- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- High Courts Weekly Roundup [July 5,...
High Courts Weekly Roundup [July 5, 2021 - July 11, 2021]
Shrutika Pandey
11 July 2021 8:25 PM IST
![High Courts Weekly Roundup [July 5, 2021 - July 11, 2021]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2021/05/09/750x450_393155-high-courts-weekly-roundup.jpg "High Courts Weekly Roundup [July 5, 2021 - July 11, 2021]")
Allahabad High Court Gareeb Nawaz Masjid Demolition: Allahabad HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Mosque Committee Secretary Over 'The Wire' Report A Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari rejected the plea filed by Secretary of the Gareeb Nawaz Masjid Committee, Mohammad Anees and a local resident of Barabanki, Mohd. Naeem seeking quashing of the...
Allahabad High Court
A Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari rejected the plea filed by Secretary of the Gareeb Nawaz Masjid Committee, Mohammad Anees and a local resident of Barabanki, Mohd. Naeem seeking quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) registered against them by the Uttar Pradesh Police.
The FIR in question was registered against them & news portal, The Wire and its two journalists, who are associated with the Portal for their report on the alleged Gareeb Nawaz Mosque illegal demolition (Ramsanehighat, Barabanki) issue in Uttar Pradesh. The Court said that it would remain open for the petitioners to file a pre-arrest bail in the matter and that Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings.
A Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Vikas Srivastava dismissed a plea moved by Umar Gautam, who is accused of being part of a nationwide religious conversion racket, against the alleged leaking of sensitive/prejudicial information related to him by the Investigating Agency to the media vide a press note dated June 20, 2021. It opined that the said police communication did not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioner or provisions of any law.
The Court specifically ruled that nothing had been brought on record, which indicated that the investigating agency had leaked any allegations pertaining to the petitioner to the media pending investigation or violated the norms as prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2010 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
Dealing with a plea filed by an ex-soldier of the Indian Army alleging that he was humiliated and brutally tortured by the Uttar Pradesh Police, the High Court, after taking into account the injury reports and FIR filed by him, observed: "...prima facie, (it) shows a very sorry state of affairs and police atrocities...It, prima facie, indicates a breach of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by the accused police officers/ police personnel."
Stressing that the matter is serious and requires serious consideration of the Court, the Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Gautam Chowdhary directed the State DGP to file a counter affidavit by means of his personal affidavit, indicating the action taken in the matter.
Granting police protection to a member of Block Development Committee, who intended to contest the election of Block Pramukh and who was allegedly being prevented by the local district and police administration from filing his nomination papers, the High Court remarked: "Any attempt from any corner including State authorities or district administration to damage the system of the free and fair poll is not conducive to the democratic functioning of the State."
The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I also stressed that free and fair elections to democratic institutions of the country is one of the basic features of our Constitution.
The Court called for an explanation from Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, and the Superintendent of Police, Kasganj as to why a woman, harassed by her husband and thrown out of her matrimonial house was being forced by the police to go back to her husband.
The Bench of Justice JJ Munir noted: "The petitioner prima facie is a deserted woman, who has nowhere to go and is now facing harassment at the hands of the respondents, including the police to go back to her husband where she may become a victim of matrimonial cruelty, and maybe, face danger to her life."
Noting that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances are yet to be established during the trial, the High Court granted Bail to a Security guard who has been accused of killing an Ex BSP MLA, Haji Aleem allegedly on the instructions of the son of the deceased.
The Bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava remarked: "The case against the accused applicant is totally based on the circumstantial evidence that he was sleeping in the same room with the deceased. This fact does not appear to be supported by any believable evidence or eyewitness account.
A division bench comprising of Justice Deepak Verma and Justice Sunita Agarwal held that the activity of running hostel by a charitable institution engaged in the business of imparting education is not a seperate business activity and as such the surplus income cannot be treated as profit or gains arising out of a seperate business or commercial activity.
It observed, "Having held that the activity of running the hostel is not a separate business activity and surplus income from the hostel fee cannot be treated as profit and gains of a separate business or commercial activity of the trust, it is held that the exemption under Section 11(1) of the Act cannot be disallowed to the assessee."
While denying bail to a man for participating in the 'brazen act of honour killing' of his sister, the High Court observed that there is no place for those citizens in the society who go to the extent of eliminating a family member for choosing a life partner of his/her choice.
"In the opinion of this Court, prima facie if these allegations were to be established at the trial, there is no place for citizens in our society who act in derogation of the much cherished constitutional values of individual liberty, and, instead, repose faith in archaic social values of family honour to an extent that they would go to eliminate a family member choosing a life partner for herself," the Court observed.
Expressing its displeasure over the non-availability of Judgeship at the Aligarh District Court to hear the matters, the High Court entertained a bail plea filed by an applicant who approached the High Court in the first instance.
Noting that the Bail plea could not be filed before the lower court in Aligarh District as it was closed due to COVID, the Bench of Non-Availability remarked that however adverse the circumstances, the doors of justice ought not to become totally inaccessible.
The Court refused to pass a protection order in favor of a woman/girl (claiming to have married a Hindu Man) noting that she did not produce any documentary evidence showing that she belongs to the Muslim religion and that she now wanted to adopt the Hindu religion.
Observing that the petition does not even show that the Couple is major, the Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker further noted that there was no sign that the parties wanted to have a marital life.
The Court observed that there could be no justification for Police in abusing, misbehaving, and assaulting the family members and outraging the modesty of the woman during a raid.
The Bench of Justice Abdul Moin observed thus in a case, wherein it was alleged by a man (Shujaat Ullah) seeking pre-arrest bail that the police personnel had abused, misbehaved, and assaulted the family member of the applicant with intent to outrage the modesty of the applicant's wife and had also destroyed the household articles.
