- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- High Courts Weekly Roundup...
High Courts Weekly Roundup [November 8, 2021 To November 14, 2021]
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
16 Nov 2021 5:00 AM GMT
![High Courts Weekly Roundup [November 8, 2021 To November 14, 2021]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2021/05/09/750x450_393155-high-courts-weekly-roundup.jpg "High Courts Weekly Roundup [November 8, 2021 To November 14, 2021]")
Allahabad High Court 1. "Refer To 'Talisman' Given By Mahatma Gandhi In Case Of Dilemma About Right Decision": Allahabad HC Tells UP Govt Officers [Unnati Management College And 4 Others v. Rakesh Kumar,Director] In a significant observation, the High Court asked the Uttar Pradesh Government officers to refer to the Talisman given by the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi...
Allahabad High Court
1. "Refer To 'Talisman' Given By Mahatma Gandhi In Case Of Dilemma About Right Decision": Allahabad HC Tells UP Govt Officers [Unnati Management College And 4 Others v. Rakesh Kumar,Director]
In a significant observation, the High Court asked the Uttar Pradesh Government officers to refer to the Talisman given by the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi whenever they are confronted with doubt and are in a dilemma about the right decision. Essentially, the Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot was dealing with a contempt plea filed on account of violation of the Court's order dated March 15, 2021, related to the grant of scholarships to needy students who belong to the lowest strata.
2. Allahabad HC Imposes 21K Fine On District Judge For Rejecting Resignation Of A Court Clerk Who Joined Indian Railways [Khoob Singh v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And 2 Others]
The High Court imposed a fine of Rs 21,000/- on a District Judge, who rejected the resignation of a court clerk as his resignation was not preceded by a three months' notice. On account of his failure to give a three months' notice under Rule 4 of the Government Service Rules, 2000, he was also subjected to a disciplinary inquiry. Observing that subjecting him to a disciplinary inquiry would amount to mental harassment, the Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar imposed the fine on the District Judge of Jalaun Suneet Kumar and also directed him to accept the employee's resignation.
3. "Unexplained Delay Of 4 Days": Allahabad HC Quashes NSA Detention Of Man Who Allegedly Protested, Assaulted Police Force [Sonu @ Mohd. Ishtiyaq Through Mother Shameem Bano v. Union of India and others]
The High Court quashed the detention order passed under the National Security Act on account of 4 days of unexplained delay in disposing of the petitioner/detenue's representation by the Union of India. This order was passed by the Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav while hearing the habeas corpus plea filed by the detenue Sonu @ Mohd. Ishtiyaq through his Mother Shameem Bano.
4. Indefeasible Right To 'Default Bail' U/S 167 (2) CrPC If Chargesheet Not Filed Within Stipulated Time: Allahabad High Court [Varun Tiwari v. State of U.P.]
The High Court has observed that an accused has an indefeasible right to 'default bail' under proviso to section 167(2) Cr.P.C. if the charge sheet isn't filed within the stipulated time. This assertion came from the bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan while dealing with the bail application of a gang rape accused, against whom, the police failed to file a charge sheet before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow within a stipulated 90 days period.
5. If Court Doesn't Agree With The Protest Application Then The Same Could Be Treated As Complaint: Allahabad High Court [Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi v. State Of U.P.Through Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others]
The High Court observed that if the Court is not in agreement with the protest application, then the just and proper action could be to read the protest petition as a complaint by the Court. The Bench of Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav observed thus while hearing a plea moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against a 2006 order passed by the Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court of Sultanpur (UP) in the capacity of the revisional court.
6. Can't Oust Woman From Matrimonial Home On The Basis Of Summary Proceedings Under Senior Citizens Act: Allahabad HC [Smt. Khushboo Shukla v. District Magistrate, Lucknow & Ors.]
The High Court made it clear that the wife cannot be ousted from her matrimonial home on the basis of the summary proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. With this, the Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary came to the aid of a widow by setting aside an eviction order passed against her and her son from her in-laws' house.
Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court on Friday observed that the highest degree of verification is required from a state minister and prima facie there are interpolations in NCB Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede's birth certificate uploaded by Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik. "So where is the due care and attention (before posting) when the document itself appears to be interpolated?," Justice Madhav Jamdar repeatedly asked Malik's counsels before reserving orders on interim reliefs in Wankhede's father's defamation suit.
Also Read: Verified Sameer Wankhede's Birth Records From Municipal Ward – Nawab Malik To Bombay High Court
2. Why Is Our Force So Insensitive?': Bombay High Court Over Police's Inaction In Inter- Caste Couple's Protection Plea [X v. State of Maharashtra]
Standing behind her lawyers, the young woman of the Ahir community wept inconsolably while the High Court took her alleged tormentors and the Mumbai police to task. The court questioned the Mumbai Police Commissioner, who was present on a video call, regarding the police's inaction on the woman's complaint of death threats and sexual violence after her inter-faith marriage in December 2020.
Following the High Court's stinging observations, Raymond Ltd withdrew its contempt petition against release of "An Incomplete Life," the autobiography of its former chairman emeritus Dr Vijaypat Singhania. Raymond had approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226, 227 of the Constitution against Singhania, and others alleging that the book was "surreptitiously" released on November 1, despite an injunction from the Thane court.
4. Saga Of Violence, Humiliation' : Bombay High Court Directs Round The Clock Protection To Inter Caste Couple [X v. State of Maharashtra]
In a serious case of caste violence and patriarchy, the High Court directed the Mumbai Police Commissioner to ensure 24/7 protection to a young inter-caste couple, the in-laws and witnesses to the marriage owing to death threats from the girl's Ahir community. A division bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and Surendra Tavade detailed in an interim order the bone-chilling "saga of violence, humiliation, rape, grievous bodily injury, and mental injury", the woman and her Brahmin husband endured since they first eloped in February 2020.
