High Courts Weekly Roundup [May 31, 2020 – June 5, 2021]

1. 'No One Is Disputing Your Right': Allahabad HC To Legal Journalists Seeking VC Links; Says Administration Looking Into Matter [Areeb Uddin Ahmed & Ors. v. Allahabad High Court & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Justices Pankaj Naqvi and Jayant Banerji observed that its administrative side is working on all aspects of live streaming and live reporting of Court proceedings, for wider public access. "No one is disputing your right. They're working on all the aspects of the matter, we have to give them some time," the Court said while adjourning the matter for six weeks.

Significantly, the Court opined that there is no need to pass any interim order in the matter. When the Petitioner's counsel Shashwat Anand urged the Court to direct that no coercive action shall be taken against the media persons in case they live report the court proceedings, the Bench responded, "Who is preventing you?"

2. Victim A Major, Went To Hotel Room On Her Own Sweet Will": Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Booked Under UP Anti-Conversion Law [Sonu Rajpoot @ Zubair v. State of UP]

A Single Bench of Justice Samit Gopal granted bail to a man booked under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religion Conversion Act, 2020 who has been accused of committing rape upon the victim in a room of a hotel. Noting that the victim is a major and had a consenting relationship with the accused, the Court observed thus:

"The (bail) applicant and the first informant/victim were in a relationship for long and she used to spend time with the applicant and used to travel with him and went to a room of a hotel on her own sweet-will."

Also Read: 'If A Man & Woman Are In A Room, Man Makes A Request & Woman Complies, Do We Need To Say Anything More' : Supreme Court In Plea Against Bail To Varun Hiremath In Rape Case

3. Ex-IAS Officer Booked For A Tweet Regarding COVID Affected Dead Bodies: Allahabad High Court Stays Arrest [Surya Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home And Ors.]

The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Jaspreet Singh stayed the arrest of a retired IAS officer who has been booked under various offences under IPC, Uttar Pradesh Public Health and Epidemic Diseases Control Act, 2000, Disaster Management Act, 2005 and IT Act for allegedly tweeting some photos and videos alleging COVID mismanagement in Uttar Pradesh with regard to COVID Dead Bodies.

It was hearing the plea of the Retired IAS office, allegation against him is that the photographs he attached with the tweet and posted on Twitter deliberately spread hatred and it resulted in spreading tension among different sections in the locality.

Other developments:

• Gareeb Nawaz Mosque Demolition: Masjid's Committee Members Get Protection Against Coercive Action From Allahabad High Court In Forgery Case
• Plea Alleges Oxygen Tankers 'Robbed' By The State Officials: Allahabad High Court Seeks Uttar Pradesh Government's Response

Bombay High Court

1. Bombay High Court Refuses To Stay Maharashtra University Of Health Science's Offline Semester Exams [HERD Foundation v. Union of India]

A bench of Justice Avinash Gharote refused to stay the Maharashtra University of Health Science's (MUHS) decision to conduct the 'Winter 2020' examinations through the 'offline mode' for medical students from June 10, 2021. It has posted the PIL, seeking online examinations, or vaccination for nearly 40,000 undergraduates before they give the examination spread across 20 days and 173 centres, to June 14.

Though the petitioner's counsel sought for a posting on June 8 (before exams), saying that it will ensure that the students enter the exam halls with adequate precautions, the bench declined the request. "Once a student has opted to take the examination it is for him to take all the measures. They are going to be future doctors", the bench said.

Also Read: Advisable That Students Produce Negative RT-PCR Results For Maharashtra University Of Health Sciences (MUHS) Exams : Bombay High Court

2. Can We Substitute State's Decision That Environment Isn't Conducive For Exams? Bombay HC Asks Petitioner Challenging SSC Exams Cancellation [Dhananjay Kulkarni v. Union of India & Ors.]

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice GS Kulkarni granted liberty to the PIL petitioner challenging the Maharashtra Government's decision to cancel SSC (Class 10 board examinations), amend his plea, and challenge the new evaluation process.

"Corona is targeting young people now. In some cases, we may think that the State's decision is not wise, but will that flow us with powers to strike down the decision?" the bench said saying it is giving only a prima facie view and asked Petitioner's advocate Uday Warunjikar to make submissions on the powers of a writ court to exercise jurisdiction in such a case.

Also Read: 'Class 12 Students More Mature, Independent & Fit Compared To Class 10' : Maharashtra Govt On Reasons To Hold HSC Exams While Cancelling SSC

3. "The Judgement Appears To Provide a Manual On How Rape Victims Should Behave": Bombay High Court Issues Notice On State's Appeal Against Acquittal Of Tarun Tejpal In Rape Case

A Single Bench of Justice SC Gupte at Goa issued notice to Tarun Tejpal, co-founder and former Editor-in-Chief of Tehelka Magazine in the State's appeal challenging his acquittal in the 2013 sexual assault case. The court said a prima facie case was made out for considering leave.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar said the judgement and the trial court's approach shows a complete lack of sensitivity and knowledge on the subject of crime against women. Justice Gupte sarcastically added that the judgement "appears to provide a manual on how rape victims should behave."

Also Read: Tarun Tejpal Acquittal Judgment Coloured By Prejudice & Patriarchy; Focuses On Victim Blaming : Goa Govt In Appeal

4. 'Keep Faith In Us': Bombay High Court Takes Objection To Lawyer's Article Criticizing Handling Of Stan Swamy Bail Case

A Division Bench led by Justice SS Shinde while hearing a plea for interim medical bail for DU Associate Professor Hany Babu, took an exception to a recent editorial written by a junior of Advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhry who is appearing for the accused, criticizing the Court's handling of the bail plea of octogenarian Father Stan Swamy.

Justice Shinde said that if Chaudhry or his associate advocate felt that they would succeed in matters by writing articles in the newspapers, it was not right. "If you don't have faith in the system, why approach the court?"

Vehemently defending his junior's actions, Chaudhry said that neither he nor his junior had represented Swamy. And he would continue to write and also seek relief from the court. "If I am writing articles while arguing the same matter, then I or anyone from my chamber will rightly stand rebuked," he said, adding that the courts can be criticised for their decisions.

In response, Justice Shinde said he was not against freedom of speech and expression, but Swamy's bail plea was sub-judice. Moreover, the advocate may not have represented Father Swamy, but most of the Bhima Koregaon - Elgar Parishad Case matters are on a similar footing. Justice Shinde pointed out that Chaudhry and his junior were appearing for three other accused in the case, and it was not right to have commented on a sub-judice matter.

5. "If Use Of 'Defective Ventilators' Results In Loss Of Life, Central Govt Will Have To Take The Responsibility" :Bombay High Court [Registrar (Judicial), Bombay High Courtv. Union of India & Ors]

A Division Bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and BU Debadwar said the Central Government, which provided at least 133 of 150 'defective' ventilators to the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) at Aurangabad, will have to take responsibility if the ventilators cause any loss of life.

The Court said it might also direct the return of such ventilators through the Union of India if need be, as manufacturing defects call for replacement. "In short, we will not permit the experimentation of ventilators which have undergone major repairs, in treating the patients since this would be causing a risk/health hazard to the patient. If unfortunately, the use of such ventilators results in the loss of life, it will be the UOI which will have to take the responsibility."

