- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- High Courts Weekly Roundup [May 3,...
High Courts Weekly Roundup [May 3, 2021 To May 9, 2021]
Akshita Saxena
9 May 2021 9:09 PM IST
![High Courts Weekly Roundup [May 3, 2021 To May 9, 2021]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/images/750x450_high-courts-weekly-round-up.jpg "High Courts Weekly Roundup [May 3, 2021 To May 9, 2021]")
Allahabad High Court 1. Non-Supply Of Oxygen Criminal Act, Not Less Than Genocide : Allahabad High Court Orders Enquiry Into COVID Deaths [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…] In a strongly worded order concerning death of Covid-19 patients due to shortage of Oxygen supply, a Division bench comprising of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar stated...
Allahabad High Court
1. Non-Supply Of Oxygen Criminal Act, Not Less Than Genocide : Allahabad High Court Orders Enquiry Into COVID Deaths [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…]
In a strongly worded order concerning death of Covid-19 patients due to shortage of Oxygen supply, a Division bench comprising of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar stated that authorities responsible for procurement and supply of the gas are committing criminal acts.
"We are at pain in observing that death of Covid patients just for non supplying of oxygen to the hospitals is a criminal act and not less than a genocide by those who have been entrusted the task to ensure continuous procurement and supply chain of the liquid medical oxygen," it observed.
2. Allahabad High Court Directs Lucknow DM To File ATR If Private Hospitals Created Unnecessary Panic On Oxygen Scarcity [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…]
A Division Bench comprising of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar sought response from the Lucknow DM with respect to two private hospital that claimed that several Covid-19 patients died in their premises due to shortage of Oxygen supply.
It told the DM that if it is found that mischief was committed by them deliberately, endangering lives of innocent and creating unnecessary panic to serve the vested interests, then he should submit a detailed report of the action taken against them.
3. 'No One Is Safe Unless Every Individual Is Protected': Allahabad High Court Asks UP Govt To Take Expeditious Steps For Vaccine Procurement [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…]
A Division Bench comprising of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar asked the UP Government regarding steps taken by it to ensure sufficient availability of Covid-19 vaccine in the State so as to inoculate its population within 3-4 months. "We must remember that in the context of Covid-19 virus unless every individual is protected, no one is safe," it observed.
It has directed the State Government to apprise the Court as to how it plans to procure vaccines from global market in an expeditious manner for said purpose.
4. Death Of Election Duty Staff Due To Covid-19: Allahabad High Court Seeks CCTV Footage Of Counting Areas [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…]
In order to assess the culpability of Election Commission with respect to 135 people who succumbed to Covid-19 virus days after performing election duties in Uttar Pradesh, a Division Bench comprising of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar sought CCTV footage of the designated counting areas.
"We make it clear that any slackness on the part of the Election Commission on this issue will not be tolerated," it observed. It directed the State Election Commission to produce before it the CCTV footage of the designated counting areas and centres both in the form of footage print and also Pen Drive by the next date fixed.
5. Allahabad HC Seeks Report On Treatment Given To Sitting High Court Judge VK Srivastava Who Succumbed To Covid-19 Last Week [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…]
A Division Bench comprising of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar sought response from the State health authorities about the treatment that was given to Justice VirendraKumar Srivastava, a sitting Judge of the High Court, who succumbed to COVID-19 virus last week.
It directed Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal to file an affidavit bringing on record the treatment given to late Justice Srivastava, at the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital in Lucknow, where he was initially admitted.
The direction was made after the Bench was informed that Justice Srivastava was not taken care of until evening, and it was only when his condition deteriorated, he was placed on ventilator. The same night, he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, where he was in ICU for five days and ultimately succumbed to the virus.
6. Employees Of District Rural Development Agency Not Govt Employees But Rules For Compassionate Appointment Are Applicable To Them: Allahabad High Court [FB] [Kalyani Mehrotra v. State of UP & Ors.]
A Full Bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha, Chandra Dhari Singh and Manish Mathur held that the provisions of compassionate appointment as contained under the UP Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in 36 Harness Rules, 1974 are applicable upon employees of the District Rural Development Agency.
It held thus in view of paragraph 2(9) of the Government Order dated March 17, 1994, which provides that in respect of matters of employment of DRDA employees, for which there is no specific provision in the said Government Order, such employees would ordinarily be governed by provisions as are applicable upon employees of the State Government.