Other developments:
Calcutta High Court
1. CISF Firing In Sitalkuchi, Cooch Bihar: WB-CID Submits Interim Status Report Before Calcutta HC [Aminuddin Khan v. Union of India and other connected matters]
The High Court took on record the interim status report filed by West Bengal's Criminal Investigation Department (CID) on the investigation into the alleged firing by Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel on April 10, 2021 at Sitalkuchi in Cooch Behar district during the West Bengal assembly polls which claimed the lives of four persons. The sealed report was submitted before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on Thursday. The Bench fixed the matter for further hearing on January 12, 2022 and directed the CID to continue its probe in the meantime.
The High Court Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj permitted restricted immersion procession to take place for Jagaddhatri puja following all Covid-19 protocol.
"The leaned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a limited permission that at least some symbolic procession should be allowed. Learned Advocate General has fairly stated that if the representatives of the petitioner make such a request to the concerned authority then their proposal would be duly looked into having due regard to the Covid 19 situation."
3. Calcutta HC Dismisses PIL Challenging WB Gov's Decision To Reopen Schools From November 16 [Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal]
The High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the decision of the West Bengal government to reopen schools for students of Classes IX to XII from November 16.
The plea moved by advocate Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury alleged that the State government has decided to start classes for students of Classes IX to XII 'without any proper planning' and thus students shall be prone to the risk of a Covid-19 infection. Accordingly, the Court's leave was sought for the formation of an expert committee for reviewing the Covid-19 situation in the State and providing necessary recommendations to the government in this regard.
Also Read: Ready To Probe WB Gov's Sale Of 47 Percent Stake In Metro Diary: CBI Informs Calcutta High Court
Delhi High Court
1. Legal Loopholes Allow Offenders To Slip Away Unscathed': Delhi High Court On
Maintenance Dispute Between Couple Having Living Spouses [Sunder Lal Saini v. Meena Saini]
Dealing with a peculiar maintenance dispute arising between a married couple having living first spouses, the High Court expressed it's sympathy with the position of the woman observing that the legal loopholes allow offending parties to slip away unscathed. The woman, allegedly the second wife, had submitted that the Petitioner had concealed the fact that his first marriage was subsisting. She further stated that the Petitioner was aware of the fact that her husband had deserted her and that she had sought for divorce by panchayat as per the prevalent customs. Thus, she was treated as a legally wedded wife of the Petitioner for a span of about ten years, before being thrown out in the year 2009.
The Court noted that though the couple resided together and cohabitated, it cannot be presumed to be legally married for the purposes of Section 125 CrPC as they both had living spouses at the time. "This Court finds it unfortunate that many women, specially those belonging to the poorer strata of society, are routinely exploited in this manner, and that legal loopholes allow the offending parties to slip away unscathed," the Court thus remarked.
2. "Was There Any Notification To Throw People Out?" Delhi HC Questions Police
In Pleas By Indian Nationals Over FIRs Related To Tablighi Jamaat [Mohd. Anwar & Ors v. State of NCT of Delhi]
The High Court questioned the Delhi Police in the pleas filed by Indian nationals seeking quashing of the FIRs registered against them for sheltering the attendees of Tablighi Jamaat congregation in their homes or mosques amid the covid 19 lockdown last year. Justice Mukta Gupta quizzed the Police as to where would the people have gone when a lockdown was suddenly imposed in the city.
3. Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief To Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturer For Its
Product 'BREEZER' Against Allegedly Infringing Mark 'FREEZ' [Bacardi & Co Ltd v. Bahety Overseas Private Limited & Ors.]
The High Court granted interim relief to Bacardi and Company Ltd., engaged in manufacturing of alcoholic beverage BREEZER, by restraining the defendants from using the mark FREEZ Mix, till the pendency of the suit. Justice C Hari Shankar observed that the two marks are phonetically similar and that the latter had consciously attempted at adopting a trade dress so similar to that of the plaintiff as would lead an uninformed and unwary customer to justifiably presume an association between the two marks.
4. Republic Day Violence: Delhi High Court Dismisses For Default Plea Seeking Action Against Police For Failing To Discharge Duty [Dhananjai Jain v. Union of India]
The High Court dismissed for default a petition seeking action against the police officers who allegedly failed in discharging their duty during the violence that erupted in the national capital on Republic Day, in wake of farmers protests against the Central Farm Laws. The Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh noted that no counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner to argue the matter and that petitioner was not represented during the previous occasions too.
5. Delhi High Court Directs CIC To Decide Soon RTI Application Seeking Statistics Of State Sponsored Electronic Surveillance [Apar Gupta v. CPIO, MHA]
The High Court directed the Central Information Commission (CIC) to decide in a time-bound manner, the appeals filed by Apar Gupta, founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation, against rejection of his RTI applications seeking statistical information on state sponsored electronic surveillance.
Justice Yashwant Varma has posted the matter for December 2. Gupta had moved the Court alleging that three years have lapsed since he filed as many as six RTI applications with the CPIO, Cyber and Information Security under the Ministry of Home Affairs, seeking total number of surveillance orders passed by the Competent Authority during a given time period.
6. Wife Making Serious Unproved Allegations Of Criminal Conduct Against Husband Constitutes 'Cruelty': Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce Decree [Neelam v. Jai Singh]
The High Court recently observed that a wife making serious allegations of criminal conduct against her husband and his parents, which she was unable to prove in Trial Court, amounts to an act of "cruelty". The Division Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh thus upheld the divorce decree granted to the husband by a Family Court and dismissed the wife's appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
7. Delhi HC Denies Divorce To Husband Saying Wife's Allegation Of Dowry Demand & Alcoholism Didn't Amount To 'Cruelty' [Harish Kumar v. Sarita]
The High Court observed that normal wear and tear in a marital relationship is to be expected, however, it cannot be a reason to end the relationship. Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh further observed that the allegations made by the wife against husband demanding dowry and indulging in alcohol consumption, do not tantamount to making serious allegations impinging on his character, to such an extent, that they would be the cause of immense mental agony and cruelty to him.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by a husband challenging the Family Court order by way of which his divorce petition filed under the ground of cruelty was dismissed on the ground that he was unable to establish the said ground.