Ludo A Gamble Or A Game Of Skill? - Bombay High Court Issues Notice To State On Plea Seeking FIR Against Makers Of Ludo Supreme App

A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and Abhay Ahuja sought a reply from the State authorities on a petition seeking registration of an FIR against the makers of a game application called Ludo Supreme, calling it as betting/gambling and a deviation from the original game, which is a "game of chance."

The petitioner had approached the local police in November 2020 against the makers of the game – Cashgrail Private Ltd under the Gambling Act as well sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The police, however, refused to register a case, following which he approached the local Metropolitan Court. In an order passed on February 12, 2021, the Metropolitan Court too rejected his private complaint saying that it was a "game of skill and not a game of chance".

Other developments:

• Bombay High Court Dismisses (As Withdrawn) Plea Challenging Maharashtra Government's Decision To Cancel Class 10 Board Examinations

Calcutta High Court

1. West Bengal Post-Poll Violence : Calcutta High Court Constitutes 3-Member Committee To Enable Displaced Persons To Return Homes

A five-Judge Bench of Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justices IP Mukerji, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Subrata Talukdar constituted a three-member Committee to enable persons displaced during the West Bengal post poll violence to return to their homes peacefully. The Committee will comprise of: (i) a member to be appointed by Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission; (ii) a member to be nominated by the State Human Rights Commission; and (iii) Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority.

It ordered that the displaced persons will communicate their grievance on the official Email ID of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority. After receipt of details of aforesaid persons, the Committee shall coordinate with local police stations and ensure that people may return.

Also Read: West Bengal Post-Poll Violence - Persons Prevented From Returning To Homes May Lodge Complaint With Legal Services Authority : Calcutta High Court

2. If Hearing Was Virtual & Judge Didn't Know People Were Protesting Outside, How Is There An Influence? Calcutta HC Asks CBI In Narada Case

While hearing CBI's transfer application in Narada scam case, a 5-Judges Bench comprising of ACJ Rajesh Bindal, and Justices IP Mukherjee, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Arijit Banerjee asked the agency as to how the Special Judge could have been influenced by the alleged mobocracy on May 17 when the hearing was on a virtual platform and the Judge had no knowledge that people have gathered outside.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, argued that a Court proceeding must not only be free of any Judicial bias but must also reflect the same to the minds of the common man. He insisted that these events are reasonably likely to leave an impression on the minds of the common man that the Justice system was stifled with. He submitted that it is a settled principle of law that Justice must not only be done but it must also be seen to be done.

The Bench also opined that a mere solitary incident would not be a sufficient ground for allowing transfer of proceedings and there should be continuous set of events that would make it apparent that if the Trial is continued, it shall be vitiated.

Also Read: Narada Case : Judges Of Division Bench Can't Be Part Of 5-Judge Bench, Argues WB Advocate General

Also Read: 'Solitary Incident Not Justifiable Ground For Transfer': Calcutta High Court Tells CBI In Narada Case

Also Read: 'Procedure Becomes Important When People's Rights Are Involved': Calcutta High Court Tells CBI In Narada Case

3. Private Unaided Education Institutions Discharge Public Duty Of Imparting Education; Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court [Bineeta Patnaik Padhi v. Union of India & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf held that private unaided educational institutions discharge public function under the Right to Education (RTE) Act and are therefore amenable to the Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. "Such a public duty stands imposed, in my opinion, in terms of both Article 21A of the Constitution of India as well as the RTE Act which gave effect to the fundamental right in unequivocal terms," it observed.

Reliance was placed on Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava whereby the Supreme Court held as maintainable, a writ petition filed by a teacher against a private unaided educational institution, challenging the termination of her services.

Delhi High Court

1. WhatsApp Obtaining 'Trick Consent' On 2021 Privacy Policy": Centre To Delhi High Court

In an additional counter affidavit filed before the Delhi High Court in the case against WhatsApp's new privacy policy of 2021, the Central Government has informed the Delhi High Court that WhatsApp is indulging in obtaining "trick consent" from its users to accept its contested privacy policy of 2021. The centre has stated that this is being done by "pushing notifications" to users on the same. The centre has sought for an order restraining WhatsApp from sending such push notifications to the users.

The government claimed that users who have not accepted the 2021 policy, are being bombarded with such notifications on a regular basis, with the overarching plan being to get the entire existing user base committed to the policy before the enactment of the Personal Data Protection (PDP) Bill - which will be the prevailing law on the subject.

2. 'Central Vista Project Of National Importance' : Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Suspend Work Amid COVID; Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Petitioners [Anya Malhotra & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.]

A division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- a PIL seeking temporary suspension of construction work on Central Vista Redevelopment Project, in light of Covid. It said that the government had already stated that the workers were "staying on site" and all arrangements had been made to ensure Covid-19 appropriate behaviour on site.

Therefore, the court refused to stay the construction work on the project stating that, "As the workers are staying on site, no question of suspending the construction work arises in light of Covid-19."

3. "We Are A Search Engine Not A Social Media Intermediary": Google Claims Protection Against IT Rules 2021 Before Delhi High Court [Google LLC v X & Ors.]

A division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh heard a plea filed by Google LLC seeking interim protection against its declaration as a "Social Media Intermediary" (SMI) under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Ethics Code) Rules 2021 (IT Rules 2021).

Google moved Court in an appeal against a single judge bench order of the court which had directed it to remove globally remove content which was flagged as "objectionable" by a female petitioner, for being "offensive" and having been taken from her social media accounts on Facebook and Instagram, and circulated without her consent.

4. CM Advocate Welfare Policy: Delhi High Court Rejects NIACL's Demand For Additional Premium To 557 Advocates Not Forming Part Of Original List [Govind Swaroop Chaturvedi v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.]

Observing that the issue was created due to lack of proper verification of the Delhi Bar Council, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Pratibha M Singh rejected the demand of New India Assurance Company Limited (NIACL) demanding additional premium for 557 advocates who were not part of the original list of 29,007 advocates as there was no payment made to them.

It ordered: "It is in respect of these 557 advocates that NIACL is demanding additional premium as no payment has been made in respect of these advocates. This issue has been created due to the lack of proper verification by the BCD. Since the arguments in these petitions are on the verge of conclusion, insofar as any additional premium amount is concerned, at this stage, no additional premium is being directed to be paid, considering the fact that a substantial amount of lawyers are according to the GNCTD already found to be ineligible, which would be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court."

5. 'Defective, Vexatious' : Delhi High Court Dismisses Juhi Chawla's Civil Suit Against 5G Roll Out With Rs 20 Lakhs Cost [Juhi Chawla & Ors. v. Science & Engineering Research Board & Ors.]

Imposing a heavy cost of Rupees 20 lakhs on actor Juhi Chawla, a single bench of Justice GR Midha dismissed her civil suit against 5G Roll out as "defective and not maintainable". "Vexatious allegations were made", the Bench noted in the order.

"It appears suit was filed for publicity. Juhi Chawla circulated link of the hearing on social media", the Court observed. It also directed issuance of contempt show-cause notice against persons who barged into the virtual hearing and sang songs from Juhi Chawla's films while the hearing was in progress.