7. Where Motor Accident Caused Trauma To Claimant's Heirs And There Is Nexus Between Accident And Death, Heirs Entitled to Compensation: Allahabad HC [(Deceased) Satish Chand Sharma & Ors. v. Manoj & Anr.]
In an appeal from a motor accident claim, a Division Bench of Justices Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajit Singh underscored the importance of ensuring the claimant(s) received the compensation they were entitled to in the event of a dispute between the owner of the vehicle that caused the accident and the insurer.
To this end, it emphasised that even the heirs of the claimant, once their status as heirs was established, would be entitled to claim compensation due to the original claimant. Relying on Surpal Singh Ladhubha Gohil v Raliyatbahen Mohanbhai Savlia it was stated,
"The facts go to show that the claimant was under the constant treatment of doctors till the claimant survived therefore, it can safely be held that the accident caused lot of trauma both to the claimant as well his heirs. There is nexus between the death of the deceased and accidental injury. There is sufficient evidence to the effect that death of the deceased was due to development which took place due to resultant multiple injuries caused by the accident which would show that injuries were the root cause of the death. Therefore, heirs are entitled to compensation."
Andhra Pradesh High Court
1. Andhra Pradesh High Court Expresses Dissatisfaction Over Covid-19 Management In State
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami and Justice C. Praveen Kumar expressed deep dissatisfaction at the manner in which the authorities are handling the Covid-19 situation in the State.
It has asked the Health Department to enquire into the conduct of Nodal Officers of 22 Covid hospitals, who the amicus curiae reported are not answering the calls made on their official numbers. "If that be the case, proper management and streamlining of the hospitals relating to admission etc., for the benefit of the people, who go to the hospitals, will be seriously jeopardised," the Bench remarked
Bombay High Court
A Division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni asked why the Union and State Government didn't publicise alternatives to imported drugs used for treating Covid-19 patients.
"The reasons to popularise foreign medicines are obvious. But if we have alternatives, why not use local medicines. It's right there. You don't even need Hanuman." the Court said, referring to how the Sanjeevani, a local medicinal plant, had helped Lakshman in the Hindu epic Ramayana.
2. Bombay High Court Cracks Whip On People Wearing Masks Below Chin; Asks Police To Take Strict Action
A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice BU Debadwar took exception to citizens behaving irresponsibly by refusing to wears masks when they venture out or wear helmets while riding motorcycles. The court directed the police to prosecute violators irrespective of their position. The bench noted that people blame the administration for the rise in covid cases, but it is "shameful" that they have to be penalised for their own benefit.
3. Bombay High Court Denies Interim Relief To Anil Deshmukh On His Plea Against CBI FIR
A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale granted liberty to the State of Maharashtra and former State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh to approach the vacation bench in case they want to seek urgent interim reliefs in the FIR lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation pertaining to former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh's corruption allegations.
Deshmukh and the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) have filed separate petitions seeking different reliefs. While Deshmukh is seeking quashing of the FIR, the ACS Home seeks to quash two paragraphs from the FIR, calling them as trying to destabilise the present government in the State.
4. IPS Officer Rashmi Shukla's Statement To Be Video Recorded In Hyderabad, No Arrest Till The Next Date-Bombay High Court [Rashmi Shukla v. State of Maharashtra]
A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and Justice Manish Pitale allowed a team of Mumbai Police to video record senior IPS officer Rashmi Shukla's statement in Hyderabad, where she is posted as ADG CRPF. The Maharashtra government informed the court that they would not arrest her till the next date.
Shukla's statement will be recorded in connection with an FIR against unknown persons for leaking sensitive documents related to the police-political nexus in police transfers, for offences under section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, section 30 of the Indian Telegraph Act and sec 43 of 66 of the Information Technology Act.
5. "Extreme or Harsh Point Of View Not Hate Speech": Bombay High Court Reiterates The Ingredients Of Section 153A IPC [Sunaina Holey v. State of Maharashtra]
"The right to express one's views is a protected and cherished right in our democracy. Merely because the point of view of the Petitioner is extreme or harsh will not make it a hate speech as it is only expressing a different point of view, a division bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik observed while quashing an FIR against Navi Mumbai resident Sunaina Holey.
Holey was booked u/s 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion) of the IPC for posting a video along with a comment on migrant workers gathered outside Bandra Masjid, in Mumbai, at the peak of the nationwide lockdown on April 14, 2020. In the video, a man shouted that Covid - 19 pandemic is not an act of God but has been brought by India's prime minister. The bench observed that Holey's intent behind reposting the video with a comment was only to criticise that man's perspective.