8. Right To Be Forgotten: Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea By Indian, A
Recently Released UK Ex-Convict, Seeking Removal Of Articles [Mohammaed Umar Ashrafi v. Union of India & Ors.]
The High Court has issued notice on a plea filed by a man namely Mohammed Umar Ashrafi, who was convicted by UK's Leicester Crown Court in 2015 and was released and deported to India after completing his sentence, seeking removal of news articles from the internet, pertaining to his conviction. Ashrafi has invoked his "right to be forgotten".
Justice Rekha Palli sought response of Union of India through Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Google LLC, Twitter, Hindustan Times and Amar Ujala.
9. At The Time Of Framing Of Charges, Accused Can Bring To Court's Notice
About Relevancy Of Document Kept Back By Investigating Agency : Delhi HC [CBI v. M/S INX Media Pvt Ltd. & Ors.]
The High Court has observed that at the time of framing of charge, an accused can bring to the notice of the Court that an unrelied document recovered during the course of investigation and kept back by the investigating agency is relevant and has a bearing on the prosecution case. Since the accused can exercise such right only if he is aware of the existence of the document, he should have the right to access and inspect the documents collected by the investigating agency.
10. Non Recovery Of Weapon Is No Ground For Not Framing Charges Under Robbery Or Dacoity Under Section 397 Of IPC: Delhi High Court [State v. Hassan Ahmed]
The High Court has observed that the fact that a weapon has not been recovered is no ground for not framing charges under Section 397 IPC which provides for the offence of committing robbery, or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to a person. Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the effect of non recovery of the weapon would be seen only in the trial and the same cannot be a reason for not framing charges under Section 397 IPC.
11. Nehru Place Should Not Become A Slum': Delhi High Court Seeks SDMC's Suggestions On Management Of Squatters [Court on its own Motion v. GNCTD]
Observing that Nehru Place market area in the national capital should not become a slum, the High Court on sought suggestions from the South Delhi Municipal Corporation on the management of squatters in the area.
Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla was hearing a suo moto case registered by the Court following a fire incident at a building in the market. The Court said that prima facie it was of the view that till the time another bench headed by Justice Vipin Sanghi decides the constitutionality of the Town Vending Committee, it will allow only 95 vendors for hawking in the market area, subject to verification of their names.
12. Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Boxer Arundhati Choudhary's Plea Over Non Selection In Upcoming World Boxing Championship [Arundhati Choudhary v. BFI]
The High Court issued notice on a plea filed by boxer Arundhati Choudhary over her non selection in the upcoming Women's World Boxing Championship scheduled to take place in Istanbul from December 4 to 18. Justice Rekha Palli sought response of the Boxer Federation of India (BFI) and Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports in the plea which had alleged that Lovlina Borgohain, an Olympic bronze winner, was selected for the championship instead.
Choudhary, who claimed to be an International boxing champion, had approached the Court seeking a direction on the Respondents to consider her candidature in the 70 Kg category for the event. Her counsel submitted that in the light of her excellent record of holding a gold medal in the recent women championship in Hisar, she ought to have been preferred over any other player.
13. Comparative Advertising Permissible For Establishing Superiority Of One's Goods,
Without Defaming Goods Of Others: Delhi High Court [Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v. Hindustan Unilever Limited]
While dealing with a suit concerning the issue of comparative advertising and trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court has observed that an advertiser has to be given enough room to play in the advertisement and that the plaintiff ought not be hypersensitive towards the same.
The Bench however made it clear that, "In comparative advertising, the comparing of one's goods with that of the other and establishing the superiority of one's goods over the other is permissible. However one cannot make a statement that a good is bad, inferior or undesirable as that would lead to denigrating or defaming the goods of the other."
14. Delhi High Court Restrains Developer From Using 'Burj' Trademark In Upcoming Projects, On Plea By Dubai Based Company [Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC v. Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd.& Anr.]
The High Court has restrained a real estate developer from using the trademark 'Burj' in the upcoming projects in a plea filed by Dubai's international hotel chain, Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC, having Burj Al Arab as its flagship hotel. Justice Jayant Nath however allowed the use of the mark 'BURJNOIDA' for an ongoing project observing that it was under construction in India for the last ten years.
"An injunction order is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, restraining the defendants, etc. from in any manner using the trade mark BURJBANGALORE, BURJMUMBAI, BURJDELHI, BURJGURUGRAM and BURJGURGAON or any other similar trade mark till the pendency of the present suit. The defendants are permitted to use the mark BURJNOIDA only for the present ongoing project," the Court ordered.
15. Practice Of Handwritten Clauses In Mediation Settlement Needs To Be Discontinued
Unless Countersigned By Mediator, Parties: Delhi High Court [Mahinder Singh v. Meenakshi Yadav]
The High Court observed that the practice of handwritten clauses in mediation settlements needs to be discontinued forthwith, unless it is countersigned or initialled by the Mediator or Counsellor as well as by the parties in their presence.
"Often when a settlement is recorded, it is after a lot of dialogue between the parties, who have invariably suffered long litigations, harassment and much anguish. They may not know the finer points of recording of the mediated settlement agreements; therefore, it becomes the duty of the Mediator/Counsellor to ensure that the settlement agreement is recorded specifically in terms of the dicta of this court in Rajat Gupta (supra)," Justice Najmi Waziri said.
16. Delhi Riots: High Court Issues Notice On Bail Plea Filed By Man Who Spent Over 600 Days In Custody In Ankit Sharma Murder Case [Shoaib Alam @ Bobby v. State Nct Of Delhi]
The High Court has issued notice on a plea filed by an accused namely Shoaib Alam, who has spent over 600 days in judicial custody, in connection with the Ankit Sharma murder case that occurred during the North East Delhi riots. Justice Subramonium Prasad, who sought response of the State in the bail plea, posted the matter for further hearing on November 23. The plea has been filed through Advocates Tara Narula, Tamanna Pankaj, Aparajita Sinha and S Debabrata Reddy.