Also Read: Juhi Chawla 5G Petition: Delhi High Court Warns Of Contempt Notice On Fanboy Singing Songs From Actor's Movies During The Hearing

Also Read: Classic Textbook Case Of How Not To Draft A Plaint, Which Should Be Taught In Law Colleges : Delhi High Court About Juhi Chawla's Suit

6. Financial Constraints Or Pandemic Not Grounds For State Agencies To Sack Employees: Delhi High Court In Air India Pilots Case [Arjun Ahluwalia v. Air India Limited]

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Jyoti Singh held "State or its Agencies under Article 12 of the Constitution cannot claim financial constraints or impact of the Pandemic as a ground for dispensing the services of its employees, in the manner adopted in the present case. State has a fiduciary duty to perform towards the citizens under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution and thus it becomes the bounden duty of a welfare State to secure the rights of livelihood of the citizens. In view of the above findings and circumstances, it is held that financial crunch cannot be a relevant consideration in deciding the issue of acceptance of resignations."

Furthermore, the Court was of the view that it was futile for Air India to base its decision on the alleged losses it has been suffering and continues to suffer on the account of covid 19 pandemic.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Quashes Termination Of Air India Pilots, Directs Reinstatement

7. "Vaccine Shortage Hitting Everybody": Delhi High Court Directs Centre To Release 14 Crores To Panacea Biotech For Manufacturing Sputnik-V Vaccine

A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Najmi Waziri directed the Centre to release an amount of 14 Crores along with the interest of 12% to Panacea Biotech for manufacturing Sputnik V subject to the condition of receiving permission from respective authorities to manufacture it in India. It ordered, "The release is also subject to the undertaking given by Panacea Biotec that 20 per cent of the sale proceeds will be deposited by it with High Court Registry."

The development came in a application filed by Panacea Biotech seeking release of an arbitral award passed earlier in its favour. It was thus stated by Panacea that it had manufactured trial batches of COVID-19 vaccine Sputnik V in collaboration with Russian Direct Investment Fund (for short 'RDIF') and the process of manufacturing scale-up batches is on.

Also Read: "People Sitting Over India's Untapped Vaccine Manufacturing Potential Must Be Charged With Manslaughter ": Delhi High Court To Centre

Also Read: "State's Primary Object Should Be To Ensure Vaccination Of Maximum People In Shortest Time": Delhi High Court Bats For Making Co-Win App 'User Friendly'

"Failure To Administer Second Dose Would Frustrate The Very Exercise Of Administering Initial Dose": Delhi High Court

A single bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli observed that the failure to administer the second dose would compromise and frustrate the very exercise of administering the initial dose. While observing so, the Court asked the Delhi Government and the Centre to place on record the communications exchanged between them with regards to the persons who have not been administered the second dose of Covaxin till date falling between the age group of 18-44 years.

The development came in a plea filed by the persons who fall within the age group of 18 to 44 (less than 45) years and have already received first dose of the 'Covaxin' vaccine. During the course of hearing, the Delhi Government had apprised the Court that 1,50,000 persons within the age group of 18-44 years and <45 years were administered the first dose of Covaxin at its vaccination centres during the period between 1st May to 24th May, 2021.

Also Read: "Will You Give It To 85Yr Old Or 45Yr Old? There Is A Scarcity, You Have To Make A Cruel Choice": Delhi High Court Tells Centre, Delhi Govt On Allocation Of Black Fungus Drug

8. Black Fungus- "Responsibility Falls On Centre's Shoulders To Spell Out Policy For Priority Of Patients To Be Administered Amphotericin-B": Delhi High Court [Rakesh Malhotra v. GNCTD & Ors.]

Observing that younger patients may have to be prioritized in comparison with the older generation "which has lived its life", a division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh directed the Centre to spell out its policy with regard to the priority of patients who should be administered the said drug, to maximize the lives that could be saved, amongst patients suffering from Mucormycosis also known as black fungus.

The Court observed thus: "The responsibility has fallen on the shoulders of the UOI to take a policy decision with regard to the manner in which the said drug should be made available to the suffering patients, till such time as the shortage of Liposomal Amphotericin-B continues, or an alternate equally effective and safe medicine is found for treatment of the said disease. If all patients suffering from the said disease cannot be treated on account of non-availability of the said drug in sufficient quantity, the responsibility falls on the UOI to spell out its policy with regard to the priority of patients who should be administered the said drug, to maximize the lives that could be saved, amongst patients suffering from Mucormycosis (Black Fungus)."

Also Read: "Need Of The Hour Is To Vaccinate As Many People As Possible": Delhi High Court Issues Notice In Vaccination Centre's Plea Challenging Withdrawal From COWIN Portal

9. "Whether Compensation Under Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme Can Be Claimed For Offence Committed Outside Delhi?": High Court To Examine In Aftab Alam Lynching Case [Mohd. Sabir v. DSLSA]

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli is set to examine the question as to whether compensation can be claimed by the legal heirs of deceased person under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 in the case concerning the alleged lynching of Aftab Alam, a taxi driver, who was found stabbed with strangulation marks, in his taxi near a village in UP's Gautam Buddh Nagar last year. While issuing notice in the matter, the Court sought response of the Delhi State Legal Services Authority through Special Secretary and posted the matter for further hearing on August 28.

The development came in a plea filed by the son of Aftab Alam, sole bread-winner and supported the family by driving a self-owned taxi, whose family is survived by three sons and a wife.

10. Delhi High Court Issues Summons On Medical Association's Suit Against Ramdev Baba, Refuses Interim Relief

A single judge bench of Justice C Hari Shankar issued summons to Patanjali Ayurved's Ramdev Baba, Twitter Inc, Facebook Inc, Google LLC, and Vedic Broadcasting Ltd on a suit by the Delhi Medical Association (DMA) seeking to restrain Ramdev from "disseminating false statements and false information in respect of Patanjali Ayurved's Coronil."

DMA also alleged that Ramdev through his statements against medical science and doctors in general is harming the Association and "indirectly affecting public interest" in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, and sought interim relief against the same. However, the court refused to grant DMA any interim relief stating that it would first hear the suit on the issue of maintainability and preliminary objections raised by Ramdev's counsel, Sr. Adv. Rajiv Nayar.

11. Will Take Action Against Gautam Gambhir Foundation For Unauthorized Stock Of Covid Medicines: Drug Controller Informs Delhi High Court

The Drug Controller informed a division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh that Gautam Gambhir Foundation has been found in contravention of the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act for unauthorised stock of covid 19 drugs.

The Bench was apprised by the submissions made by ASC Nandita Rao appearing for Drug Controller, GNCTD. The development came after the Court directed the Drug Controller to file fresh status reports with regards to the probe against Gautam Gambhir and AAP MLA Praveen Kumar.

During the course of hearing, Rao informed the Bench that during inquiry, it was observed that Gautam Gambhir Foundation purchased over 2000 strips by licensed dealers despite them not holding any valid license for doing so. The Court was also informed that show cause notices have also been sent to such firms for violating conditions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and that such firms are also liable for Prosecution for selling medicines to an unlicensed firm i.e. Gautam Gambhir Foundation.