Calcutta High Court
1. Calcutta High Court Calls For Report From State Govt Regarding Law & Order Situation, Steps Taken To Prevent Post Poll Violence In West Bengal [Anindya Sundar Das v. Union of India & Ors.]
A Five-Judge-Bench comprising of ACJ Rajesh Bindal, Justices IP Mukerji, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Subrata Talukdar sought the details regarding the latest status of the law and order situation in the State, vis-Ă -vis the violence which took place in the State after the Assembly Elections, 2021.
Chhattisgarh High Court
1. Administer Covid-19 Vaccines To Antyodaya Card Holders, Persons Falling BPL & APL In Equal Ratio: Chhattisgarh High Court Tells State [Suo Moto PIL v. State Of Chhattisgarh]
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice PR Ramachandra Menon and Justice Parth Prateem Sahu directed the State authorities concerned that until a fresh policy is devised, they should continue with the vaccination by equally distributing the available vaccines among the three classes of citizens i.e., Antyodaya Card Holders, Below Poverty Line and Above Poverty Line, in the ratio of 1/3 to each class.
It also expressed displeasure at the State Government's action of completely halting the Covid-19 vaccination drive with respect to persons in the age group 18-45 for deciding vaccination norms.
Delhi High Court
A division bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli observed that the medical infrastructure of the capital during the pandemic has been totally exposed and "put to test". Upon protest by the Delhi Govt counsel, Sr. Adv. Rahul Mehra, against the said remark, the court said that the health infrastructure is indeed in shambles and that the counsel must not behave like an ostrich with its head in the sand.
Mehra objected to the statement saying that while the infrastructure was "struggling", it was so for various reasons, including the shortage of allocation of oxygen from the Centre, and the court may kindly not say that the infrastructure was "in shambles". He submitted that 15,000 more beds were in the "pipeline", substantiating his point, however, the court refused to accept the same, saying, "Pipeline is pipeline."
2. Armed Forces Cannot Set Up Field Hospitals, Cannot Aid Civil Administration In These Times: Centre Tells Delhi High Court [Rakesh Malhotra v. GNCTD]
The Centre informed the division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rekha Palli that the Armed Forces cannot set up Field Hospitals and bring in the Army to aid the Civil Administration in these times. It was apprised about the development by ASG Chetan Sharma who had received instructions with regards to requisition of the Armed Forces under Regulation 301 of the Defence Service Regulations for the Army and other similar regulations for the Air Force and Navy.
The development came after the Court directed Centre to report instructions on action taken on communication made by Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, to Defense Minister Rajnath Singh for lending services of armed forces to set up Covid 19 facilities, oxygen supply, etc.
3. COVID- Delhi High Court Issue Directions To Ensure Immediate Availability Of Tocilizumab For Critically Ill Patients [Dharmendra Kumar Aggarwal v. GNCTD]
While observing that the lack of supplies from foreign shores and no local manufacturing of the covid drug Tocilizumab is completely unacceptable in the pandemic situation, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Pratibha M Singh issued slew of directions for its availability in India.
It directed the Centre to inform the Court about the stock available for distribution of the said drug to various Hospitals and Medical Establishments in Delhi. It also directed the Centre to place on record details of entities to whom approvals have been granted of Tocilizumab for manufacturing, marketing, importing or selling in India.
4. Delhi High Court Says Centre Failed To Supply Oxygen As Per Orders; Issues Show-Cause Notice For Contempt [Rakesh Malhotra v. GNCTD]
A division bench comprising Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli pulled up the Centre for its failure to meet the assurance with regard to the supply of 700MT per day liquid medical oxygen to the Delhi Government in line with the directions passed by the Supreme Court.
It directed the presence of Central Government officers Sumita Dawra and Piyush Goyal, who are handling oxygen allocation to states, to explain the failure to comply with the High Court and Supreme Court's order to supply the required oxygen to the Delhi Government to treat critical COVID patients.
Related Read: "Set Up Buffer Stock Of 100 MT For Supply To NCT Of Delhi": Delhi High Court Directs Centre -Read Order
5. "People Can't Be Forced To Donate Plasma": Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea For Law For Compulsory Donation of Plasma With 10K Cost [Think Act Rise Foundation v. GNCTD & Anr.]