Expressing its apprehension on the increasing number of Covid 19 cases, the Court observed that the system of infrastructure for conducting hybrid hearings in district courts and other quasi judicial bodies in the city must be in place in case the situation so arises.
A bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh was hearing a plea stating that Delhi's Subordinate Courts and Quasi Judicial bodies must hold hybrid hearings for the benefit of counsels who suffer from co-morbidities and are unable to appear before the Court physically, due to Covid-19.
18. Time Is Of Essence': Delhi High Court Asks CMMs To Ensure Prompt Uploading Of Orders Passed U/S 14 Of SARFAESI Act [Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Limited V. Rajeev Chawla & Anr.]
The Court has asked all the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates in city courts to ensure that the orders passed by them under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are promptly uploaded after they are passed.
Justice Amit Bansal was of the view that time is of essence in proceedings initiated under the Act and that it's purpose would be frustrated if there are delays in implementing orders passed under the Act.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Expects State To Be More Prompt In Deciding Emergency Parole Applications
19. "If Anyone Can Walk In And Start Hawking, It Will Lead To Jungle Raj": Delhi High Court Bats For Implementation Of Street Vending Plan [New Delhi Traders Association V. New Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.]
While batting for the implementation of a statutory plan for street vending as mandated under the Street Vendors Act, the Court remarked that the city will become a 'jungle raj' in case anyone is permitted to indulge in hawking and vending activity.
Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a plea seeking directions on respondent authorities to permanently stop the illegal hawking and squatting in the CP area.
Other developments:
- Delhi High Court Seeks Centre's Stand On Plea For Changing Nomenclature Of
Nurses Working In Private Hospitals To 'Nursing Officer' - High Court Seeks Delhi Govt's Response On Liquor Brands With Fixed MRPs, Their Registration Under New Excise Policy
- Delhi High Court Upholds Appointment Of Shreesha Merla As Technical Member Of NCLAT
- High Court Issues Notice To Centre, Delhi Govt. On Plea For Proper
Allocation & Utilization Of Funds Under Scheduled Caste Sub-Plan - "Lackadaisical Attitude Towards Judicial Proceedings": Delhi High Court Slams DDA Over Non-Filing Of Response Despite Repeated Opportunities
- Delhi High Court Orders Examination Of 60-Yr Old Peepal Tree On Senior Advocate's Plea; Says Prima Facie No Danger Of It Falling
- Delhi Master Plan 2021 Challenged Before High Court As Ultra Vires Street Vendors Act
Gauhati High Court
1. Gauhati High Court Seeks State Gov's Response On Health Welfare Measures Undertaken For Transgender Persons As Per 2019 Act [Swati Bidhan Baruah v. State of Assam]
The Court sought the State's response on its measures taken for the health and welfare of the transgender community. The Court was adjudicating upon a plea moved by by transgender activist Swati Bidhan Baruah, raising several issues faced by members of the said community in accessing health and medical facilities.
The PIL had been filed in the year 2018, demanding inclusion of the transgender community as beneficiaries under Centre's Ayushmaan Bharat Scheme, which allows low-income families to subsidized avail health insurance.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
1. Extremism, Radicalism, Terrorism Are Most Worrying Features Of Contemporary Life: J&K&L HC Upholds Alleged JEM Worker's Detention [Muntazir Ahmad Bhat v. Union Territory of JK & Anr.]
While upholding the detention of one Muntazir Ahmad Bhat, an alleged worker of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, the Court observed that extremism, radicalism, terrorism have become the most worrying features of the contemporary life.
The Bench of Justice Tashi Rabstan further observed that the basic edifices of a modern State, like democracy, State security, public order, rule of law, sovereignty and integrity, basic human rights, etcetera, are under attack of such extreme, radical, and terror acts.
2. Infringement Of Right Of Two Adults To Choose Each Other As Life Partners Is A Constitutional Violation: J&K&L High Court [Saba Wani & Anr. v. Union Territory of J&K and others]
The Court observed that when two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is manifestation of their choice that is recognised under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the violation of such right is a constitutional violation.
Hearing a protection plea filed by a married couple, the Bench of Justice Tashi Rabstan further observed that consent of family or community or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock and their consent has to be piously given primacy.
Jharkhand High Court
1. Jharkhand HC Hauls Up Bihar & Jharkhand Sr. Police Officers For Arresting Public Prosecutor Sans Following Due Procedure [Sweta Priyadarshni v. The State of Jharkhand & Others]
The Court called into question the action of the senior police officers of Bihar and Jharkhand state in a matter concerning the arrest of a Ranchi-based lawyer on account of their failure to follow the due process of law.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Ananda Sen was hearing a habeas corpus writ petition filed by the wife of an Additional Public Prosecutor, seeking to know the whereabouts of her husband alleging that he had been detained by the Bihar police.
Karnataka High Court
1. Karnataka High Court Upholds Centre's Notification Treating OCIs As NRIs For College Admissions; Terms It "Protective Discrimination" For Natives [Alekhya Ponnekanti v. Union Of India]
The Court has upheld the validity of the Central Government notification dated March 4, by which Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) cardholders are not to be eligible for admission in professional courses against any seat reserved exclusively for Indian citizens.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit, while dismissing a bunch of petitions said, "These writ petitions being devoid of merits fail. However in the special circumstances of the case, all the petitioners are permitted to stake a claim for admission consistent with the interim reliefs made in favour with many of them. Subject to the eligibility & qualification; a period of ten days is granted to the petitioners to produce requisite documents before the Karnataka Examination Authority."
2. 'Lawyers Need To Argue Fearlessly; Adjudicatory Bodies Should Not Be Too Sensitive': Karnataka HC Expunges Customs Commissioner's Remarks Against Advocate [M.S. Srinivasa v. Union Of India]
The Court recently expunged adverse remarks made against an Advocate by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), while highlighting that lawyers need an atmosphere where they can argue fearlessly.
