mohd. Mansoor v. State of NCT of Delhi]

Observing that the prosecution's assertions prima facie brings its case under cloud, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait granted bail to a riots accused namely Mohd. Mansoor after opining that his identification before the Trial Court and the High Court was at variance.

It observed thus: "Though this Court refrains from commenting upon the credibility of Mukesh (Constable) amidst trial, yet takes notice of the fact that the identification of petitioner by the prosecution before the trial court and this court is at variance. In one of the videos played before this Court, a person (allegedly the petitioner) 'showing his back' and walking with the mob is shown, whereas in another clipping, the distance between the camera and person is such that the face and features cannot be seen clearly to identify correctly as to who the person is. Further the case of prosecution is that petitioner had burnt his clothes to hide his identity and these facts, prima facie brings the case of prosecution under cloud."

Other developments:

• Delhi High Court Seeks Centre, Delhi Govt Response On Plea For Priority Covid-19 Vaccination To 12-17 Year Olds
• "Steps Taken By GNCTD, Municipal Corporations Have Taken A Back Seat": Delhi HC Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of Mosquito Infestation, Rise Of Vector Borne Diseases Amid Covid
• "Centre & State Busy Blaming Each Other, My Concern Is My Health": Man Seeking Covid Vaccine Submits Before Delhi High Court
• Policy On Ration For Poor: Delhi High Court Seeks Expeditious Finalizing Of Policy By Delhi Govt

Gauhati High Court

1. Conditions Of Sex Workers In Covid- Gauhati HC Directs DLSA To Provide Immediate Rations To Identified Sex Workers, Family Members Struggling In Covid [Debajit Gupta v. State Of Assam & Ors.]

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice MR Pathak directed the District Legal Services Authority, Cachar to provide immediate ration to sex workers and their family members identified by Deputy Commissioner of the District. It also directed the State Government to apprise the Court about how National AIDS Control Organization through Assam State AIDS Control Society will give relief to sex workers in Assam and how will they be identified for the same.

The development came after Adv. D Ghosh for the petitioner submitted before the Court that in Cachar district, some of the sex workers and their family members were particularly struggling in the present Covid situation and that an immediate relief must be provided to them in the form of ration and other items of daily need.

2. Alleged Non-Admission Of Covid Patients By Private Hospitals Despite Insurance Cover: Gauhati High Court Seeks Response [Lawyers Association, Guwahati v. State of Assam & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak sought response from the Assam Government on an application alleging denial of admission to Covid-19 patients by private hospitals in the State. It heard Advocate A. Chamuah on behalf of Lawyers Association, Guwahati who alleged that in Assam, persons who are suffering from COVID, although they have an insurance cover are still not being admitted in private hospitals.

He submitted that this is contrary to the directions issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India for hospitalization of COVID patients vide order dated March 4, 2020. The Court has now asked the State Government to file its reply within a week so that the Court is in a better position to examine the matter. It has also directed Assistant Solicitor General of India RKD Choudhury to get instructions in this matter from IRDAI.

3. COVID Situation In Assam Tea Gardens: Gauhati High Court Seeks Response Of Assam Govt On Slew Of Issues [Anjan Nagg v. Union Of India & Ors.]

Dealing with a bunch of PILs relating to the present situation under the Covid-19 pandemic in the Tea Gardens of Assam, a Bench of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak sought the response of the Assam Government on a slew of issues. It directed the state government to file a counter-affidavit to show as to the test being done and what kind of test is being done, for determination of COVID-19 infection in Assam Tea Gardens.

The concern of the petitioners was that in these Tea Gardens, the Guidelines of the Government of India relating to the management of COVID management are not being followed and the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 and the Rules framed therein are also not being followed inasmuch as the COVID Care Centres within the Tea Gardens are taking care of only asymptomatic patients.