Observing that the Court can't compel the respondents to draft a law or policy for compulsory donation of plasma, a Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed a 'baseless and frivolous petition' with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
It remarked, "We can neither compel the respondents to draft law or policy for a compulsory donation of plasma nor we can give any direction to persons, who have recovered from Covid-19 after plasma therapy, to donate plasma for the benefit of other patients suffering from Covid-19. This is a baseless and frivolous petition"
6. "Reliance Placed On A Tweet, It Is Publicity Interest Litigation": Delhi High Court Imposes 50K Cost In Plea Alleging Misuse Of Public Money By Delhi Govt. [Pratyush Prasanna v. State of NCT Delhi]
A Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jasmeet Singh imposed cost of Rs. 50,000/- on a Petitioner who alleged that the Delhi Government is misusing public money in the name of pandemic.
The Court noted that the Petitioner had relied on a 'tweet' by somebody else on 'twitter', for filing the petition. "It appears that without doing any homework, this petition has been preferred. The petitioner has solely relied upon a tweet of somebody else to put allegations against the respondents that they are misusing the public fund," it observed.
7. "Can Breath Analyzer Test Be Conducted In Open Area To Avoid Spread Of Covid 19 For Safety Of Pilots, Cabin Crew?": Delhi High Court Asks DGMS (Air) [Indian Commercial Pilots Association v. Directorate General Of Civil Aviation]
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Pratibha M Singh asked the Director General Medical Services (Air) to submit a report as to whether the breath analyzer test can be conducted in an open area with mobile electrical connectivity so that the spread of covid 19 through suspended aerosols in confined rooms can be avoided for safety of pilots, ATCs and cabin crew of airlines.
It also asked the DGMS whether such cabin crew, pilots and ATCs should first be subjected to a rapid antigen test before undergoing the breath analyzer test. The development came while the Court was considering a clutch of petitions relating to the Breath Analyzer Test which the ATCs and commercial pilots need to undergo before joining their duty at the airports.
8. UP Bar Council Vs BCI- Dispute Settled Amicably, Adverse Remarks Against BCI Expunged: Delhi High Court Disposes Of Plea [Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Bar Council of India & Ors.]
Taking note of the submission made by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh that a meeting was held with the Bar Council of India and that an amicable resolution had been reached between the parties, a Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh disposed of a plea filed by the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, alleging that BCI was attempting to take over its functioning.
It however directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to appoint the Member Secretary in accordance with its Rules and Regulations and if there are no such Rules framed then steps shall be taken within a reasonable period, in accordance with the law, to frame such rules.
Other developments:
- Encourage Tihar Jail Inmates To Get Vaccinated, Extend Daily Calling Facilities, Allow E-Mulaqats: Delhi High Court Issues Directions
- Delhi High Court Issues Notice In Plea Seeking Free Of Cost Vaccination Of Class X, XII Students Appearing For Board Exams In Offline Mode
- Medical/Health Insurance Essential Services During COVID, Employees Of Insurance Companies Can't Be Restrained From Free Movement: Delhi HC
Gauhati High Court
1. COVID Situation In Jails- Gauhati High Court Revives Suo Moto Petition, Seeks Details From Jail Authorities About Children Lodged In Jails [In Re State Of Assam & Ors]
Reviving the suo moto writ petition instituted last year, the Gauhati High Court has sought details from Jail Authorities with regards to the children lodged inside jails in Assam in view of rising covid 19 cases in the State.
The development came from a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak who had sought State Government's response on the number of inmates inside Assam Jails who have been infected from Covid 19 and also about the measures undertaken by the jail authorities for dealing with the issue.
Gujarat High Court
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Bhargav D Karia asked the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) to come up with an online dashboard for providing real-time updates on the availability of different category of beds in different Covid-19 hospitals.
"We are very pained at the State's approach and Corporation's approach. Orders passed by this Court are being completely ignored. For last three orders, we have been mentioning this issue of real-time updates. But till today, nothing has been done by the State or the Corporation," it observed.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
1. "No Means No, The Word 'No' Does Not Need Any Further Explanation : Himachal Pradesh HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Raping Minor [Suresh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh]
"NO MEANS NO- The simplest of sentences have become the most difficult for some men to understand" observed a single judge bench comprising of Justice Anoop Chitkara while rejecting the bail application filed by a man accused of raping a 17 year old minor.
In this case it was alleged that the accused, Suresh Kumar picked up the minor girl, who was also his friend, in his vehicle by offering to drop her to her house. However, he changed the way and started touching her inappropriately. While the girl said NO to him, he threatened the victim that if she started to cry, he will forced himself upon her. Kumar then asked if she would marry him to which the victim responded as a no. Thereafter, he undressed her and had sexual intercourse with her.