Justice Krishna S Dixit observed, "Advocacy is a distinguished profession affording full scope for the talents of the brightest intellect. A lawyer should be free to put forward creative & generic ideas concerning the case, unhindered & fearlessly, in the free trade of ideas, some "intellectual collisions" do unavoidably occur, they are like sparks of light and therefore are welcome, that facilitates the march of law whereby freedom of citizens broadens from 'precedent to precedent'".
3. Karnataka High Court Stays KSLU's Decision Of Conducting Intermediate Semester Exams For LLB Students [Rishab Trakraoo v. State Of Karnataka]
The Court by way of interim relief stayed the circulars issued by the Karnataka State Law University (KSLU) by which it was to conduct the intermediate semester examination for LLB students, on coming Monday.
Justice Ashok S Kinagi noted that Government of Karnataka had already issued a circular on July 23, clearly dispensing with the examination for the II and IV semesters in three year degree courses.
4. 'Political Interference In Transfers Puts Public Efficiency & Good Administration In Peril': Karnataka High Court [D.Naveen v. State Of Karnataka]
The Court has observed that political interference in transfers and posting of officers results in politicization of public office, which in turn puts public efficiency and good administration to peril.
Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while quashing orders passed by the Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (BESCOM), transferring an employee D Naveen. Though he was transferred to Varthur on December 9, 2020, he was not given a posting till April 5, 2021.
5. 'Why Involve Politics In Education?': Karnataka High Court Once Again Questions State's Policy Making Kannada Compulsory In Degree Courses [Samskrita Bharati Karnataka Trust v. Union Of India]
The Court once again questioned the policy decision of the state government making Kannada language as a compulsory subject for every student enrolling in a degree course in the State.The Court had first, on October 26, directed the state government to reconsider its policy decision.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum queried with the government counsel on whether under the National Education Policy 2020, (NEP) the state government can make Kannada language compulsory.
6. Karnataka High Court Orders Immediate Upgradation Of DIMHANS To Higher Psychiatry Centre [Karnataka State Legal Services Authority v. State Of Karnataka]
The Court directed the State Government to upgrade, by March 1, 2022, the Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (DIMHANS) to a higher psychiatry centre and install and make operational the MRI Machine in the hospital.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum in its order said, "We want to emphasise that this hospital shall be upgraded as a higher psychiatric center at the earliest as the government itself has announced for upgrading. The delay due to lack of funds or for any other reason shall not be there. All steps shall be taken in this regard so that it may be made operational from March 1, 2022."
7. Ramesh Jarkiholi Sex CD Scandal: Karnataka High Court Directs SIT To Consider Report Of ACP Who Probed Complaint [Geetha Misra v. State Of Karnataka]
The Court directed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to peruse the report prepared by Assistant Commissioner of Police, MC Kavitha, who probed the complaint in the alleged sex CD scandal case involving former State Minister Ramesh Jarkiholi.
Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum noted, "Learned counsel for respondent 4 (SIT) has placed before the court the report prepared under section 173 CrPC, by MC Kavitha, ACP who was instructed to continue the investigation, report progress of the case to the head of investigation team. In reference to the police commissioner's letter dated 29/03/2021."
The Court continued its interim order restraining the police from taking any coercive steps against Bhavit Sheth and Harsh Jain, the Founders and Directors of Sporta Technologies Private Limited, which promotes the 'Dream 11' gaming app.
The duo have approached the court seeking to quash the FIR registered against them under the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act which bans online gaming and gambling in the state.
9. 'How Can You Take The High Court So Lightly?': Karnataka HC Reprimands State Over Non-Appearance Of Summoned Officers [Mohamed Ikbal v. Secretary To Government Of India]
Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi orally assured the court that a circular will be issued by the State government, ensuring that officers who have been summoned to appear before the court in a case, remain present before it.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, "The officers should understand what is the High Court. Officers are taking orders from the court lightly. I have been a judge for 13 years, it is for the first time I am seeing this, in Karnataka. How can you take the High Court so lightly."
Kerala High Court
1. No Permission Required To Advertise Ayurvedic Treatment; Kerala High Court Suggests Bringing New Legislation To Regulate Such Ads [Dr. Sidharadhan K v. State of Kerala & Anr.]
The Court recently ruled that no permission was required to advertise ayurvedic treatment and facilities of an institution, as long as they were not advertising any drug.However, the Bench clarified that this order should not be treated as a blanket order to publish advertisements about treatment.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan also directed the State to issue a circular to certain authorised officers to monitor such advertisements and to take appropriate steps for any violation of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules or Act.
2. Violates Right To Privacy: PIL Before Kerala High Court To Bar Release Of Movie 'Kurup' Inspired By A Proclaimed Offender's Life [Sebin Thomas v. Union of India & Ors.]
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Court seeking to block the release of a Dulquer Salman starrer movie Kurup based on the life of a proclaimed offender Sukumaran Kurup.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly admitted the plea on Tuesday and issued notice to the respondents in the matter.
3. Why Petrol & Diesel Excluded From GST? Kerala High Court Seeks GST Council's Response [Kerala Pradesh Gandhi Darshanvedhi v. Union of India.]
The Court directed the GST council to explain why petrol and diesel were not included within the ambit of Goods and Services Tax (GST).
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly asked the GST council to file a statement in this regard within ten days. The Court was adjudicating upon a petition filed by Kerala Pradesh Gandhi Darshanvedhi challenging the decision of the GST council.
4. False Allegations Of Child Molestation Lethal To The Life Of Accused: Kerala High Court Acquits Man Accused Of Raping Daughter [K Raghavan v. State of Kerala]
While dealing with a POCSO case where a father was accused of molesting his minor daughter, the Court observed that false allegations of child molestation particularly against a parent can have a dangerous impact on the accused.