Other developments:
- VC Hearing: Lawyer Tries To Dress Up As Order Being Dictated, Allahabad High Court Calls The Act 'Unacceptable'
- Act Against 'Hardened Criminals' Who Cheat In Name Of Lucky Draw, Reward & Loan: Allahabad HC Asks DGP To Issue Circular
- VC Hearing: 'Discourteous & Shocking': Allahabad High Court Reprimands Lawyer Who Appeared With A Person Without Shirt
Bombay High Court
Octogenarian tribal rights activist Father Stan Swamy, an undertrial prisoner in the Bhima Koregaon case, passed away today at 1.30 PM, a month after he was admitted to a private hospital in Mumbai, following court's orders. This fact was told by Swamy's counsel to the Bombay High Court, which was hearing his application for bail on medical grounds.
The Jesuit priest spent the last eight months before his hospital admission in Taloja Central prison, where his condition progressively deteriorated. He is the last political dissenter to be arrested by the National Investigation Agency under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in the Bhima Koregaon- Elgar Parishad Case, on October 8, 2020.
Justice GS Patel observed that the right to carry on a competing business does not and cannot extend to the illicit use of another party's confidential information and data. The observation came while dealing with an arbitration petition wherein some confidential and proprietary information was provided by an erstwhile employee to other company.
Who Are The "Unknown Others" In FIR Against Anil Deshmukh? Bombay High Court Asks CBI
The Court observed that the CBI is duty-bound to investigate not just the former state Home Minister Anil Deshmukh but also the others who may be involved, including the Suspension Review Committee that had reinstated dismissed Assistant Police Inspector Sachin Waze.
"Pursuant to the directions of this court, the Preliminary Enquiry was initiated, and CBI's FIR was registered. So it would not apply qua only the petitioner (Anil Deshmukh) but it would be the duty of the CBI to investigate properly in respect of whatever allegations are there in the FIR. And even those who are others who are involved in transfers and all that, including the committee that inducted Mr Waze, and reinstated him after 15 years," a division bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar observed while hearing Deshmukh's petition.
Also Read: Anil Deshmukh Case : Also Probe Committee Which Reinstated Sachin Waze, Bombay High Court To CBI
Refusal Of Child's Custody To Mother On Unfounded Allegations Of Adultery Illegal: Bombay High Court
The Court has held that unfounded allegations of adultery against a woman cannot be a ground for denying her the custody of her children. It further held that allegations of adultery cannot be proved by way of an affidavit and it is important that the Trial Court allows the parties to lead full-evidence, before deciding the question of custody on that ground.
"This is totally illegal. When the full-fledged evidence was not led, the Court had not conclude that the allegations of adultery are proved, merely, because some documents have been produced, it cannot be taken as supporting evidence and then a conclusion can be drawn that wife/mother is not entitled to get custody. It will have to be held that at this stage, in this matter, allegations of adultery are not proved by the husband," Justice VV Kankanwadi observed.
The High Court has asked the Maharashtra Government why was it taking so long to fill up vacancies in the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission while hearing a PIL that claims 50% of the posts are vacant.
The PIL seeking to fill up the vacancies states that of the 51 posts available, 25 are vacant, and the Commission has been left entirely non-functional after the acting chairperson, the only adjudicatory member, retired on April 27, 2021.
The Nagpur Bench has observed that the act of a maintenance agency, stopping Police access to CCTV cameras that are installed in public places for monitoring criminal activities, interferes in performance of public duty and is prima facie questionable in law.
A division bench comprising of Justices Anil S Kilor and Sunil B Shukre therefore asked the State of Maharashtra and Larsen and Tourbo (maintenance agency in this case) to settle their contractual disputes amicably with regard to payment of dues for CCTV maintenance, within 15 days and resume the monitoring set up.
Bombay High Court Issues Notice On PIL Alleging Privacy Breach By True Caller App
A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G S Kulkarni issued notices to the Union and Maharashtra Government, among others, in a PIL against the Truecaller International LLP alleging its operation of shared data is 'illegal' and a 'breach of privacy.'
The petitioner submitted that the True Caller App collects data of users. It shares such data with some of its partners without the consent of users, and then dumps the liability on the user, he said.
Other developments:
- Bombay High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Decision To Divest SLSA, DLSA From Awarding Compensation Under Goa Victim Compensation Scheme
- Bombay High Court Asks Civil Aviation Ministry To Consider Finalising Policy To Name Airports
- Bombay High Court Further Extends Life of All Interim Orders Till August 13
Calcutta High Court
Justice Kausik Chanda recused from hearing West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's challenge to Nandigram election results, where she was defeated by BJP's Suvendu Adhikary in the 2021 Assembly Polls. But he has imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakhs on Mamata Banerjee for the manner in which the application seeking recusal was moved.
In the order pronounced today morning, Justice Chanda said that every person has political inclinations and it was preposterous to think that a judge will not be able to do his duty without a sense of detachment.
The High Court quashed a 'no confidence' motion initiated against Pabitra Kar, President of Boyal-I, Gram Panchayat in the District of Purba Medinipur by the majority of the Panchayat members.
Pursuant to the motion of 'no confidence, the Prescribed Authority and the Block Development Officer in the exercise of powers conferred under Rule 5B of the West Bengal Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1975 had issued a notice dated May 21, 2021, for conveying a meeting on June 7, 2021, at the Panchayat office. This notice was under challenge in the instant petition.
The Court reiterated that in matters of custody, welfare of child must be of utmost consideration. Accordingly, it upheld removal of a child from his mother's custody on the basis of the child's hand-written letter regarding neglect and ill-treatment.