Also Read: "You Want Us To Shut Our Eyes. You Can't Take Us For a Ride": Delhi HC Pulls Up Drug Controller For Dissatisfactory Probe Against Gautam Gambhir For Hoarding Covid Drug

12. Delhi High Court Issues Notice In Plea Against Twitter For Non Compliance Of IT Rules, 2021

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli issued notice in a plea filed against the non-compliance by Twitter India and Twitter Inc with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021) after Senior advocate Sajan Poovaya appearing for Twitter told the court that they have already appointed a grievance redressal officer on May 28.

It sought Twitter's response in the plea filed by one Amit Acharya, a practicing advocate in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India, and a user of the platform, stating that Twitter is a "Significant Social Media Intermediary" (SSMI) as laid down under the IT Rules, 2021 and therefore must ensure compliance with the statutory duties imposed upon it by the provisions of these rules.

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Singh & Singh Law Firm Against "Singh + Singh LLP" In Trademark Suit [Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP & Anr. v. Singh + Singh Lawyers LLP & Ors.]

A single judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula granted interim relief to the Singh & Singh law firm, restraining "Singh + Singh LLP" and its partners/promoters, associates, family members, employees and anyone acting for and on their behalf from using the impugned marks including the name/mark "Singh + Singh", "Singh + Singh LLP", "Singh + Singh Lawyers LLP" on a trademark infringement suit moved by Singh & Singh.

In its order passed on Jun 2, the court also restrains "Singh + Singh LLP" from using the marks singhllp.com, singhllp, @singhsinghllp, Singh-Singh-LLP, the Singh + Singh impugned logo, or any other trademark/trade name/service name/trading style or domain name or Twitter handle, LinkedIN profile, Facebook profile, logo, device, etc., "which is either identical to or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' mark(s) 'Singh & Singh', 'Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP', 'Singh & Singh.com', 'Singh & Singh Advocates' or any other derivatives thereof."

Other developments:

• Inmate Tests Positive For COVID, Lost Eye Due To Black Fungus: Delhi High Court Grants Her Interim Bail
• Plea For Improvements In Present Virtual Filing System Of District Courts: Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Itself, Seeks Status Report
• COVID Deaths At Jaipur Golden Hospital: Delhi High Court Seeks Response Of Centre, Delhi Govt In Plea Seeking SIT Investigation, Compensation
• Specify Arrangements To Ensure Students Get Second Chance To Take LLB Exams Within Reasonable Time: Delhi HC Issues Notice To Delhi University
• Plea For Rehabilitation Of Beggars From Traffic Signals: Delhi High Court Seeks Delhi Govt, DUSIB, Commissioner Of Police Response
• "We May Direct Attachment Of Properties": Delhi High Court Warns NDMC For Non Payment Of Salaries, Pensions To Employees Amid Covid
• Delhi High Court Quashes Govt Orders Preventing Pvt Unaided Schools From Collecting Annual Charges, Development Fees During Lockdown

Gauhati High Court

1. Status Of Internally Displaced Persons, Responsibility Of Centre, State Govt: Gauhati High Court Seeks Response On Larger Issues [Abhhijit Sarmah v. Union of India & Ors.]

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak sought response of the Centre as well as the State Government on the larger issues concerning the status of internally displaced persons and the responsibility of the Central and the State Government towards such persons.

The development came while dealing with two petitions raising similar issues regarding internally displaced person (IDP) who have been forced to flee from the State of West Bengal to Assam pursuant to the alleged violence post West Bengal Assembly Election.

2. "Exorbitant Prices Charged By Pvt Hospitals, Oximeters In Rural Areas, Bed Availability Information On Portal": Gauhati HC Seeks State Govt's Response [Advocates Association For Indigenous Rights Of Assamese & Anr v. State of Assam & Ors.]

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak sought the response of the State Government on various issues concerning Covid 19 situation in the State faced by the people in view of second Covid wave.

The Court was dealing with a plea raising issues including: first, exorbitant prices charges by private hospitals while treating covid patients, second, people residing in rural areas must be given oximeters and third, the need for having an online portal for showing availability of beds in the State.

3. 'Not Everyone Is Privileged': Gauhati High Court Directs State To Verify Sufficiency Of Rooms Before Recommending Home Isolation For Covid-19 Patients [In-Re Kohima, Nagaland v. State of Nagaland & Ors.]

Taking into account the economic status of its population, a Bench of Justices Songkhupchung Serto and S. Hukato Swu observed that only few privileged people who belong to higher economic strata may have the facilities for isolation in their own homes. It therefore directed the Nagaland Government to make sure that the patients of Covid-19, who are recommended to isolate at home, have sufficient number of rooms and other facilities for the same.

"We are of the view that before directing a person to stay under home isolation, the Surveillance teams constituted by the Government should first see/verify whether the family has sufficient rooms and other facilities in the house where the infected person can be isolated, and if only such facilities are found, the person should be directed to stay under home isolation," the Court ordered in its suo moto case on Covid-19.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

1. Zee Media Journalist Booked For Conducting 'Reality Check' On Inter-State E-Pass Registration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Stays Arrest

Dealing with a matter of a Zee News journalist who has been booked for conducting a 'reality check' on e-pass registration for inter-State movement, a Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel directed the State police not to take any coercive action against him till the next date of hearing.

The Petitioner stated in his bail application that being a responsible journalist and acting in larger public interest carried out a systematic investigation into the veracity of the claims being made by the administration qua the verification of the registration in forms of the people entering Himachal compliance with notification dated 05-05-2021 and broadcast the news on May 7. It was also mentioned that the reality check undertaken by the petitioner brought to light the fact that the registration so made and e-passes so generated were being done in a mechanical manner without any verification by the authorities concerned.

2. Access To Internet Services Has Assumed Great Importance On Account Of COVID Pandemic: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Underlining that access to Internet services has assumed great importance on account of the Covid-19 pandemic, a Bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Chander Bhushan Barowalia observed that "The need of the hour is to provide adequate bandwidth, network attached storage and routers etc. to facilitate the conducting of educational courses, conferences, court proceedings etc. on virtual platform."

The Court was hearing a petition filed highlighting the plight of the residents of the State, more particularly, the residents of the rural and backward areas of the State, in the matters regarding Internet services.

3. "Entire World Has Switched Over To 5G & BSNL Still Trying To Procure Outdated 4G Equipment": Himachal Pradesh High Court Calls it 'Wastage Of Money'

A Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice CB Barowalia questioned that when the entire world is proceeding or has rather switched over to 5G technology, why the BSNL is still trying to procure outdated equipment of 4G. It was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed indicating the plight of the residents of the rural and backward areas state in the matters regarding Internet services.

When the Counsel of BSNL said that BSNL had already called for tenders for the supply of 4G equipment but the same could not be finalized because of the objections raised by various authorities of the government, the Court said: "We are surprised to note that the entire world is proceeding or has rather switched over to 5G technology, why the BSNL is still trying to procure outdated equipment of 4G. Why public money is sought to be wasted, is a matter of concern both for the public as well as for this Court."

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

1. 'Heinous Offence Against A Serving Law Officer': Jammu & Kashmir HC Refuses To Suspend Sentence Of 3 Convicts In Deputy Advocate General Murder Case [Vishal Sharma v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr.]