A Division Bench comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran while acquitting the father remarked: "Forensic and semantics apart, child molestation is a shame on society; but if the allegations are false, it is lethal to the life of the accused, more so if the accused is a parent; even if he is eventually acquitted. Here we have the case of a child raising such accusation against her father with the active support of the stepmother; sheer instigation by the latter, pleads the accused."
5. Sabarimala Virtual Queue: Kerala High Court Urges Setting Up Spot Booking Counters At Prime Locations To Make Darshan Accessible To All [Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board]
The Court insisted on establishing spot booking counters at several prime locations so that pilgrims who do not own a phone or are not acquainted with online booking may not be at a disadvantage as compared to other devotees intending to visit Sabarimala this year.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar was hearing a PIL challenging the legality of the Pilgrim Management System implemented by the Kerala Police. It alleged that it restricts Darshan in Sabarimala to only those who avail Virtual Queue Services.
6. ISRO Espionage: Former Police Officer Alleges Nambi Narayanan Influenced CBI Probe By Entering Into Land Deals With Investigating Officers [S. Vijayan v. Central Bureau of Investigation]
The sensational ISRO espionage case took a further surprising turn as former police officer S. Vijayan argued before the Court that Nambi Narayanan influenced the CBI investigation against him by entering into land deals worth crores with the then investigating officials of the agency.
To substantiate its arguments, he had placed before the trial court encumbrance certificates of several acres of land in Tamil Nadu which revealed Narayanan or his son as the power of attorney holders, yet the complaint was rejected.
Justice R Narayana Pisharadi however noted that encumbrance certificates did not prove the sale of land and asked the petitioner to produce the actual sale deeds.
7. 'Tried To Put An End To The Dispute, Factions Still Want To Go To War': Kerala High Court Reserves Orders In Church Feud Case [St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church v. State of Kerala]
The Court reserved its orders in a batch of petitions where vicars sought police protection to enter churches to perform religious service and rituals which is an aftermath of the Orthodox-Jacobite factional dispute.
Justice Devan Ramachandran was evidently disappointed with the reluctance of the factions to reconcile their differences and maintain peace despite his arduous efforts for the same.
8. Investigation Is Progressing: NTA Informs Kerala High Court In Alleged NEET- OMR Scam [Rithu Sibi v. Union of India & Ors.]
The National Testing Agency (NTA) informed the Court that it has initiated a probe into the alleged incident of manipulation in the NEET-UG OMR sheet. Justice N Nagaresh after recording the same directed NTA to file its report soon. The matter will be taken up again on November 16.
When the petition came up for hearing, Advocate S Nirmal appearing for NTA informed the court that a Committee was constituted under the chairmanship of the Joint Director to conduct an investigation.
9. Incorrect Details On COVID Vaccination Certificate: Kerala High Court Directs Corrections To Be Made On CoWin Portal As Well [K P John v. Union of India]
The Court directed the government to remove the discrepancy in the date and venue of the petitioner's vaccination details on the CoWin portal within two weeks.
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan accordingly closed the writ petition filed by a 73-year-old who was planning to travel abroad to meet his children but was refrained from doing so due to incorrect details on his vaccination certificate.
10. 'Investigating Officer Not Taking Steps To Conduct DNA Test Of Foetus': Pregnant Rape Survivor Alleges Before Kerala High Court [XXX v. State of Kerala]
The Court heard a woman, who became pregnant pursuant to a sexual assault on her, accusing the investigating officer of not taking steps to conduct the DNA test of her foetus.
The primary allegation was that under the guise of complying with the Court's previous interim order to provide her police protection from another police station instead of the one where the crime was registered, the IO was not taking steps required for carrying out the DNA test.
11. 'There Cannot Be A Cover-Up' : Kerala High Court Allows Petitioner To Implead ED In Fake Antique Dealer Case [Ajith E.V. v. The Commissioner of Police & Ors.]
The Court allowed the petitioner, the former driver of controversial fake antique dealer Monson Mavunkal, to implead the Enforcement Directorate into the case. Justice Devan Ramachandran remarked:
"I am only concerned about the investigation being proper. There cannot be a cover-up. So the investigation has to be conducted on several angles of the case with the assistance of different agencies."
12. Olympian Mayookha Johny Seeks To Quash FIR Against Her, Kerala High Court Seeks State's Response [Mayookha Johny v. State of Kerala]
The Court sought the State government's stand on Olympian Mayookha Johny's plea to quash the FIR lodged against her for allegedly raising false rape allegations. The petitioner argued that the case was lodged to pressurise her into withdrawing her support to a friend who was raped by a man, who also took her nude photos and used them to blackmail her.
Justice K Haripal directed the Public Prosecutor to take instructions in the plea and listed the matter for hearing on December 6th.
13. Kerala High Court Asks State If A Legislation Is On The Way To End Orthodox-Jacobite Church Feud [S. Suhas v. Fr. Thomas Paul Ramban]
The Court asked the State if it was proposing to come up with legislation to end the ongoing dispute between Orthodox and Jacobite factions regarding ownership of several Churches in the State.
A Bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas remarked: "We came across certain media reports implying that Justice KT Thomas panel has proposed certain suggestions. We want to know if the government is going to act on it or prepare a Bill in this regard. If the government is planning to bring a legislation, the exercise from outside will become futile."
14. 'Much Requires To Be Done:' Kerala High Court Urges Authorities To Keep A Check On Nuisance Caused Around Liquor Outlets [My Hindustan Paints v. S. Aanathakrishnan IPS]
The Court chose to keep monitoring the progress in the situation around liquor stores in the State till there were no complaints of harassment or nuisance brought about by the nearby residents.
Justice Devan Ramachandran while pointing to a letter he had received recently complaining of people still queuing up in front of a particular liquor store, remarked: "The intent of the Court is to ensure that ordinary citizens who do not drink are spared of nuisance caused by anti-social elements; not to create a 5-star facility for drinkers. My concern is that every complaint I receive is from someone who does not drink alleging harassment from people lining up in front of liquor stores."