Justice Shivakant Prasad opined that the welfare of a minor would triumph all other considerations by observing,
"Thus, it is well-settled law in the matter of custody of the child that the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child and not right of the parents."
The Court dismissed the plea of Gour Chandra Mandal, President of the Malda Zilla Parishad to withhold a meeting scheduled for July 8 to discuss a no-confidence motion against him. The notice of no confidence was served to Mandal by 23 members of the 38 strong district council.
Justice Shampa Sarkar while dismissing the plea observed, "an institution (read as "Zilla Parishad") must run on democratic principles and all persons heading such public bodies could continue to hold office provided they enjoyed the confidence of the persons who comprise such bodies. This is the essence of the democratic republicanism"
Other developments:
- Calcutta High Court To Decide On Permitting Schools To Expel Students For Fees Defualt Without Good Cause
- Calcutta High Court Lifts Stay On Teacher Recruitment Process For Upper Primary Schools, Issues Directions To Expedite Process
- Authorities Have Woken Up': Calcutta High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking CBI Probe In Fake Vaccination Camp Case
Delhi High Court
'Respond On Compliance With IT Rules Or You're In Trouble': Delhi High Court Warns Twitter
Lashing out at social media giant Twitter Inc for non-compliance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, a single judge bench of Justice Rekha Palli of the Delhi High Court today said it was not going to give Twitter any protection from consequences of non-compliance, and granted Twitter time as sought for, to get back on the issue.
Justice Palli said, "Come up with clear response or you will be in trouble." She added, "I am not giving them any protection. I have already made it clear that they have to comply."
Opposing the writ petition filed by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde before the Delhi High Court seeking restoration of his suspended Twitter account, the US based social media giant has claimed that it is not discharging a public function and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction in India under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Hegde has invoked the High Court's writ jurisdiction, saying that (i) Twitter imparts a public function; and (ii) nature of activities undertaken by Twitter is in furtherance of a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a).
The company on the other hand claims that for any activity to be classified as a 'public duty', it is necessary that a positive obligation is cast to discharge that duty. It is Twitter's case that its services are subject to certain contractual terms and conditions, which any user has to agree upon for availing the services on the platform. It is alleged that since Hegde failed to comply with such obligations, his user account was suspended. The company has also claimed that it does not qualify the 'test of affinity with sovereign functions' and for this reason too, it can be said that it does not discharge a public function.
The High Court lashed out at RTI activist Saket Gokhale for allegedly defamatory tweets against the former Indian Assistant Secretary General at the UN, Lakshmi Puri, noting that Gokhale of his own admission had not approached any authorities before putting out the tweets.
The tweets in question allegedly not only raised queries about Puri and her husband's sources of income, they also referred to her as a "thief" and a "black money hoarder".
Remarking that the right to reputation is a protected fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the court said that while it was not in the least questioning Gokhale or any citizen's right to public comment on a public servant or retired public servant's sources of income, the law did not permit any person aggrieved by a retired public servant's or officer's declaration of assets to publish allegations without seeking any clarification from the person or approaching the authorities.
Press Trust Of India Moves Delhi High Court Challenging IT Rules 2021, Notice Issued
The Court issued a notice to the Central Government on a plea moved by Press Trust Of India (PTI), challenging the constitutional validity of Part III of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
"The Impugned Rules usher in an era of surveillance and fear, thereby resulting in self-censorship, which results in abridgment/violation of Fundamental Rights as enshrined under Part III of the Constitution of India," the plea by PTI submits.
The bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice J.R. Midha issued notices to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting on the petition.
Also Read: IT Rules: Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Relief To The Wire And The Quint
WhatsApp has informed the High Court that it's privacy policy will not be enforced till the time the Data Protection Bill comes out and that it will need to fit in the law in such a situation.
The division bench comprising of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh was hearing an appeal by WhatsApp and its parent company Facebook Inc against a single bench order declining to interfere with CCI's investigation.
Justice Rekha Palli dismissed the plea filed by MP of Lok Janshakti Party Chirag Paswan, challenging the decision of the Lok Sabha Speaker recognizing Pashupati Paras as the party floor leader. Paswan had sought inclusion of his name in the place. The Court dismissed the petition after finding no merits in the averments raised by the petitioners. The Court also noted that the petitioners were in fact 'trying to settle their scores' by way of filing the present plea.
"The right to decide the internal disputes of the House rests with the Speaker," the Court observed while dismissing the petition. The plea stated that the change in leader of Lok Sabha is the 'prerogative of the party' which in the present case is the LJP. Stating that the action of the Secretary General of Lok Sabha is contrary to Rules of the House and the principles of natural justice, it has been stated that nobody was either or called about the action.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, (MeITY) Government of India has informed the High Court in an affidavit that the Safe Harbour Immunity under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) is no longer available to Twitter, as it hasn't "fully" complied with the IT Rules, 2021.
Section 79 of IT Act states, "an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him," therefore providing Safe Harbour protection. This implies that intermediaries such as Twitter or Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are not liable to punishment if third parties (users) misuse the infrastructure, in this case, the platform.
Also Read: Striving To Comply; Reserves Right To Challenge IT Rules : Twitter To Delhi High Court
In a recent ruling of the High Court, laying down detailed guidelines to be followed while declaring a person as a Proclaimed Offender, the Delhi Police & CBI have also been directed to obtain the social media details of such people (Proclaimed Offenders) at the time of their arrest or soon thereafter.