2. Police's Job Is To Ensure Social Distancing, Law & Order, They Can't Be Burdened To Bring Files When Accused Has Received Same Under S. 207 CrPC: HP High Court [Amit v. State of Himachal Pradesh]
Observing that once the accused receives documents under Section 207, CrPC free of costs, then the State cannot be burdened again and again to bring the police file along with police officials¸ a Single Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara refused to grant bail to a murder accused.
It noted that the requirement of police is more to maintain social distancing and law and order and that they can't be burdened again and again to bring the police file along with the police officials, that too in COVID phase as it will put an unnecessary burden on the infrastructure.
3. "He Appears To Be Pervert, Would Make Life Of Young Friends Of Opposite Gender Miserable": HP High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Raping Minor [Rohit Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh]
Observing that the conduct of the accused was so "deplorable that it would make the life of young friends belonging to the opposite gender as miserable", a Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara denied bail to a man who allegedly allured and raped a minor girl. It further remarked, "The accused appears to be pervert and, as such, there is no question to grant the bail to the Accused."
As per the statement of the minor victim girl, A-2, who knew the victim, slapped her while she was taking a stroll on the road. Thereafter, the six accused they forced her to undress while A-1 filmed the scene. Thereafter, A-1 caught hold of the victim from her arm and took her to the bushes, where he committed rape upon her.
4. COVID-"Imperative That Front Line Workers Are Made To Work On Rotation Basis Or Else Health System Will Collapse ": Himachal Pradesh HC [Dr. Vishal Koundal v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.]
It is imperative that the front line workers are made to work on rotation basis or else the health system is likely to collapse with the sudden and drastic surge in Covid-19 cases" observed a single judge bench comprising of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan while dismissing a plea of a doctor challenging his deputation to a Covid Make Shift Hospital. Calling it a "rather unfortunate case", the Court observed thus:
"The petitioner has failed to realize that the health workers in over-crowded hospitals, the policemen and other front line workers are already beset with overwhelming load of Covid-19 patients which is likely to worsen in future. These workers are exhausted from almost an year of restless fighting against the pandemic. The State currently is fighting the grimmest battle against Covid-19 which is nothing short of a disaster culminating in mass deaths and, therefore, it is imperative that the front line workers are made to work on rotation basis or else the health system is likely to collapse with the sudden and drastic surge in Covid-19 cases."
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
1. Covid-19: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Issues Directions For Vaccination Of Lawyers; Financial Assistance [Court on Its Own Motion v. Govt of India]
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Dhar directed the UT administration to ensure that lawyers in the age group of above 45 years are vaccinated against the Covid-19 virus, within a week. It further ordered that lawyers in the age-group 18-45 should be given priority and should be vaccinated within two weeks after registering on the COWIN app.
It has also requested the Government to consider for making some additional budgetary allocation for families of Advocates affected by Covid-19, as the funds available with the Bar may not be sufficient to meet the requirement.
Jharkhand High Court
1. "People Dying Due To Oxygen Paucity": Jharkhand High Court Raps Govt, Warns Officials Of Contempt [Jyoti Sharma v. State of Jharkhand]
Dealing with a contempt case which was filed for non-compliance with the order passed by the Court in May 2017, a Bench of Chief Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad rapped the State Government for its failure to make Sadar hospital functional with 500 beds. It sternly remarked, "In the considered view, the order passed by this Court dated 11.05.2017 has not been complied with even after lapse of about five years, therefore, the officers are in contempt."
The Court had, in May 2017, directed the State Government to complete the construction of a portion of 200 beds of Sadar Hospital and make it operational by the end of July 2017 and the rest portion of 300 beds of Sadar Hospital with all facilities to be completed by the end of December 2018. However, it noted that its order was not complied with on one excuse or the other even after a lapse of about five years.
2. COVID- 'There Should Not Be Any Effort To Protect Influential Persons': Jharkhand High Court Warns Agency Investigating Black Marketing Of Life Saving Drugs [Court on its own motion v. State of Jharkhand]
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad warned the concerned officers, entrusted with curbing black marketing of medicines during Covid-19, from protecting any influential person involved in such illegal activities.