Also Read: Kerala High Court Quashes State Circular Restricting Fee Exemption On Converted Paddy Land
15. Kerala High Court Seeks State's Response To Plea Seeking Ban On Demonstrations, Festivals On Public Roads [K.O Johny v. State of Kerala]
The Court directed the State to file a statement in response to a plea seeking political parties, religious and social organizations to refrain from conducting demonstrations, meetings, or festivals on public roads obstructing road traffic.
Justice N Nagaresh also directed the petitioner to implead all temple and church committees as respondents in the matter since he was seeking a ban on temple festivals as well in public places.
16. Gold Smuggling: Kerala High Court Upholds Continued Preventive Detention Of Accused Rabins Hameed Under COFEPOSA [Fousia Rabins v. Union of India]
The Court upheld the continued preventive detention of prime accused in the gold smuggling case, Rabins K Hameed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA).
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. refused to allow the plea filed by the accused's wife that sought quashing of the detention order.
17. Order XLI Rule 5 CPC Only Permits Stay Of Execution Of Decree, Not Stay Of Operation Of Judgment: Kerala High Court [Raveendran v. Lalitha & Ors.]
The High Court held that Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure only provides for stay of the proceedings under a decree or stay of execution of the decree and does not empower the appellate court to stay the operation of the judgment. Justice V.G Arun allowed the original petition (Civil) with a direction to the appellate court to consider the application for stay afresh and to pass orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
"Going by the plain meaning of Order XLI Rule 5, it provides for only stay of the proceedings under a decree or stay of execution of the decree. The provision does not empower the appellate court to stay the operation of the judgment."
The Court also clarified the distinction between stay of execution of decree and stay of operation of judgment. "Stay of operation of the judgment is not the same as staying the operation of the proceedings under a decree or staying the execution of a decree. An order staying the operation of the judgment will amount to staying the findings in the judgment, which cannot be done at the stage of admission."
Other Developments:
- 'This Is Not A Circus Or Cinema': Kerala High Court After Man Appears Shirtless On Virtual Proceedings
- No Person Supposed To Share Seat Of Driver In 3-Wheeler Goods Carriage : Kerala High Court
- Kerala High Court Further Extends Term Of Judicial Members Of State Administrative Tribunal
Madras High Court
The proposed transfer of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee to the Meghalaya High Court pursuant to the Supreme Court Collegium's recommendation dated September 16 has resulted in over 200 practising advocates of the Madras High Court writing to the Chief Justice of India, N.V.Ramana and other four members of the Collegium expressing their anguish over this seemingly abrupt decision. It may be noted that the September 16 recommendation of the Collegium was only made available to the public raising further doubts over such a delayed publication.
2. Madras High Court Quashes Criminal Defamation Case Against DMK Leader Kanimozhi Karunanidhi [Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. The Public Prosecutor & Anr.]
The Court quashed a criminal defamation case filed against DMK leader Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, for allegedly levelling unfounded corruption allegations against former Tamil Nadu CM, Edappadi Palaniswami of AIADMK.
Justice M Nirmal Kumar quashed the case that pertains to a 2018 DMK led protest in Villupuram on the issue of garbage disposal. Kanimozhi was accused of tarnishing the reputation of then CM, E. Palaniswamy, by alleging corruption in her speech.
3. 'Senior Designation Rules Contrary To Supreme Court Guidelines'; Madras High Court Issues Notice On Challenge Against Rules [K. Rangasamy And 4 Others. v. The High Court Of Madras]
In a PIL challenging the validity of Rules 4(1) (a) and 4(1) (b) of Madras High Court Designation of Senior Advocates Rules, 2020, a bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D Audikesavalu has admitted the matter and issued notice to the administrative section of High Court.
According to a petition filed by five advocates, the notified rules are in contravention of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India and the 2018 guidelines issued by the Supreme Court for designation of Senior Advocates.
4. 'No Alarm Of Immediate Third Covid Wave': Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With GO Permitting Theatres To Operate At 100% Capacity [R.Sivamurugan Athithan v. Union Home Secretary And 2 Ors.]
A writ petition filed for quashing the Government order permitting 100 per cent occupancy in cinema theatres and multiplexes in the backdrop of Covid-19 was dismissed by Court.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D Audikesavalu observed that the pandemic might not have gone away, but the number of cases has surely subsided, and there is 'no alarm of an immediate third surge'
5. Ex-Gratia For COVID Deaths : Madras High Court Asks TN Govt If It Wants To Pay Over Rs 50K Minimum [R. Vijayagopal v. National Disaster Management Authority & Anr.]
In a PIL pertaining to ex gratia assistance payable to the heirs of deceased persons due to Covid 19, Court has held that Rs 50,000/- as fixed by the Supreme Court is the minimum amount that must be paid out of State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF).
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D Audikesavalu went on to note that nothing bars the respective states from augmenting this amount. While repeating that it's the prerogative of state government to increase the quantum of ex gratia assistance, the court has asked the State of Tamil Nadu to mention as to what extent they are willing to pay over and above Rs 50,000/- as mandated by Supreme Court.
6. Madras High Court Asks State To Consider Revising Quantum Of Compensation For Deaths Of Manual Scavengers [Safai Karmachari Andolan v. Union Of India,Rep. By Secry & 6 Ors & Connected Matters.]
The Court has observed that the current quantum of compensation payable upon death due to manual scavenging may be inadequate and thus urged the State Government to consider revising the same based on present day cost of living.
The Division Bench Of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu opined that Rs 10 lakhs compensation for sewer deaths as fixed by the Supreme Court in 2014 may be too low of an amount because substantial time has elapsed since those directions were issued.
7. Public Works Contracts Scam: Madras High Court Directs DVAC To Complete Probe Against Former AIADMK Minister SP Velumani In 10 Weeks [Arappor Iyakkam, Rep by its Managing Trustee Jayaram Venkatesan v. The Director, DVAC & 6 Ors.]
The Court instructed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to submit within ten weeks, the final report/ charge sheet in corruption probe against former Tamil Nadu Minister SP Velumani.