A Division Bench comprising of Justices Tashi Rabstan and Justice Javed Iqbal Wani refused to suspend the sentence for the three convicts in the 2008 Deputy Advocate General Murder case. It said it cannot overlook the fact that the accused-applicants have been held guilty and convicted for commission of a "heinous offence against the then serving Law Officer".

It further noted that they were convicted "after a full dressed trial" for about twelve years by the Trial Court upon evaluation of ocular, circumstantial, medical and scientific evidence.
It reiterated that power of suspension of sentence by Appellate Court under Section 389 CrPC confers 'discretionary jurisdiction' and has to be "exercised sparingly".

Karnataka High Court

1. No Fundamental Right Is Conferred On Any Religion To Degrade Other Religions: Karnataka High Court [Precilla D'Souza v. State Of Karnataka]

A Single Bench of Justice HP Sandesh observed that there no fundamental right is conferred on any religion to degrade other religions. While professing any religion, the religious heads or professing by any person should not degrade other religion, the Bench observed while refusing to quash a criminal complaint alleging degradation of religion by the accused.

The Court was dealing with a complaint filed by a woman stating that the accused came to her residence and degraded other religions stating that neither Bhagavad-Gita nor Quran will provide any peace of mind or comes to any rescue of any person except Yesu Christa. The accused approached the High Court seeking to quash the order taking cognizance of the complaint. The accused contended that the same violates Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India.

2. Karnataka High Court Strikes Down GST Rules Imposing Liability On Entire Bet Amount Received By Horse Race Clubs [Bangalore Turf Club Limited v. State Of Karnataka]

A single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna declared Rule 31A(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as amended in terms of notification dated 23.01.2018 as ultra vires the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Act and Rule 31A of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, as ultra vires the provisions of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. "The petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits that flow from the aforesaid orders," the COurt ordered.

The petitioners had primarily moved the court challenging the legislative intent of making the petitioners liable to pay Goods and Services Tax ('GST' for short) on the entire bet amount received by the totalisator.

3. Karnataka HC Rejects NLSIU's Challenge To UGC Regulation Which Restricts Territorial Jurisdiction Of Universities [NLSIU v. UGC & Anr.]

A single bench of Justice R Devdas refused to quash a public notice and regulations issued by University Grants Commission by which it restricts the physical jurisdiction of National Law School of India University (NLSIU), in the matter of distance education to within the State of Karnataka. The University has established examination centres at New Delhi, Kolkata and Pune.

NLSIU had challenged the public notice dated 19.07.2016 and a communication dated 06.10.2016, issued by UGC and the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning) Regulations, 2017. The regulations provide that a University which is established or incorporated by or under a State Act shall operate only within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under the Act and in no case it shall operate beyond the territory of the State where it is located.

4. Conduct Online Training At Judicial Academy For Prosecutors In SC/ST Case : Karnataka High Court

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj suggested to the State Government to approach the Karnataka Judicial Academy which can conduct online courses for its prosecutors who regularly appear in cases registered under the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court directed the State government to respond on the issue of training.

It said "Considering the nature of the order, we are of the view that the second wave of Covid-19 may not prevent the Director of the Prosecution from complying with the order. The State Government must also respond to an earlier order suggesting imparting the training to the Prosecutors. The State Government can always approach the Karnataka Judicial Academy for conducting online training courses for the prosecutors."

Other developments:

• Give Wide Publicity For Grievance Redressal Mechanism For Violation Of COVID Norms : Karnataka High Court
• State Cannot Ignore Distribution Of Sanitary Napkins To Adolescent School Going Girls During Second Wave Of Covid-19 : Karnataka HC
• 'Pandemic Or No Pandemic, Education Of Children Must Go On' : Karnataka HC Directs State To Plan Distribution Of Textbooks, Devices

Kerala High Court

1. Include Practicing Advocates & Clerks In Vaccine Priority List Along With Judicial Officers & Court Staff: Kerala HC Directs State Govt

A division bench comprising Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Dr Kauser Edappagath directed the State Government to include practicing advocates and their clerks in the priority list for COVID-19 vaccination in the age group of 18-45 years within 10 days. It passed the direction taking note of the fact that the Government has issued an order on June 2 to include judges and court staff in the vaccine priority list, but has excluded lawyers and clerks.

The Court also observed that excluding lawyers and clerks will defeat the purpose of giving priority for judges and court staff.

2. Mere Delay In Production Of OBC-Non Creamy Layer Certificate Not A Ground To Reject Candidature: Kerala High Court [Indian Institute Of Science Education & Research v. Dr. Smitha VS]

A division bench comprising Justice Alexander Thomas and K Babu observed that candidature under OBC Category cannot be rejected merely on the ground of belated submission of the OBC-NCL certificate by the candidate. This will only lead to a situation where the rights and opportunities guaranteed to the candidate under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India will be flagrantly violated, it observed.

3. Lakshadweep : Kerala High Court Asks Expert Committee To Formulate Guidelines On Medical Evacuation In 10 Days [Md. Salih PM v. Administrator, Lakshadweep]

To allay the apprehensions of Lakshadweep residents regarding the new procedure for medical evacuation, a division bench comprising Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Kauser Edappagath directed the committee constituted by the Health Services Director, Lakshadweep, for recommending medical evacuation of patients from various islands, to formulate guidelines on the method and manner of its functioning.

The court passed the interim order on a writ petition filed by P.M. Mohammed Saliah from Amini in Lakshadweep challenging the order of the Director of Health Services constituting a four-member committee for recommending special evacuation of patients to Kochi or Agati or Kavaratti from other islands. As per the earlier process for medical evacuation, patients in critical condition used to be airlifted as soon as the medical officer of the respective islands made a request to the Health Services Director functioning in Kavaratti.

4. Kerala High Court Seeks State's Response On Plea For Action Against Opposition Leader VD Satheesan For Alleged COVID Protocol Violation

A division bench comprising Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Kauser Edappagath sought response from the State about the action taken on a complaint filed against VD Satheesan, Leader of Opposition, for allegedly violating Covid-19 protocol. It was considering a writ petition filed by N. Arun, who had filed the complaint before Director General of Police, in this regard.

In his complaint, N. Arun alleged that, On 22.05.2021, the Congress leader VD Satheesan, after he was declared as opposition leader of the Kerala State Legislative Assembly, appeared in public, along with numerous supporters, by violating Covid 19 norms. He also allegedly visited Chellanan where he was given a reception attended by hundreds of supporters and also conducted a press meeting in the district office of the Indian National Congress at Ernakulam without complying any of the norms of the lockdown protocol.

5. 'What Is Lawyer's Interest In Judicial Officers' Transfer?' : Kerala HC Dismisses PIL Against Judges' Transfer During Pandemic

A division bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Dr Kauser Edappagath dismissed a PIL filed by an advocate challenging the transfer of judicial officers of subordinate courts during the pandemic. It observed that the petition does not appear to have been filed with bona-fide intentions. The bench observed that the it was a fit case to impose heavy costs but refrained from doing so.