"At the time of arrest or soon thereafter, the police shall collect the photograph, mobile and landline number, email ID, all Social Networking accounts like Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter and IT Communication tools and copies of at least two documents namely Aadhar Card, Passport, PAN Card, Bank Account, Credit card, Ration card, Electricity bill, Landline telephone bill, Voter I.D. Card, Driving Licence from the accused," Justice JR Midha said in a 185-page judgment.
The Court has granted interim injunction to 'Tatacliq' E-commerce platform of Tata Group against website 'Tatacliqsmart' for having a similar domain name thereby alleging infringement of its trademark and copyright. A single judge bench comprising of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:
"This Court tried to open the website www.tatacliqsmart.com and found that the website cannot be opened, however, the screenshots produced by the plaintiffs shows that the website is being used for online sale of several products including products of plaintiff No.1."
Staying the transfer of an HIV Positive Border Security Force (BSF) Jawan, the Court disapproved the insistence of the BSF that he joins duty at his new place of posting in his precarious medical condition.
The Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Subramonium Prasad specifically observed thus: "Justice, it is well settled, has to be tempered with mercy and compassion. Justice to which mercy is alien is no justice at all."
A single-judge bench of Justice Mukta Gupta of the High Court bench issued notice on M/s PPK NewsClick Studio Pvt Ltd and its founder Prabir Purkayastha's petition seeking quashing of an ECIR against them in a money laundering case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The court has also directed for interim protection to Purkayastha to continue and for him to be given a copy of the ECIR.
In light of the protection, no coercive action may be taken against the portal until the next date of hearing.
The Delhi Bar Council has temporarily suspended the license of an Advocate for allegedly using his chambers premises for the purpose of performing conversion of religion and Nikaah marriages. Observing that the aforesaid "illegal and anti social activities" negates the dignity of the legal profession, the Bar Council of Delhi has suspended Advocate Iqbal Malik's license as an interim measure until the finding of the Disciplinary Committee.
The development came in a complaint filed by a man alleging that his daughter was forcefully converted as a Muslim and was thereafter married in his chamber in Karkardooma Court, which was shown as a Mosque in the documents
The High Court disposed of a plea filed by Delhi Liquor Traders' Association seeking directions to make public Delhi Government's new excise policy for the year 2021-22, which got approval in the month of June this year.
The direction was made by Justice Rekha Palli while taking on record the submissions made by Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi (appearing for the Delhi Government) that the notification and requisite documents relating to the policy will be uploaded on Delhi Govt's website today itself.
FMGE 2020 : Delhi High Court Awards One Extra Mark To Candidates For Incorrect Question
A single judge bench of Justice Prateek Jalan of the Delhi High Court has ordered for 1 extra mark to be granted to candidates of the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE), December 2020, in light of an incorrect question in the paper.
The bench has directed that all candidates who answered the question incorrectly, should be awarded one extra mark, and also held that all those candidates who have scored 150 or above should be deemed to have qualified the exam.
Observing that the hope expressed under Article 44 of the Constitution should not remain a 'mere hope', the High Court on Wednesday expressed the need for having a Uniform Civil Code after noting that the Indian society is gradually becoming homogenous while the traditional barriers are slowly disappearing.
Justice Pratibha M Singh observed, "In modern Indian society which is gradually becoming homogenous, the traditional barriers of religion, community and caste are slowly dissipating. The youth of India belonging to various communities, tribes, castes or religions who solemnise their marriages ought not to be forced to struggle with issues arising due to conflicts in various personal laws, especially in relation to marriage and divorce."
Delhi High Court Establishes Intellectual Property Division To Deal With Intellectual Property Cases
The Court established the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) to deal with all matters related to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). The IP deals with original proceedings, Writ Petitions (Civil), CMM, RFA, FAO on Intellectual Property Rights disputes, except those required to be dealt with by the Division Bench. "This has been done in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to avoid possibility of conflicting decisions with respect to matters relating to the same trademarks, patents, design etc.," the Press Note reads.
The IDPs have been constituted based on the committee's recommendations constituted by Chief Justice D.N.Patel and composed of Hon'ble Ms. Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula. The committee was constituted to streamline and comprehensively review how a large quantum of IPR cases should be dealt with; they have submitted their report on IPR and non-IPR subjects.
The High Court came down heavily on the North Delhi Municipal Corporation for non-payment of salaries and pensions to its employees after observing that the cries of the employees have "fallen on deaf ears" of the corporators.
Observing that the corporation should become independent and a self-sustaining economic model, a division bench comprising of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh issued a slew of directions to the NDMC as well as the Delhi Government for taking steps to augment the payment of salaries and pensions
The Court asked the Member Secretary of Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to suggest steps in order to streamline the system of preparing victim impact report, used for assessing compensation and also for determining the financial capability of the accused persons.
Justice Mukta Gupta requested the Member Secretary to file a report before the next date of hearing while posting the matter for July 29.
The Court dismissed the plea filed by Delhi riots accused Gulfisha Fatima seeking her release after observing that the Court cannot decide the validity of a remand order in a habeas corpus petition. A division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed the plea after hearing Advocate Jatin Bhatt and Additional Standing Counsel Amit Mahajan appearing for the State.