Gujarat High Court

1. "Helpless In the Matter Of Vaccine Procurement": Gujarat Govt Tells Gujarat High Court [Suo Motu v. State Of Gujarat]

A Division Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice BD Karia directed the State Government to take all necessary actions immediately with regard to the improvement of the Health infrastructure in the rural areas as also for creating awareness amongst the public at large of the Mucormycosis disease.

The State Government also echoed the helplessness in procuring enough stock of vaccines by submitting that though the State Government has placed orders, for procuring in all 3 crores of vaccines, there is no timeline given by the manufacturers for the delivery of the said vaccines, as there are only 7 vaccine manufacturers in the world and they are not in a position to match with the high requirement of the same.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

1. COVID-"Inform About Steps Taken To Convert Primary Health Centres Into ICU Hospitals With Oxygen Facilities: Himachal Pradesh HC Directs State [Court on its own motion ]

Observing that the situation may go out of control of the Government if RTPCR testing is not conducted in war footing, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice L Narayana Swamy and Justice Anoop Chitkara directed State Government to inform about the steps taken it to convert primary health centres into ICU Hospitals with oxygen facilities and also directed it to accelerate its work in combating covid 19 pandemic.

It observed thus: "If the RTPCR tests are not conducted in war footing i.e. more than twenty to thirty thousands per day then the fatalities will proportionately go higher and by the time the RTPCR test is conducted, the incubation period will exceed and that may go out of control of the Government."

Jharkhand High Court

1. "PIL Doesn't Mean That Which Is Interesting As Gratifying Curiosity": Jharkhand High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging E-Pass Requirement Amid Lockdown [Rajan Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand]

A Bench of Chief Justice Dr Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad dismissed a PIL challenging the requirement of E-Pass during Lockdown. It remarked: "Public interest litigation does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."

It also observed that due to acute surge in COVID-19, if in such situation certain restrictions have been imposed by the State of Jharkhand by reviewing the same from time to time, the same cannot be said to be unreasonable and arbitrary.

Also Read: Specify Steps To Be Taken To Combat COVID Surge In Case It Affects Kids: Jharkhand High Court To Govt

Karnataka High Court

1. Why No Single FIR Registered For COVID Norms Violation During Amit Shah's Rally? Karnataka High Court Pulls Up Police

A division bench comprising Chief Justice AS Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj pulled up the Police Commissioner of Belagavi for not registering even a single FIR over the violation of COVID protocols of wearing masks and maintaining social distancing during a rally led by Union Home Minister Amit Shah at Belagavi on January 17.

Earlier, on March 12, the High Court had prima facie held that there was violation of the rules regarding wearing of masks and social distancing in the rally. The Court had then directed the Police Commissioner to explain the action taken against violators. It expressed unhappiness over the affidavit filed by the Police Commissioner.

"Perusal of the said affidavit shows complete ignorance on part of commissioner of regulations laid down under the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020", the bench observed. It added "Perhaps the commissioner was unaware about the provisions of said regulation made under the of Act of 2020. The affidavit of commissioner shows that not a single FIR was registered against violators."

Also Read: Did Chief Minister's Son Travel To Mysore District For Temple Puja During Lockdown? Karnataka High Court Asks State

2. 'Criminal Contempt A Reasonable Restriction On Free Speech' : Centre Defends Section 2(c)(i) of Contempt Of Courts Act Before Karnataka High Court

The offence of "criminal contempt for scandalizing the authority of the court" under Section 2 (c) (i) of the Contempt of Courts Act does not restrict freedom of speech, the Central government has said in its statement of objections filed before the Karnataka High Court. The said statement is filed in response to a writ petition filed by journalists Krishna Prasad and N. Ram, former Union Minister Arun Shourie and Advocate Prashant Bhushan, challenging the constitutional validity of the offence of criminal contempt on the ground of scandalizing the authority of court.

The affidavit also states that the reasonable restrictions imposed under Article 19 (2) cannot be cast in stone or fitted into rigid moulds. They are flexible and turn on the facts and circumstances of each case. The words scandalise or tends to scandalise, lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court cannot be examined in isolation.