"What is the interest of a lawyer in a judicial officer's transfer?", the bench asked the counsel for the petitioner. The bench told the counsel that no judicial officer has raised any grievance regarding the transfer. "In fact many of them wanted transfer. These are maters between judicial officers and the court. What is the public interest?", the bench asked Advocate D Jayakrishnan, who was appearing for the petitioner-lawyer Sheeja MS.

6. Representative Suit - Process Under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC Not Mandatory At Appellate Stage : Kerala High Court

Answering a reference against a division bench judgment, a 3-judge bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar, V Shircy and K Haripal held that the publication of notice under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory at the appellate stage of a representative suit. It declared that the division bench judgment in Radha KS v. Sadasivan & Anr., 2017 (1) KLT 102, which held that provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC are to be complied with at the appellate stage, was "not correctly decided".

The question referred to the bench was : "Is an appeal preferred against a decree passed in a representative suit incompetent, without making a further publication under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure?" The reference was made by a single bench which doubted the correctness of the decision in Radha KS (supra). While the single bench referred the matter to a division bench, in 2017, a division bench endorsed the views of the single bench, and further referred the matter to a 3-judge bench, as Radha was a decision rendered by a coordinate bench.

7. Lakshadweep Protests : Kerala High Court Issues Orders For Release Of Detained Island Residents [Sayed Mohamed Koya v. Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep]

A division bench comprising Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Dr Kauser Edappagath issued directions to Chief Judicial Magistrate at Amani, Lakshadweep for the release of island residents who were detained by the administration in connection with their protests against the proposed controversial regulations, on execution of their personal bonds.

It issued the order in a writ petition filed by a Lakshadweep resident espousing the cause of persons detained by Executive Magistrate in connection with protests. The petitioner contended that though the offences invoked against the protesters are bailable, the Executive Magistrate remanded them for no reason. The Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration refuted this allegation and said that though the Executive Magistrate was prepared to release the protesters on bail, they chose not to get released. This was denied by the petitioner's counsel, Advocate R.Rohith, who alleged that no such attempt was made either by the Executive Magistrate or the Station House Officer.

Other developments:

• Kerala High Court Seeks ED Response On Black Money Case Where BJP Leaders Are Under Scanner
• Kerala High Court Stays Single Bench Judgment On Treating Professors Of Different Subjects As One Unit For Reservations
• Take Decision On Recommendation For Appointment Of Kerala Administrative Tribunal Chairman Within 3 Weeks: Kerala High Court To Centre

Madhya Pradesh High Court

1. Co-WIN App: MP High Court Directs Centre To Examine Representation Regarding 'Waiting List' Facility In App For Necessary Modification [ Mukesh Dhanraj Wadhwani v. State of MP & Ors.]

A Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan directed the Government of India to examine a representation regarding the facility of the waiting list, for necessary modification in the Co-WIN App. It was hearing a writ petition filed by one Mukesh Dhanraj Wadhwani aggrieved by the system of registration of citizen for vaccination of Corona Virus on Co-WIN application.

The petitioner stated that the slot for vaccination is allotted to citizens on the basis of the availability of the number of vaccination doses in a particular center and that several times the citizens make an attempt for registration but once the requisite number of registration for a particular slot on a particular date in respect of a given center is complete, the citizen have to wait till the next day and to make another attempt for their registration.

2. "Organize Blood Donation Camps Adhering To Covid Norms, Furnish Information On E- Raktkosh Portal": MP HC Directs State Authorities [Dr. Yogeshwar Prasad Shukla v. State of MP & Ors.]

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan directed the State Authorities including Director of Health Services, Director of Blood Banks and Additional Director of Health Services to organize blood donation camps district wise by adhering to covid protocols and also to furnish information of such camps in the E- RaktkoshPortal or any other media platform.

The development came in a petition moved through Advocate Rishabh Dubey seeking directions on the respondent authorities to ensure strict compliance of the advisory dated 5th May 2021 issued by the National Blood Transfusion Council (NBTC) directing to conduct blood donation camps and showing the data on E-Raktkosh Portal.

Also Read: Vaccine Policy Allowing Private Sector To Procure 25% Vaccines Directly From Manufacturers Challenged: MP High Court Seeks Govt. Response

3. "Can Media Report Court's Observations Not Part Of Rulings?": MP HC Issues Notice To HC On Plea Seeking Permission For Live Reporting of Court's Proceedings [Nupur Thapliyal & Ors. v. MP High Court & Anr.]

A Division Bench of Justices Sheel Nagu and GS Ahluwalia issued notice to Madhya Pradesh High Court and State Government on a plea by 4 Legal Journalists who have moved the High Courts seeking permission for Live-streaming and Live-reporting. It issued the notices while observing that the Petitioners have an arguable point and posted the matter for further hearing on June 9.

However, the Court did pose a question regarding the right of the media to report Court observations, conversation with the lawyer not forming part of the Court's proceedings. Significantly, Justice Sheel Nagu specifically observed that as far as the question of the court being open for public view is considered, Court proceedings should be open, the same shall be held in public view, unless that person creates nuisance and that Court must be open to all.

Also Read: Right To Know & Report Live Court Proceedings: "Won't It Amount To Asking For Too Much?": Asks MP High Court [Court Room Exchange]

Madras High Court

1. Plea To Extend Judge's Tenure Conducting Murder Trial: "No Impediment To Successor Taking Over Matter": Madras HC Orders Trial Completion By July [AA Mohan v. Principal Secretary Law, Court & Ors.]

Noting that there may not be an impediment to the successor-in-office taking over the matter and dealing with the same in accordance with the law, a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy refused to extend the Tenure of a Judge conducting a murder trial.

It was hearing a plea seeking extension of the tenure of a Judge who was to demit office on May 31, so that a murder trial pending before the Judge could be disposed of without the matter being dealt with by another Judge.

At the outset, the Court observed that in an extraordinary situation, an extension may be granted, particularly since a lot of time has been spent without any meaningful steps being taken in the matter in the wake of pandemic and the closing down of Courts thereupon. However, the Court further noted the submission on behalf of the principal accused that it was not as if the entire trial was conducted by this Judge.

2. 'People Have Gone Into Debt To Secure Best Treatment For Covid-19': Madras High Court Urges Govt To Devise Policy To Address Financial Difficulties Of People [DI Nathan v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy urged the Tamil Nadu Government to attend to the financial needs of its citizens, who have "gone beyond means" to ensure the best treatment for their family members infected with the Covid-19 infection. It opined that the financial difficulties faced by ordinary citizens, particularly those who are not able to afford expensive treatment, should be looked into by the State.

"There is no doubt that every family would have gone beyond its means to ensure the best treatment for its members; but these families would have been drained of their savings or may have gone into debt. This is a matter which requires the attention of the State and the data has to be gathered before any effective policy decision is taken. It is hoped that such aspect will engage the attention of the State, sooner rather than later," the Court urged.

Also Read: "COVID Patients In Critical Condition": Madras High Court Directs Puducherry Govt To Release Payments Due To Private Medical Colleges On Priority

3. Nomination Of 3 Puducherry MLAs- "Only Grievance Appears To Be That They Are BJP Members": Madras High Court Dismisses PIL [GA Jagannathan v. Union of India & Ors.]