- Convict Not Entitled To Remission While Undergoing Sentence In Default Of Payment Of Fine Delhi High Court
- 'Bound By Supreme Court Observations About Prima Facie Case' : Delhi High Court On Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali's Bail Plea
- Delhi High Court Extends Interim Protection Of UP Woman Who Converted To Islam Till July 22
- Occurrence Of Cause Of Action Is A Determining Factor For Attracting Jurisdiction Of Courts Under CPC, Trademarks Act: Delhi High Court Reiterates
- Delhi High Court Seeks GNCTD Response On Plea Challenging 20-Lakh Cap For Non-PDS Beneficiaries
- Would Be Burdening Indian Air Force With Overweight Airman Who Would Be Unfit To Do Duties": Delhi HC Rejects Plea Of Candidate Found Medically Unfit By 2 KGs
- Delhi High Court Allows Early Hearing Appeal Of Plea For CBSE Class X Boards' Evaluation Scheme's Modification
- Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Alleging Inordinate Delay In Issuing Guidelines For Opening Up Spa Centres In National Capital
- [Covid-19] 'Moment There Is Shortage, Every State Will Want It': Delhi High Court Seeks Response On Availability Of Amphotericin B, Oxygen Buffer Stock
- Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Recognition To Same-Sex Marriages In Citizenship Act, Special Marriage Act & Foreign Marriage Act
- Delhi High Court Seeks Hospital's Response On Joining Of Two Youngsters Who Were Directed To Do Community Service In Order To 'Sober' Them Down
- 'Problem Seems To Be Endemic': Delhi High Court Reprimands Delhi Govt For Failure To Pay Government Counsels' Fees, Recommends Centralised Scheme
Gujarat High Court
The Court stayed an externment order passed by the Gujarat Government wherein a widow lady was externed for a period of six months from the District of Bharuch, over offences of bootlegging liquor. On the basis of the stakes involved in the matter, the Bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay asked the State Government as to how State visualizes the lady to earn her livelihood, from being away from her home for six months.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Justice Sanjeev Kumar held that not standing up for National Anthem or singing it may amount to disrespect and failure to adhere to the fundamental duties as enshrined in the Constitution, however, the same is not an offence under the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971.
The Court quashed an FIR against a college Lecturer for allegedly showing disrespect to the National Anthem in the function conducted on 29th September 2018 for celebrating surgical strike conducted by the Indian Army.
A Bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Dhar asked the Union Territory Administration to explore the possibility of having a uniform legislation governing the places of worship. It also sought a report from Deputy Commissioner Baramulla as to whether any land of the temple has been encroached upon and is in unauthorized possession of any third party.
The Court was hearing a plea filed with regard to the management and preservation of the property of a temple in terms of provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997.
Karnataka High Court
The State Government informed the High Court that it has decided that all repeater students including those private candidates who had failed in the last year's II PUC Examination will be promoted by awarding passing marks and grace marks.
A division bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Hanchate Sanjeekumar was also informed that for fresh candidates, who the state government has decided to promote without them appearing for examination due to covid-19 situation, will be assessed in terms of 45 percent marks each on the basis of their performance in SSLC examination and I PUC exams and 10 percent marks will be in terms of II PUC internal assessment.
The Court directed the State Government to provide electricity supply and fans to all Anganwadi centers in need of them across the State and construct toilets in centers which are operating within government buildings. The direction has to be complied with by end of this year.
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "We direct the State government to ensure that all 14,948 angwadi centers in the state without electricity are provided with electricity supply by December 31, 2021. We direct the state government to ensure that 18,984 centers which are not provided even with fans shall be provided fans by Dec 31, 2021. In the case of 3524 centers which are in government buildings, we direct that construction of toilets shall commence and be completed by the end of Dec 31, 2021. For constructing toilets in the rest of the centers we grant time to the state till June 30, 2022."
The Court directed the State Government to take prompt steps to fill in all vacant posts of Public Prosecutors in the state, whether by regular recruitment or on contract basis (if permissible in law).
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted, "Non-availability of public prosecutors has a direct nexus with the administration of the criminal justice system in the state. Apart from the fact that delay in conducting trial defeats the fundamental rights of accused, lack of availability of adequate number of public prosecutors is one of the several causes for increase in pendency of case."
Justice G Narender posed several questions to the UP Police for insisting on appearance of Twitter India's Managing Director Manish Maheshwari for investigation in the FIR related to Ghaziabad video, without ascertaining the basic facts about his and Twitter India's culpability in the matter. The Court noted that crux of the matter is that a doctored video was uploaded on Twitter platform, however, Twitter India may not be connected with the alleged incident. "Whether Twitter India is capable of controlling the content?" the Judge specifically asked.
"What is the allegation against Twitter India? There must be substance to say that Twitter India is capable of removing it? How does the complainant connect Twitter India. Don't bring in IT Rules now. IT Rules will not come here," the Judge lashed out at UP Police's counsel asking him not to mix up Twitter India and Twitter INC.
Also Read: Unhappy Over Reports On Twitter Case Hearing, Karnataka High Court Cautions Media
Other developments:
- Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Announces Launch Of Telegram Channel For Providing Info On Cause Lists, Case Status Etc
- 'Draft Bill On Online Betting & Gambling Ready': Karnataka Government Tells High Court
- 'Students' Lives At Risk' : Plea In High Court To Cancel Karnataka SSLC Examinations
- Chamarajanagar Oxygen Shortage Deaths: After High Court Nudge, Karnataka Govt Decides To Enhance Compensation By Rs. 2 Lakh
Kerala High Court
The Court established that the notary public of India was authorised to attest to the affidavits of foreign nationals in matrimonial matters, thereby directing the Marriage Officer to accept the notarized affidavit of a foreign woman and consequently register her marriage with the petitioner.
Justice P.B Suresh Kumar while allowing the petition, held that "the purpose of attestation is only to ensure that the signature in the document is one put by the person who purported to have put the signature in the document."
The High Court has held that the display of the name of the court by state law officers and central government counsel in the name-boards of their motor vehicles was contrary to the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held so while issuing a slew of directions to regulate the unauthorized display of the official State emblems and unauthorized use of name boards on motor vehicles.