Section 2(c)(i) defines criminal contempt as publication or doing of any act that "scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court". The petitioners have challenged the provision on the ground that it violates Article 19 and 14 of the Constitution, as "incurably vague and manifestly arbitrary".

3. 'Clear That Police Helped Culprit' : Karnataka High Court Cancels Bail Granted To Rape-Accused Cop [Deepika v. State of Karnataka]

Observing that "this is a classic example of how the police allow the accused person, who commits the heinous offence to go scot-free, instead of arresting him when he himself was available in the police station," a single bench of Justice HP Sandesh directed the police to arrest Vishwanth Biradar, a police sub inspector accused of rape.

While quashing the order dated December 19, 2020 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, the High Court said "The act of the police officials is nothing but allowing a person, that too, a police officer, who has committed a serious offence of sexual harassment to go scot-free. Except registering the case against the accused, the officers of the Police Department helped the accused to escape from the clutches of law. It is very clear that the police officials have helped a person, who is a culprit."

Other developments:

• 'Not In Public Interest' : Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea To Stop COVID Vaccination Drive With Rs 50,000 Costs
• Take Immediate Action Against Errant E-commerce Dealers Selling Non-Essentials : Bombay High Court To State
• Decide Minimum Quantity Of Oxygen Buffer Needed For Each District, Karnataka HC Directs State
• More Chances Of Getting Vaccine From Private Hospitals? Karnataka HC Questions Vaccine Allocation
• Estimates 400 Patients To Be Affected With Mucormycosis(Black Fungus) Every Week, Karnataka Govt Tells High Court

Kerala High Court

1. 'State Has To Treat All Notified Minorities Equally' : Kerala High Court Quashes Scheme Allotting 80% Minority Scholarships To Muslims [Justine Pallivathukal v. State of Kerala & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly quashed orders of the Kerala Government announcing scholarships to Muslim students and Latin Catholic/Converted Christians in the ratio 80:20. It directed the State to provide merit-cum-means scholarships to members of notified minority communities equally.

With this, the Court allowed a petition filed by lawyer Justine Pallivathukal. The petition alleged that the State Government was giving undue preference to the Muslim Community over the members of other minority communities in the state.

2. Forging RTPCR Test Reports: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Lab-Owner Citing Covid Surge [Sunil Sadath v. State Of Kerala]

A Single Bench of Justice Ashok Menon was faced with the anticipatory bail application by the owner of one Arma Lab and Health that allegedly forged RT-PCR Covid Reports to patients. Allowing bail to the applicant citing the Covid situation, the Court however noted that the material collected by the investigating officer indicated the complicity of the applicant.

"The materials collected so for by the investigating officer do indicate the complicity of the applicant. The accusation is also grave and affects the public health. But taking note of the present pandemic situation, and the need to de-congest the prisons, I find that the applicant need not be subjected to custodial interrogation."

Also Read: "Now You Have Excess Money From RBI? Why Don't You Give Vaccine Free, At Least For Poor?" Kerala High Court Suggests To Centre

Also Read: Kerala High Court Asks State Government To Consider Including Subordinate Court And High Court Staff and Registry In Vaccine Priority

3. Kerala High Court Declines To Stay Implementation Of The Draft Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation 2021

A Division Bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and MR Anitha declined to stay the operation of the Draft Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation 2021 (LDAR), allowing the Lakshadweep Administration two weeks to respond to a public interest litigation assailing the Regulation.

It took up a petition moved by Congress Politician KP Noushad Ali, which challenged the LDAR and the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act (PASA) introduced on the island of Lakshadweep. At the hearing today, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj sought time to respond on behalf of the Union Territory Administration and other respondents. Allowing two weeks to the respondents, the Court also declined to stay the implementation of the Regulation.

The Counsel for the petitioner Advocate Anoop Nair prayed that the Administration not be allowed to implement anything in the meantime. "Nothing doing...(it's a) policy matter", Justice Vinod Chandran replied.