The direction was given by Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D Audikesavalu while disposing off two petitions filed against alleged discrepancies in handing out public works contracts of Chennai and Coimbatore Corporations.
8. Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Appointment Of Watchmen In 44,000 Temples Across The State; Says Purely An Administrative Decision Of Temples Concerned [Ayya v. Government of Tamil Nadu & 2 Ors.]
The Court has dismissed a petition seeking the appointment of watchmen on a uniform basis in all temples under the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department in Tamil Nadu.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D Audikesavalu expressed an element of surprise in the overwhelming number of matters and the extent of interest shown in temple affairs. Appointment of watchmen in temple complexes is purely an administrative decision of the relevant temple, the court noted in its order.
9. Chennai Metro Rail Lacks Authority To Fine Passengers Not Wearing Face Masks Inside Metro Premises: Madras High Court [R. Muthukrishnan v. Chennai Metro Rail Limited]
In a public interest litigation filed against Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) challenging their press release that imposes a fine of Rs 200/- for those not wearing face masks inside any metro station premises, the Court has held that the former doesn't have any statutory backing to do the same.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D Audikesavalu has ruled that even though the press release may have been in public interest, those actions done with the best of intentions, cannot stand if not backed by the authority of law.
10. 'No Transgender Candidate Applied': Madras High Court Closes Plea Seeking Special Recruitment Drive For The Community [Grace Banu Ganeshan v. The Chief Secretary & Ors.]
No transgender candidate has applied against the vacancies notified by the Court in March 2021, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanib Banerjee and Justice P.D Audikesavalu noted while disposing off a petition seeking 1% reservation for the community.
The petitioner, a transgender rights activist, Grace Banu Ganeshan, had moved the High Court seeking a direction upon its Registrar-General to conduct a special recruitment drive against the vacancies notified by it, with 1% reservation for transgender persons.
11. 'Must Look At India's Remote Corners': Madras HC Satisfied With Stakeholder Consultation Process For Draft Universal Accessibility Guidelines [Vaishnavi Jayakumar v. The Central Public Works Department & Ors.]
The Court disposed of a PIL seeking wide publicity of the draft 'Harmonized Guidelines and Standards For Universal Accessibility in India, 2021', while simultaneously noting that the respondent authorities have substantially complied with the prescribed procedure.
The Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu, while pronouncing the order, also made a suggestion regarding the consultative procedure that could be adopted in future.
12. Court Can't Evaluate Evidence While Deciding Application For Revocation Of Leave Granted Under Clause 12 Of Letters Patent: Madras High Court [R.Mathiazhagan & 2 Ors. v. P.J Ethiraj & 2 Ors.]
The Court has iterated that while considering an application for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the Court cannot consider the evidence on record or decide the issue of jurisdiction.
Justice R Subramanian ruled that scope of enquiry in an application for revocation of leave is very limited, inasmuch as the Court has to take the allegations in the plaint as true and see whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that any part of the cause of action had arisen within the original jurisdiction of this Court.
13. 'SBI Can't Misinterpret RBI Circulars'- Madras High Court Holds Collection of Cash Handling Charges From Stamp Vendors Illegal [P.S Shanmuga Sundaram v. The Director, Treasuries And Accounts Department & Ors.]
The practice of collecting cash handling charges from stamp vendors who deposit money through treasury challans into the Government account must be done away with, the Court has ruled recently, giving strict directions to the State Bank of India.
Justice S.M Subramaniam made it clear that the two RBI Master Circulars in 2014 and 2021, vehemently relied on by the State Bank of India does not permit the collection of cash handling charges on Government transactions.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Gwalior Bench ruled that for the purpose of the exercise of the power under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (to stay a second suit), an application is not required to be filed before the Court and the Court can, on its own, stay the second suit.
The Bench of Justice Rajendra Kumar (Verma) further observed that a court has inherent power to consolidate suits between the same parties in which the matter in issue in both the suits is substantially the same.
2. "He Is 18-Yr-Old Young Boy; Chance Be Given To Him For Course Correction": MP High Court Grants Bail To Rape Accused [Brijesh Vs. State of M.P.]
The Gwalior Bench granted bail to an 18-year-old rape accused taking into account his age and stressing that a chance be given to him for course correction.
The Bench of Justice Anand Pathak was hearing the plea of an 18-year-old man accused of committing offence punishable under Sections 363 (Punishment for kidnapping), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape on the same woman), 342 (Punishment for wrongful confinement) and 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.
Orissa High Court
1. Odisha Bandh- Orissa HC Directs Congress Party To Ensure Peaceful Protest, No Closure Of Shops, Disruption Of Public Transport Allowed [Naresh Kumar Mishra v. State of Odisha and Ors]
The Court directed the Congress party in the State to ensure that whatever protest is organized on November 12 is peaceful and does not cause any inconvenience or disruption to any member of the public. The Court in particular underscored that no attempt should be made to forcibly close any establishment or shop or prevent the plying of buses, trains and all other forms of public or private transport.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Resigning from the post of the Additional Advocate General of Punjab, Senior Advocate Mukesh Berry told the Punjab Government that it shouldn't ridicule and diminish the status and dignity of the Senior Advocates of this High Court.
This development comes in the wake of acceptance of the resignation of Punjab's Advocate General APS Deol by the Chief Minister of Punjab, Charanjit Singh Channi.
Rajasthan High Court
1. Rajasthan High Court Stays Arrest Warrant Issued Against Dhir & Dhir Associates' Alok Dhir In SBI Loan Scam Case [Alok Dhir and another v. State of Rajasthan]
The Court stayed an arrest warrant issued against Dhir & Dhir Associates' managing partner and an employee of Alchemist Asset Reconstruction, Alok Dhir in relation to the State Bank of India (SBI) loan scam.
Essentially, the arrest warrant was issued by a Jaisalmer court on February 12, 2020, against Alok Dhir and another employee of Alchemist Asset Reconstruction, Sasi Madathil.