Justice Anil K. Narendran while hearing a plea concerning compliance with motor vehicle rules, ordered the Transport Commissioner to file a report regarding the action taken in pursuance of the directions issued in this regard, in an earlier judgment dated 28.10.2019. The matter has been posted on 7th July 202.
The Court directed all Government Pleaders to remove their designations from the number plates of their vehicles within one week. Justice Anil K Narendran while issuing this direction stated, the law is applicable to all, and expected strict compliance thereof.
The Court had earlier issued directions to the effect that law officers and central government should not display the name of the court in the name-boards of their vehicles or exhibit their designation in the number-plates of their vehicles. The Court observed that such display of name of court and designation by government lawyers was against the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The applicant was accused of causing irregularities in the construction of a flyover at Palarivattom and has been in custody for the past seven months.
He has presently approached the High Court seeking the deletion of a particular bail condition that was imposed upon him, restraining him from leaving the jurisdictional limits of the Ernakulam district.
The Indian Union Muslim League leader justified his request citing the extreme hardships he was subjected to due to this restriction, owing to the medical conditions he is suffering from.
The Court sought an explanation from the State regarding its failure to ensure compliance with COVID protocols outside state-run Beverages Corporation's liquor stores, citing overcrowding at various places. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly observed that although periodical orders were issued by the Centre and State regarding COVID protocol guidelines, 'they do not seem to be observed in letter and spirit at some places, particularly liquor shops'.
This comes after two PILs were filed seeking action from the State to prevent overcrowding outside liquor stores amidst the pandemic. One of these was filed by a lawyer, Advocate K Vijayan and the second was initiated by the Court suo moto based on a letter by one of its judges addressing the same issue.
The Court directed a special team of CBI to conduct further investigation into the murder of the National Development Front (NDF) activist Mohammed Fazal in 2006. Justice Ashok Menon found that the murder appeared to be heavily influenced by political ploys, with new developments arising a decade after the incident. In 2016,
The petitioner P.K Abdul Sathar is the brother of the deceased and had approached the Court seeking a further probe into the matter to proceed against the real culprits behind his brother's murder. Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared for the petitioner.
A writ petition has been filed challenging the order releasing the convicts in the Sister Abhaya murder case on parole, alleging that such a move was illegal.
The petitioner Jomon Puthenpurackal is a Human Rights Activist and was a prosecution witness in the case before the Additional Sessions Court. Advocate Pirappancode V S Sudheer will be representing the petitioner.
Regulate Crowdfunding In Private Accounts For Charity : Kerala High Court
The High Court during a hearing directed the State to supervise the process of crowdfunding in the State and urged that some sort of government control be placed on the process to ensure its reliability.
Justice PB Suresh Kumar while hearing the matter commented as follows: "The court does not want to interdict the crowdfunding process, but the funds should go to the government rather than into the account of private individuals who may or may not give it to those who require the money."
The Court directed the State Government to expedite the process initiated to fix the transportation cost of Liquid Medical Oxygen and Oxygen Inhalation in cylinders.
Justice PB Suresh Kumar while hearing a matter further directed the State to devise a mechanism in the meanwhile to ensure compliance with the order of the Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers fixing the price for medical oxygen.
Other developments:
- 'Saddened & Dismayed', Kerala High Court On Media Reports In Habeas Corpus Case Suggesting Woman & Child Were In Custody Of Extremist Bodies
- 'Third Wave May Not Be Far Away If The Situation Continues': Kerala High Court Comments On Overcrowding At Liquor Outlets
- Kerala High Court Permits New Govt Order Fixing Room Rent At Private Hospitals To Operate For 6 Weeks
- Kerala High Court Orders Constitution Of Medical Board To Examine Infant Suffering From Rare Disease
- Converted To Islam On Free Will": Kerala High Court Dismisses Habeas Plea By "Husband" Alleging Forced Conversion And Illegal Detention Of Wife And Son
- Man Imprisoned In UAE Over Alleged Spying For India; His Mother Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Support
- With Measures In Place: Kerala High Court Refuses To Issue Orders Directing Lakshadweep Administration To Supply Food Kits
- Dowry Prohibition Act's Implementation A Matter To Be Seriously Looked Into : Kerala High Court
- "No Coercive Action For Non-Compliance Of IT Rules": Kerala High Court Orders In NBA's Plea
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The High Court held that for the purposes of an anticipatory bail, proclamation proceedings under Section 82 (1) and Section 82(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are similar in effect.
Justice Subodh Abhyankar while adjudicating upon a pre-arrest bail plea, opined, "The general principle that appears is that for the purposes of an anticipatory bail, a proclaimed offender also includes an offender or a proclaimed person against whom a proclamation under 82(1) of Cr.P.C. has also been issued".
The Court has observed that in the extraordinary situation of a pandemic or disaster involving loss of life and human suffering, the Central Government as well as the State Government are empowered to put any restriction in the larger public under the Disaster Management Act, including restriction of movement of public by inter-state bus transportation.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Vivek Rusia was dealing with a petition filed by MP Bus Operator Association challenging various Government orders restricting inter State bus transportation between State of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra owing to the rising number of covid 19 cases.
Other developments:
- Security Of Judicial Officers, Court Staff- Madhya Pradesh High Court Seeks State Govt's Response On Adequate Infrastructure In Court Premises
- Madhya Pradesh High Court Seeks State's Response On Plea Seeking Food Security For Transgender Persons In Indore
- 'Poverty Can Be Addressed Through Healing Touch Of Law': Madhya Pradesh High Court Issues Directions For Implementation Of Poverty Alleviation Schemes
- 'Police Nowadays Relies On Digital Information, CCTV Footages But Shies Of Divulging Details When Comes To Their Own Working': MP HC Grants Bail In NDPS Case
- Security Of Judicial Officers, Court Staff- Madhya Pradesh High Court Seeks State Govt's Response On Adequate Infrastructure In Court Premises
Madras High Court
To make public places disabled-friendly, the Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu Government to make sure that no new buildings in the state are constructed or sanctioned without ensuring access for persons with disabilities, including toilets and other facilities.