Also Read: Kerala High Court Stays Lakshadweep Order Directing Assistant Public Prosecutor To Do Legal Work At Secretariat

Madhya Pradesh High Court

1. Can't Subject A Citizen Not Wearing Mask/Following Lockdown Norms To Corporal Punishment: MP High Court Orders Action Against Policemen [Osheen Sharma & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan reiterated its earlier direction that no citizen who is found not wearing mask or not following social distancing norms or not following lockdown conditions should be subjected to corporal punishment or beating. It observed thus while directing the Superintendent of Police, Indore to take appropriate action against the erring police officials on complaints of excesses and beating by police.

2. Reconsider Vaccination Policy's Efficacy, Consider Procuring Vaccine Doses From Outside India Rather Than Asking States To Do So: MP High Court To Centre [In Reference (Suo Motu) v. Union of India & Ors.]

Noting that Madhya Pradesh has not received even half of the promised quantity of the vaccination doses for the month of May 2021, a Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan asked the Central Government: "To take upon itself the responsibility of providing required number of vaccination doses to the State by setting up more and more units in all the States with required licence from the local manufacturers, to ramp up the production of the vaccination on war footing."

It also asked the Central Government to itself consider procuring the vaccination doses in sufficient quantity from the manufacturers from outside the country to provide the same to the States, rather than leaving it upon the States to do so.

Madras High Court

1. Hills & Hillocks Cannot Be Given For Mining Unless There Is Supervening Public Interest : Madras High Court [K. Santhanam v. District Collector, Virudhunagar & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan criticized the practice of mechanically issuing licenses for mining of hillocks, without assessing the impact it may have on the public and on the environment in the longer run. It held that it is not open to the Government to arbitrarily give away hills and hillocks for exploitation and it is imperative that the executive demonstrates that there is a need to subordinate the right to environment to the right to development.

"Merely because the process of issuance of mining lease was conducted in consonance with the statutory procedure, that would not confer any immunity against judicial scrutiny. Unless there are supervening public interest considerations, hills and hillocks cannot be given away for mining," the Court observed. The Judge admitted that there is no statutory prohibition against mining/quarrying of mounds rich in minerals. However, he asserted that both the Government as well as the citizens have a constitutional obligation to protect the environment and ecology under Article 48-A and Article 51-A(g).

2. Govt. Will 'Sympathetically Consider' Giving COVID Cash Relief To Transgender Persons Not Holding Ration Cards: State To Madras High Court [Grace Banu v. Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat]

The Tamil Nadu State Government submitted before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy that it will 'sympathetically consider' an extension of COVID-19 cash relief of Rs.4000/- to transgender persons in Tamil Nadu who do not possess Ration Cards.

The development comes in a PIL filed by a transgender rights activist, Grace Banu Ganeshan, highlighting that most Transgender persons in Tamil Nadu do not possess ration cards. The plea by Banu sought a direction on the State Government to extend the cash benefits to transgenders that the State Government has extended to ration card-holders.

Also Read: COVID19: Madras High Court Directs State To Indicate Plan Of Action For Vaccination Of Bed Ridden, Physically Disabled

3. COVID19- Issues Related To Unemployment & Lack Of Income Avenues Have To Be Considered By State: Madras High Court [Suo moto v. Union of India & Ors.]

Noting a fall in the rate of positive cases in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that there are citizens facing unemployment and lack of income avenues and that these aspects have to be considered by the State.

It also noted the suggestions given by the intervenor that the face of the COVID victim's dead body should be covered by some transparent material so that the relatives may have a glimpse of the face for the last time or even identify the person. The Court also noted the other suggestion, that is passes to be made available to NGOs who are providing free food to persons who are quarantined and to others who do not have ready access to food.

Also Read: Madras High Court Suggests Cap On Private Hospital Rates For COVID Treatment

4. All Correctional Homes Should Permit Interaction Between Inmates & Advocates Representing Them: Madras High Court [Suo moto v. Union of India & Ors.]