A Division a Bench of Justices Dr. Anita Sumanth and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed a PIL assailing the Central Government's decision to nominate three BJP members to the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Puducherry. The Court observed that the nominees [K Venkatesan, VP Ramalingam and RV Ashok Babu] do not attract the specific statutory disqualifications and their alleged unsuitability is in general and non-specific terms.

The Central Government exercised its powers in terms of Section 3(3) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 ('1963 Act') to nominate three members to Puducherry Legislative Assembly. The Court remarked: "Unless the allegation of unsuitability goes to the very fundamentals of the matter and the candidate nominated is shown to be ex-facie and patently unsuitable, such that his/her nomination would rebel against one's conscience, the question of the Court reviewing the suitability of a candidate does not arise."

4. Renault-Nissan Plant Workmen Argue Employer Can't Avail Lockdown Exemption Without Maintaining Covid Protocol: Madras High Court Orders Inspection [Workmen of Renault- Nissan v. State of Tami Nadu & Anr.]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy ordered inspection of automobile giant, Renault-Nissan's manufacturing facility at Sriperumbudur after its workers went on a strike alleging that the company has not attended to Covid-appropriate protocol. "The employer cannot avail of the exemption to the lockdown without complying with the attendant conditions of maintaining Covid protocol, particularly social distancing," the workmen had.

The workmen had approached the High Court challenging a GO which dubbed the automobile industry as 'continuous process industry' to grant exemption from the two week-lockdown to prevent the spread of COVID-19. According to them, the distancing norms cannot be maintained in the production procedure adopted by this employer, particularly in the assembly line.

5. COVID Vaccine Availability An Area Of Concern; Necessary To Vaccinate All Even If It Is For The Selfish Interest Of Others: Madras High Court [M. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.]

On a plea seeking vaccination for the homeless, a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that even if it is for the selfish interest of the rest of the population which may be better placed, it is necessary to vaccinate all, since those who are not vaccinated may be a risk to the others. The Court noted that at present, vaccines are not available in adequate quantities.

Thus, it expressed hope that all Municipal Corporations and Municipalities and like bodies take the initiative to ensure that all homeless persons, pavement dwellers and others who may not have any registration or other documents are administered the vaccine upon assessing their health conditions.

Other developments:

• How The Manufacturing Activities Of Sanitary Napkins, Diapers Being Regulated?: Madras High Court Asks Centre, State Govt
• Madras High Court Expresses Concern Over Entourage Accompanying Legislators During Hospital Visits Amid Covid-19

Manipur High Court

1. 'State Should Not Be Caught Unprepared In Meeting Challenges Of Another Wave Of Covid-19': Manipur High Court [Naresh Maimom v. Union Of India & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Kh Nobin Singh reiterated the inevitability of devising a long-term action plan for combating the potential third wave of Covid-19 pandemic. "It would be necessary for the State to demonstrate the steps already taken, in terms of the demands raised for medical supplies and facilities, medicines and infrastructure; the steps taken to meet such demands; and also the plan for the future, in terms of the perceived demands that may arise for medical supplies and facilities, medicines and infrastructure and the steps that need to be put in place to meet such future demands, so that the State is not caught unprepared in meeting the challenges of another wave of this pandemic," the Court said.

It asked the State Government to indicate the steps taken by it to put in place a "long-term plan" for meeting future challenges during the Covid19 pandemic. The first such direction was made by the High Court last year in a PIL titled J. Hillson Angam v. State of Manipur & Ors..

Orissa High Court

1. 'Upgrade Other State Buildings To Meet Prison Requirements': Orissa High Court Seeks Action Plan For Decongestion Of Prisons Amid Covid-19 [Krushna Prasad Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Savitri Ratho suggested that more State buildings /facilities may be upgraded to meet the requirements of a prison, in order to decongest the existing penitentiaries. The remarks were made upon being informed that at least six prisons continue to be overcrowded in the state while the second wave of the pandemic causes havoc. It was informed that particularly, the situation in Bhadrak Special Sub-Jail is acute where against the capacity of 166 there are over 430 prisoners.

"In a time of COVID-19 Pandemic, this can also pose a serious risk to the health and safety of the prisoners as well as the jail staff," the Bench remarked at the outset. It stated that the situation is grave and requires immediate attention. Therefore, a direction is made to the State of Odisha to come up with a detailed "action plan" for dealing with the issue of overcrowding of prisons by June 28.

2. Manual Scavenging: Orissa High Court Seeks Response On Disbursement Of Compensation To Sanitation Workers' Families Who Lost Life [In Re: Deaths of Sanitation Workers]

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Savitri Ratho sought response of Water Corporation of Odisha (WATCO) on the issue of disbursement of compensation to the families of sanitation workers who died in the two incidents, one at Bhubaneswar and the other in Cuttack, during manual scavenging on April 15.

It 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."

Punjab & Haryana High Court

1. Social Investigation Report Must Be Considered While Deciding Juvenile's Bail Plea: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Vishnu v. State of Haryana]

A Single Bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal reiterated that the bail application of a Juvenile under Section 12 of the JJ Act must be decided after taking into account the Social Investigation Report of the child in question. "A coordinate Bench of this Court in Vishvas's case (supra) has held that application under Section 12 of the Act cannot be decided without taking into consideration of the Social Investigation Report of a juvenile," the Court observed.

In the said case, a Bench of Justice Jaishree Thakur had directed that the decision for grant or rejection of bail shall be founded on the basis of Social Investigation Report submitted by the Probation Officer and any other material available before the Board and not merely on the basis of records of the case and report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. of the investigation officer.

2. "16-Yr-Old Muslim Girl's Second Marriage Void, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act Applicable": P&H HC Directs To Lodge Her In Nari Niketan [Sahib & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

Hearing a protection plea filed by a runaway married couple, a Single Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal observed that: "(Since the girl is a minor and so) the prohibition contained in Section 12 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 would be attracted as also the fact that a second marriage of a Muslim girl is void." The observed that Petitioner No.2 (Muslim Girl) was stated to be 16 years of age and thus, she is a minor. "It is also noticed that this marriage (if it can be called so) is her second marriage," added the Court.

Significantly, when the Counsel for the Couple tried to rely on the P&H HC's Judgment in Mohd. Samim vs. State of Haryana- where it was held that under Muslim law puberty and majority are one and the same- the Court specifically stated that it was not in agreement with that case.

3. Extramarital Affair No Ground To Conclude Woman Wouldn't Be A Good Mother & Deny Her Child Custody: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Mandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.]

Noting that in a patriarchal society, it is common to cast aspersions on the moral character of a woman, a Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal while granting custody over a four-year-old child to her mother, recently observed thus: "Even assuming a woman is or has been in an extramarital relationship, the same by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that she would not be a good mother to deny her the custody of her child."

The Bench was hearing a plea filed by the mother, who had moved the High Court for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus seeking custody of her minor daughter. Importantly, the Court noted that her husband couldn't substantiate the allegations pertaining to the character of the Woman that she was in an extra-marital relationship with her relative. "Aside of the bald assertion in the petition, no supporting material has been brought before this Court," noted the Court.