"It is imperative that all public buildings, including Court houses, must have access that may be used by persons with disabilities. Toilets must also be installed in public buildings which may be used by persons with disabilities", Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed.
Madras High Court Grants Conditional Bail To Former AIADMK Minister M. Manikandan In Rape Case
The High Court on granted conditional bail to former AIADMK Minister M. Manikandan in a rape case. The former Minister had been charged with the offence of rape on the false pretext of marriage. He had been arrested on June 26, 2021, and has been in judicial custody since. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar extended a conditional bail to the Minister after observing that there lies "a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex", the Court opined,
"The defacto complainant was well aware of the consequence that the marriage between her and the petitioner would not take place. Thus leading to the inference that she freely, voluntarily and consciously consented to have sexual intercourse with the petitioner and her consent was not in consequence of any misconception of fact and they were living together as man and wife".
Hearing the plea challenging the Tamil Nadu Government's decision to ascertain whether the NEET-based admission process has prejudicially affected socially backward students, the High Court decided to hear from political parties to pressure groups to citizens having experience in the field.
Stressing that the matter is of some importance, the Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy allowed all the applications filed seeking to be impleaded in the matter and decided to hear them on the merits.
Develop A Web Portal For Tracking Representations & Avoiding Delays: Madras High Court
Taking strong objection against inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenus, the Madras High Court directed the State of Tamil Nadu to establish a dedicated web portal and use technologies such as e-mail, fax or WhatsApp to track their movement and avoid delays.
A division bench of Justices K.Kalyanasundamaram and B.Pugalendhi noted that despite passing of several orders and pulling up the authorities, it so appears that the delays in considering the representations are purposely made to get the detention orders quashed by the Court as to when such technical grounds are raised, the Courts are left with no other option, except to grant the relief sought for.
The Court has granted police protection to a queer woman belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community alleging harassment by her family members after disclosing about her sexual orientation while observing that the couple living together was conscious about their relationship.
Following the guidelines laid by the High Court to ensure protection of LGBTQIA+ persons in consensual relationships from harassment, a single judge bench comprising of Justice M Nirmal Kumar ordered thus: "The petitioner admitted that she belongs to LGBTQIA+ community. The parents of the petitioner on earlier occasion had forcibly separated the petitioner and ****. Now, the petitioner and **** are living together and they are conscious about their relationship. This Court in W.P.No.7284 of 2021 dated 07.06.2021 has issued guidelines to the Police considering the precariousness, in which such people are made to lead their life. In view of the above, the respondent Police is directed not to cause any harassment and also give appropriate protection for the safety and life of the petitioner following the guidelines issued by this Court in W.P.No.7284 of 2021, dated 07.06.2021."
Madras High Court Directs State To Issue Covid Certificate For Kin Of Deceased To Avail Compensation
The High Court directed the State government to ensure that family members of every person who died due to Covid-19 are issued a certificate attributing the cause to the virus, in addition to the death certificate.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that such a certificate can be utilised to claim compensation under various government schemes.
The Court upheld the decision of a lower Court, granting default bail to a man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) over an allegedly offensive Facebook post.
A Bench comprising Justices PN Prakash and R Pongiappan also admonished the investigating agencies for their lackadaisical approach in handling the case. The Court opined "in this case, we find that there was absolutely no diligence at all" and accordingly refused to interfere with the impugned bail order.
Other developments:
- Madras High Court Forms Committee To Check Adherence To Roster System In Junior Civil Judge Recruitment 2003, 2009 & 2012
- "Petition Is Misconceived": Madras High Court On Plea To Educate Tamil Nadu People To Show Respect While Referring To India
- Firecracker Explosion: Madras High Court Grants 5 Lakh Compensation To 12-Yr-Old Victim, Takes Note Of Frequent 'Accidents'
Orissa High Court
The High Court granted bail to a man accused of posting a message in a WhatsApp group urging people to join him on a mission to assault the former Chief Justice of India with shoes for refusing permission to observe Rath Yatra.
Mukesh Jain, who is said to be the National Chairman of Dharma Rakshyak Shri Dara Sena, had allegedly portrayed the Chief Justice of India as a Naxalite and Christian terrorist and accused him for halting the Rath Yatra. Following this, he was charged under offences punishable under Sections 153/153-A/153-B/295-A/504/505/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 66(F) of the Information Technology Act
The High Court sought response of the State Authorities on the functionality of established Emergency Response Sanitation Units and also on the steps taken for the implementation of Advisory issued by the State Government titled 'Prohibition of human entry into septic tank and sewer network –functioning of Emergency Response Sanitation Units" (ERSU)'.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Savitri Ratho was dealing with a suo moto petition instituted by the Court of the incidents that involved "egregious violations of the mandatory provisions contained the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013."
Patna High Court
The evidence of approximate age of the prosecutrix cannot take the place of proof of exact age, the High Court observed while acquitting an accused in a POCSO case. Arjun, the accused, was found guilty of rape of a girl aged about 13 years. He was convicted by the Trial Court of offences under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the POCSO Act.