While hearing a matter pertaining to the inmates at the various correctional homes in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy directed the authorities at all correctional homes to permit interaction between advocates representing the inmates and the relevant inmates upon setting down certain parameters.

It also directed the relevant Government Departments to publish the decisions taken by the High Power Committees at the recent meetings setting down parameters for grant of parole or leave of inmates at correctional homes.

5. Distinction Has To Be Drawn Between Govt & Political Personnel Who Form Such Govt: Madras High Court Asks State To Not Use Symbol Of Ruling Party On Pongal Gifts [Devraj v. State & Ors.]

"There has always to be a distinction drawn between the government of the day and the political personnel who may form such government," a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy told the Tamil Nadu Government. It therefore asked the State to refrain from using its party symbol on the Pongal gifts being distributed by the Government.

The Bench was hearing a petition filed by one Devraj who submitted that there should not be any promotion of any political party while distributing relief, since the relief is being granted by the State of Tamil Nadu.

It observed, "At the time of relief or largesse being distributed by or on behalf of the Government, it is the Government and only the Government that ought to be projected and not the political party which forms the government. While there may be little room to object to the portrait of the Chief Minister being displayed, since the Chief Minister heads the elected government, the symbol of the ruling party should not be used at any of the distribution centres."

6. Instead Of Independently Formulating Substantial Question Of Law Arising In Appeal, Judges Often Copy Down Grounds From Pleadings: Madras High Court [M. Abubaker & Ors. v. Abdul Kareem]

A Single Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan criticized the practice of Judges copying the issues/ questions of law involved in a case from the pleadings itself, instead of undertaking the exercise on its own. It observed that this often leads to absurdity because if the counsel's formulation of questions of law is flawed and defective, the Court record also carries the same vice. "It is somewhat embarrassing," the Judge remarked.

At the same time, the Single Bench also acknowledged that the Courts are overburdened and it may not always be possible for the Judges to proof-read everything. Thus, a 'greater responsibility' lies on the counsels, farming the tentative questions of law, to discharge this duty properly after a wholesome reading and understanding of the legal principles.

7. Plaintiff Need Not Undergo 'Second Agnipariksha' In Suit For Malicious Prosecution; Defendant Must Discharge Onus Once Shifted To Him: Madras High Court [M. Abubaker & Ors. v. Abdul Kareem]

In a significant judgment pertaining 'burden of proof' in proceedings against malicious prosecution, a Single Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan held that the Plaintiff need undergo a 'second agnipariksha' and it is the defendant who must discharge the onus once it is shifted to him. It observed,

"He (plaintiff) can only depose that the allegation against him was false. A plaintiff in a suit for malicious prosecution need not demonstrate that he was innocent of the charge upon which he was tried."

The Judge observed that there is no doubt that the initial burden of proof lay only on the Plaintiff. Mere acquittal in the alleged false case by itself is not sufficient and he is obliged to prove that the prosecution was without any "reasonable and probable cause" and that it was instituted with a malicious intention and that he suffered damage. However, the plaintiff cannot be called upon to prove the negative.

8. 'Not Good For States To Rival Each Other In Race For Vaccines' : Madras HC Suggests Vaccine Allocation By Centre

Expressing concerns about the tendency of states to be rivals against each other in the "race to obtain vaccines", a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy suggested that the Centre should allocate the vaccines. It orally expressed the view that various states were facing problems in individually procuring the vaccine from manufacturers.

Stating that "it was not good for States to rival each other... in the race to obtain vaccines", the Chief Justice suggested that the vaccine allocation would have to be done by the Centre. The Court noted that the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory had managed to control the Covid-19 surge, but voiced a view that the allocation of vaccines seemed skewed.