4. "Privatization Move Is In Direct Conflict With 'Sab Ka Saath Sab Ka Vikas' Agenda": P&H High Court Raps Chandigarh Admin [UT Powermen Union, Chandigarh (regd.) v. Union of India & Ors.]

A Bench of Justice Jitendra Chauhan and Justice Vivek Puri ruled that the proposed action of UT Administration, Chandigarh of electricity privatization was in direct conflict with the nation's agenda of 'Sab Ka Saath Sab Ka Vikas'. In the instant application, prayer had been made for stopping further proceedings with regard to privatization of electricity in UT, Chandigarh including the opening and finalization of the tender bids till the final adjudication of the writ petition.

Observing that the administration should safeguard such institutions, the Court remarked: "They provide a security net for the society to fall back upon, for the poorest of the poor to dream of a better future, for the person at the end of the line to be aspirational so that he too can be part of the Indian dream. All this indicates a social motive and not a profit motive."

Rajasthan High Court

1. Explain Why Pakistani Minority Migrants With No Identity Cards Not Being Vaccinated Despite Court's Order?: Rajasthan High Court To State Govt. [Suo Moto v. Union Of India & Anr.]

A Bench of Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Rameshwar Vyas asked the Rajasthan State Government to explain as to why it is not treating the Pakistani Minority Migrants, who are not having prescribed identity cards, eligible for COVID-19 vaccination. It observed that despite its order dated May 28, the Pakistani Minority Migrants were not being vaccinated.

The Court noted that after its order dated May 28, a letter had been written by the National Health Mission, Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Rajasthan to the Health and Family Welfare Ministry, Government of India requesting them to include the Pakistani Minority Migrants in the SOP which deals with 'COVID-19 Vaccination of Persons without prescribed Identity Cards through CoWIN'.

2. Levy Of Advance Fees By Medical Colleges Illegal, Declares Rajasthan High Court [Deepesh Singh Beniwal v. Union of India & Ors.]

A Bench of Justices Sangeet Lodha and Rameshwar Vyas held that the condition imposed by private medical institutions requiring students seeking admission to MBBS Course to submit bank guarantee against the annual fees for next 3½ years of course duration in addition to deposit of annual fee for the first year of the course, at the time of admission, as illegal. It restrained all Government and private institutions from recovering any amount as advance fee in addition to the fee for one year from any student admitted to the course.

The Court noted that banks are usually discouraged from giving unsecured guarantee. Thus, bank guarantees are obtained only on furnishing collateral security or fixed deposits, which may not be possible for every student. It also observed that insistence for furnishing bank guarantee towards the fee for entire duration of the course upon each and every student, merely because some of the students may leave the course in midstream, appears to be unreasonable and unfair.

Sikkim High Court

Population Of Sikkim Meagre Yet Vaccines Not Available: High Court Asks State To Take Proactive Steps For Procurement; Frame Policy To Combat Third Wave Of Covid-19 [In Re : Covid 19 Management]

A Division Bench of Justices Meenakshi Madan Rai and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan expressed concern over unavailability of Covid-19 vaccine in the State and directed the authorities to take proactive steps in this direction so that the vaccination drive can be taken up on "mission mode".

"Although the population of the entire State stands at a meagre number of approximately 7 lakhs, we are informed that presently vaccines are not available for the 18-44 age group whose population reportedly stands at 2,90,000 (two lakhs and ninety thousand) only," it observed.

Telangana High Court

1. 'People Are Having To Mortgage Gold To Pay Bills': Telangana High Court Pulls Up State For Failing To Cap Private Hospital Prices For Treatment Of Covid-19

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Hima Kohli and Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy rapped the State Government for failing to cap the fees being charged by private hospitals for treatment of COVID-19 patients in the State. "People are having to mortgage gold to pay bills," it orally remarked.

On May 18, the High Court had directed the State Government to issue a fresh Government Order, revising the charges for routine ward, oxygen beds, ICU beds, ventilator beds, ambulance charges etc., in private hospitals/ Nursing Homes. On June 1, it was informed that no decision has been taken thereof. "Learned AG you are being quite defiant. We did not give you an option, we directed you. You have not even capped prices of basic things like PPE Kits. Are you waiting for the pandemic to be over to declare the prices?" the Bench furiously asked.

Also Read: Why Amphotericin Vials Allocated For Treatment Of Black Fungus Not Dispatched? Telangana High Court Pulls Up Centre

2. 'Police Officers Humiliating Advocates Will Be Dealt With Seriously': Telangana High Court Exempts Lawyers/ Clerks From Lockdown Restrictions [T. Jayant Jaisoorya v. State of Telangana & Ors.]

"If any police officer is found humiliating an Advocate, it will be dealt with seriously," a Single Bench of Justice K. Lakshman orally observed while directing the State Government to exempt lawyers and their clerks/typists from lockdown restrictions. It also cautioned the lawyers to not misuse their liberty.

The Court observed that Advocates, with the help of the stenographers/typists, have to draft and file writ petitions and bail petitions etc. It observed, "It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Courts below are accepting bail applications in physical form and the Advocates have to drop the bail applications, anticipatory bail applications and injunction petitions in drop box. The subordinate Courts are taking up the said petitions. Therefore, according to this Court, the restrictions imposed in the memo dated 01.06.2021 are illogical, irrational and without any, valid reasons."

The Bench stated that the role of a lawyer is like that of a "social engineer" who stand on behalf of the citizens and challenge illegal actions. They address the grievances of their clients, and play an important role under Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 41(D) of CrPC that deal with the right of an arrested person to meet an Advocate of his choice during interrogation, post-arrest.

3. "WhileExpecting His Leader To Be Honest, Voter Should Be Honest; Corrupt Voter CannotExpect His Leader To Be Honest": Telangana High Court

"While expecting his leader to be honest, voter should be honest. A corrupt voter cannot expect his leader to be honest" observed a single judge bench comprising of Justice K Lakshman while dismissing the revision petition filed by A Revanth Reddy, member of Telangana Legislative Assembly, challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court to try proceedings in "cash for vote scam case" pending before the special Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) Court.

The Court analysed the importance of voting under the constitutional scheme, observed thus: "Secret Ballot System was also introduced to maintain the secrecy of the Vote. It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court in one of the judgments held that 'secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct' It is also relevant to note that "while expecting his leader to be honest, voter should be honest". "A corrupt voter cannot expect his leader to be honest".

Tripura High Court

1. Provide Fullest Assistance To Populace Who May Not Have Easy Access To Online Registration For Vaccines: Tripura High Court To State [Court on own motion]

A Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice S. Talapatra directed the State Government to provide the fullest assistance to such populace who may not have easy access to online registration. It further directed the State that it should consider whether it is feasible to publish vaccination bulletin on a daily basis.

2. Wife, Husband Die By Suicide Allegedly After Woman Subjected To Public Humiliation: Tripura High Court Orders SIT Probe [Court on own motion]

A Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice S. Talapatra constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe into an incident where a young lady was allegedly subjected to public humiliation and assault, and on account of which, allegedly she died by suicide a couple of days later.

It took suo moto cognizance of a news item published in print and electronic media claiming that the video recording of a young married lady in an extremely intimate and compromising position with a man was shown in public and unable to bear the insults and humiliation, she committed suicide.