In appeal, the High Court considered the question whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that the victim was under 18 years of age at the time of physical relation with the appellant to bring the case under the mischief of clause 'sixthly' of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Anticipatory Bail Plea Of Juvenile U/S 438 CrPC Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The High Court has held that an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of CrPC by a juvenile is not maintainable; that bail is granted to a juvenile in a bailable or non-bailable offence, notwithstanding anything contained in CrPC.
"The provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. are enumerated for granting the bail to the person who has apprehension of the arrest. A reading of Section 438 Cr.P.C.'s provisions vis-a-vis relevant provisions of the Act would show that a juvenile cannot be arrested, and thus, there is no question of apprehension of his arrest. Hence, the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in case of a juvenile", Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj observed.
The Court stayed the ongoing trial against ex-Haryana CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda and Associated Journal Limited (AJL), which publishes the newspaper, National Herald, for alleged illegal allotment of a plot in Panchkula to AJL.
The order was issued by a single bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan staying the ongoing criminal proceedings against Hooda in a special CBI court at Panchkula.
It may be noted that in April 2021, the special court had framed charges against under Sections 120-B (party to criminal conspiracy) and 420 (cheating) of the IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w S. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Court directed the senior superintendent of police, Sangrur to provide protection to a Muslim woman (and her husband) who converted to Hinduism to marry a Hindu man. The bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill was hearing the plea filed by one Rajina @ Jyoti and her husband Jaspal Sharma.
Fearing threat at the hands of private respondents, as the couple got married the wishes of their families, they had moved the court seeking issuance of a direction to official respondents to protect their lives and liberty.
Observing that an iron hand approach is needed to deal with people who are involved in supplying/selling the illicit spurious country-made liquor and alcohol, the Court denied bail to a bootlegger.
Denying him bail, the Bench of Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill observed: "If such kind of persons are released on bail, they would further decay the very system of the Society and their such acts would render the Society full with widowed women; orphaned children and old and infirm parents with full of woes and sorrow tales."
The Court sought an explanation from the sessions judge of Sirsa, Haryana as to how did he entertain and decide the petition for regular bail of an Accused booked under the NDPS act, when a similar petition was pending before the High Court.
The bench of Justice H. S. Madaan has also sought the Judge's reply on whether the pendency of the petition before this Court was brought to his notice by the Public Prosecutor representing the State or by the concerned police officer.
Rajasthan High Court
Complainant Not Entitled To Hearing In Bails Plea Under Juvenile Justice Act: Rajasthan High Court
The High Court (Jodhpur Bench) has ruled that it is not obligated to provide the complainant with an opportunity of hearing while adjudicating upon a bail application of a juvenile accused under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that a holistic reading of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act indicate that the legislation does not direct the Courts to hear the complainant either at the trial stage, the appellate stage, or the revision stage, while adjudicating upon an application for bail of a juvenile accused who falls within the definition of a "child alleged to be in conflict with law" (CICL).
Sikkim High Court
Observing that it is the duty of the State Government to produce relevant policies made for the benefit of senior citizens based on Centre's directions, the High Court sought response of the State on its policies as regards to the construction of old age homes.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari and Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai ordered thus: "…looking to the scope of this Public Interest Litigation, it is the duty of the State Government to produce the relevant policies of the State Government with the directives of the Central Government for the benefit of the Senior Citizens of their State. The relevant material is not available."
Telangana High Court
Telangana High Court Upholds Preventive Detention Of Man Accused Of Duping Poor Farmers
Observing that white-collar crimes against poor farmers should be dealt with an "iron hand" and not leniency, the High Court upheld preventive detention of a man accused of duping farmers of their hard-earned agricultural produce.
"Majority of the farmers in our country are illiterate/rustic and have no resources and cannot afford indulging into litigation and they shall not lose their agricultural produce in such a manner. This inability of farmers is being used by the people like the detenu to dupe them and make money on their hard earned agricultural produce, which the farmers get after working hard in the fields, sustaining all kinds of weather and hardship," observed a division bench of Justices A. Rajasheker Reddy and Shameem Akther.
The Court was of the opinion that all the law enforcing agencies should show sensitivity towards the farmers whose agricultural produce is being purchased by third persons/middlemen and payments are not being made.
Tripura High Court
The High Court has observed that people who have received their first dose of Covid-19 vaccine, including both Covishield or Covaxin, cannot be made to wait indefinitely for receiving their second dose after the mandatory interval is over. It therefore asked the State administration to raise the number of vaccination doses.
The observation came from a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice S Talapatra. It stated, "…what causes concern is that those who have already received first vaccine, would qualify for administration of second doze upon completion of 12 weeks or 4 weeks depending on the vaccine administered (Covishield or Covaxin as the case may be). These people, who have already received their first doze, cannot wait indefinitely for receiving the second doze after the mandatory period is over."
Uttarakhand High Court
A bench of Chief Justice R. S. Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma issued a notice to the state government on a plea urging that State Government should notify the rules under the Anand Marriage Act, 1909.it has given the state four weeks to respond to the petition.
The petition, filed by the party in person, Amanjot Singh Chadha, avers that the Act casts a duty upon the State Government under Section 6 to make rules for registration of Anand Marriages as no current framework in the State of Uttarakhand for registering Anand Marriages has caused an impediment in their right to register marriages.
Reviewing the COVID situation in the state, a Bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Verma directed the State government to take concrete steps to control the inflow of tourists in the State. It stressed that the tourists may bring in and introduce the dreaded Delta plus variant in the State. The Government has also been directed to review its decision to relax the lockdown during the weekends, and to permit a large number of tourists to invade the State during the said period.
The Court ordered thus while referring to the media reports that the hill stations of the State were being inundated by tourists every weekend and due to which, social distancing was not being maintained; SOP for COVID-19 was not being followed and most of the tourists were found to be without masks.