Manipur High Court

1. Public Continues To 'Foolishly Ignore' Covid19 Protocols: Manipur High Court Seeks 'Long Term Plans' To Curb Pandemic [Naresh Maimom v. Union of India & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Kh Nobin Singh directed the State Government to indicate the steps taken by it to put in place a "long-term plan" for meeting future challenges during the Covid19 pandemic. It remarked that unless the State administration is in a state of preparedness, it would be difficult to cope with the fresh challenges that may come up in future owing to mutation of the virus coupled with "foolhardiness of the general public".

The Bench noted that citizens foolishly continue to ignore COVID protocols and the prescribed standard operating procedures despite the imposition of curfew across the State. "Effective measures have to be taken in this regard by the State duly balancing and protecting the fundamental rights of citizens," it ordered.

Patna High Court

1. Check Purported Illegality, Brutality Exhibited By The Police In Enforcing Lockdown: Patna High Court To Bihar Govt [Shivani Kaushik v. Union of India and Ors.]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar directed the Bihar Government to check the purported illegality and brutality exhibited by the police in enforcing the lockdown. It also asked the Government to develop a State Level Protocol, enabling a common person to understand the need of dealing with the virus.

2. Vacation Judge Can Grant Bail, Pass 'Interim Orders' Regarding Stay, Injunction But Can't Dispose Of Cases On Merits: Patna High Court [Prof (Dr.) Shlok Kumar Chakravarti v The State of Bihar]

A Single Bench of Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh ruled that a vacation judge cannot decide and dispose of a case, other than bail applications, on merits. "A vacation judge may grant bail in criminal matters and pass 'interim orders' only regarding stay, injunction and other reliefs in such other matters, civil or under the Constitution 'as he may consider emergent' but cannot decide and dispose of a case, other than bail applications, on merits," it held taking into account the language of Rule 4 of Chapter II of the Patna High Court Rules, 1916.

Punjab & Haryana High Court

1. 'Institutions Can't Be Permitted To Indulge In Profiteering': Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds GO Directing Private Schools In Chandigarh To Publish Balance Sheets On Their Websites [Independent Schools' Association Chandigarh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.]

A Division Bench comprising of Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash upheld an April 2018 notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs, requiring private unaided educational institutions in Chandigarh to inter alia publish their balance sheets/ income and expenditure account on their websites. It held, "if the financial statement of the private institutions is uploaded on the website of the institutes, the same will ensure in maintaining transparency and will be an aid in achieving the goal of ensuring that no Institute is indulging in profiteering and charging of capitation fee."

It also rejected the arguments set forth by the Independent Schools Association, Chandigarh and the Kabir Education Society— which had challenged the notification vide two separate writ petitions— that disclosing of the financial details on the website will amount to unwarranted invasion of privacy of schools.

2. Undue Delay In Investigation Infringes Right To Fair & Expeditious Trial Under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Observes In MP/MLA Criminal Case [Court On Its Own Motion v. State Of Punjab & Ors.]

"Undue delay in concluding an investigation is infringement to right to fair and expeditious investigation and trial which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution," a Division Bench of Justices Rajan Gupta and Karamjit Singh observed.

The remarks were made in the suo moto case for expeditious disposal of criminal cases against legislators in terms of directions passed by the Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr. The Bench has asked various Central and State agencies that are investigating these cases to apprise the Court on the next date of hearing of inordinate delay, if any, in culmination of investigation(s) pending before them.

Also Read: MP/MLA Courts Shall Grant Adjournment Only In Exceptional Cases, Record Reasons In Writing: Punjab & Haryana High Court

3. Uniform RTPCR, RAT Rates; ICU Control Rooms; Guidelines On Mucormycosis: Punjab and Haryana High Court Issues Directions [Rishi v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

A division bench comprising of Justices Rajan Gupta and Karamjit Singh issued slew of directions on the aspects concerning uniformity in rates of RAT and RTPCR in States including Punjab, Haryana and UT of Chandigarh, ICU Control Rooms, over charging of private hospitals and the need for States to examine Centre's guidelines for screening and diagnosis of Mucormycosis or black fungus.

The development came after the Court was apprised about variety of issues by amicus curiae Senior Advocate Rupinder Khosla including overcharging for CT scan, HRCT (chest), regulatory mechanism for rates to be charged by various laboratories, spread of black fungus and the corporate response sought by the Court under CSR on previous occasion.

4. Can Court Grant Protection To Two Persons Living Together Without Examining Their Marital Status?: P&H High Court Refers Matter To Larger Bench [Yash Pal & Anr. v. State Of Haryana & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal referred to a larger bench, the question as to whether the Court is required to grant protection to two persons living together, without examining their marital status and the other circumstances of that case? It also added, If the answer to the above is in the negative, what are the circumstances in which the Court can deny them protection?

The Court referred the matter to a larger bench on the view of the fact that various benches of the Court, of co-ordinate strength, have formed different opinions on the matter concerned, which, according to the court, cannot be easily reconciled.

Also Read: Working Mechanism Proposed For Assessing Threat Perception & Offering Protection To Runaway Couples In 72 Hours: Punjab Govt Tells High Court

5. Rape Charges Against Cop- "Protector Of Law Turned Into Predator, Widow Made Victim Of Lust": P&H High Court Orders All-Women SIT

A Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga ordered the DCP of Punjab Police to form a three-member all-women SIT (Special Investigation Team) to probe into the rape allegations leveled by a 38-year-old woman against a policeman of the CIA (Crime Investigation Agency) Bathinda.

It dissolved an already constituted SIT noting that it had no lady police official and formed a new three-member all-women SIT while observing: "It is rather intriguing, given the nature of the sensitive investigation, that no lady police official has been involved, which is even otherwise the requirement of law in cases of this kind. To say the least, it is highly deplorable to see the insensitiveness with which the district police officials have acted, in constituting the SIT having all male members."

Rajasthan High Court

1. Specify Steps Taken For Vaccinating Pakistani Minority Migrants, Provide Them Ration Immediately: Rajasthan High Court To Govt. [Suo Moto v. Union Of India & Anr.]

Stressing that it is the duty of the State to provide ration to every person residing in the State, a Division Bench of Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Rameshwar Vyas directed the State Government to make sure that ration is made available to the Pakistani Minority Migrants residing in Jodhpur by tomorrow. It further directed the State Government to specify regarding vaccination of those persons who are not having the prescribed identity cards (including Pakistani Minority Migrants).

Also Read: "Ensure That Buildings Of Rajasthan Bar Council Shall Be Made Operational As Covid Care Centre At The Earliest For Advocates, Family Members": Rajasthan HC Directs State

Tripura High Court

1. After High Court Nudge, Tripura Government Conducts 'Extensive' COVID19 Testing At Child Care Centres, Prisons

Days after the Tripura High Court asked the State Government to ensure that that the health of inmates is not jeopardized on account of being kept confined, the Government has filed an affidavit stating that it has undertaken extensive testing of children in the Care Centers and jail inmates in the prisons.

Advocate General apprised the Division Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice S. Talapatra with the steps taken by the State administration for addressing the issue of spread of corona virus in orphanages, children care homes and jails in the State.

Uttarakhand High Court

1. 'Van Gujjars' Forced To Survive In Conditions Below Animal Existence: Uttarakhand HC Directs Govt To Provide Them Food, House, Medicines Etc [Think Act Rise Foundation v. State of Uttarakhand]

Observing that Van Gujjars families are forced to live in open tents, in an open field, under the open sky, a Bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma prima facie ruled that the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of Van Gujjars families was being violated by the respondents.

"Van Gujjars" are the largest forest-dwelling community in Uttarakhand. "Van Gujjars" have been residing in the forest areas for last more than hundred years. Noting their condition, the Court remarked, "It is, indeed, trite to state that Article 21 of the Constitution of India forbids the State from reducing the lives of its people below the animal existence. Every citizen not only has a right to live, but also has a right to live with dignity."