It noted that when the Government has channelized the supply of Remdesivir Injection through its own source, then the investigation is required to be conducted in order to look into the involvement of the concerned department because when the fact about supply of the aforesaid Injection is strictly to be made through the Government channel to be supplied to the hospitals where the patients are admitted and treated unless there is involvement of concerned working in the channel there is no question of coming out of the aforesaid Injection for its sale in open market through black marketing.
Family Courts Constituted Under Secular Law; Cannot Turn Away Parties Seeking Divorce Under Customary Laws: Jharkhand High Court [Baga Tirkey v. Pinki Linda & Anr.]
A Division Bench comprising of Justices Aparesh Kumar Singh and Anubha Rawat Choudhary held that Family Courts cannot turn away parties seeking divorce under their customary laws. The Court emphasized that the Family Courts Act, 1984 is a secular law applying to all religions.
Section 7 thereof relates to Jurisdiction of Family Courts and sub-section (1)(A) of the provision confers on them "all the jurisdiction" hitherto exercised by any District Court in suits or proceedings relating marriage, divorce, etc. Thus, it is held that there is no precedent which bars members of the Scheduled Tribe to approach the Family Court by filing any suit or proceedings relating to matters mentioned in Section 7 of the Family Courts Act.
Karnataka High Court
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Aravind Kumar directed the State government to immediately come out with exhaustive guidelines for supply of Oxygen and Oxygen management in the state.
It noted that "Draft has been placed by AAG, he candidly accepted that as of today there are no written guidelines available for supply of Oxygen and Oxygen management. He submits that the state will issue exhaustive guidelines, government and private hospitals exclusively dealing with Oxygen."
Also Read: Karnataka High Court Seeks Report On FIR Against Alleged Corruption In BBMP's Bed Allocation
2. POCSO Accused Not Entitled To Bail Merely On Ground Of Non-Compliance Of Section 35 : Karnataka High Court [Hanumantha Mogaveera v. State of Karnataka]
A division bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice M G Uma held that non-compliance of section 35 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, will not entitle the accused to be released on default bail.
Section 35 of the POCSO Act provides that the evidence of the child shall be recorded within a period of thirty days of the Special Court taking cognizance of the offence and reasons for delay, if any, shall be recorded by the Special Court. Further, Section 35 also lays down that the Special Court shall complete the trial, as far as possible, within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence.
Also Read: Karnataka High Court Issues Directions For Effective Implementation Of POCSO Act
The Karnataka High Court orally said advocates and parties in person who are appearing in matters being heard before the court should not comment on social media about subjects which are dealt by the court.
The suggestion was made after BBMP Counsel Advocate Sreenidhi V, appearing in the batch of petitions regarding covid-19 management informed the court that "All of us are working towards fighting covid. I request my friend Advocate Mr A to go slow on the tweets he has been making on social media.
Kerala High Court
1. Election Euphoria Was On Full Display Over Past Months, Social Distancing-Masks-Sanitizers Lost In Din Of Elections: Kerala High Court [Dr. Pradeep KP v. State of Kerala & Ors.]
Closing a PIL case where the Court had been directed to issue directions to ensure there were no crowds on the days votes in Kerala Assembly Elections were counted, a Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and Dr Kauser Edappagath remarked,
"The unrestrained euphoria of an inevitable and vital democratic exercise – the local body and state legislature elections - was on full display in the last few months and one can only rue in hindsight that perhaps if we had been collectively a little more careful, the present crisis could have been better contained."
2. When Will Kerala Get Its Share Of Vaccines? Kerala High Court Asks Centre [Mathew Nevin Thomas v. Union of India & Ors.]
A Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and Dr Kauser Edappagath sought information from the Central Government as to a time frame within which the Kerala Government would get its share of vaccines from the Centre.
The Court asked whether it was true that Kerala was receiving 3 lakh vaccines against its request for a crore (75 lakh doses of Covishield and 25 lakh of Covaxin). When Counsel for the Center Advocate KR Rajkumar and State Attorney KV Sohan agreed, the Court remarked that it was not being parochial but sought a timeline from the Centre as to when it could receive its share of vaccines.
Also Read: Kerala High Court Refuses To Stay Govt Order Capping RTPCR Tests At Rs 500
Also Read: Take Over 50% Beds From Private Hospitals : Kerala High Court Suggests
3. Showered With Invectives, Subject To "Torture" For Not Wearing Mask: Kerala High Court Seeks Report From Police Chief [Vaishak T v. State Of Kerala]
When hearing a petition filed by a person who alleged that he was verbally-abused and "tortured" by certain police officers for failing to wear a mask in a public place, a Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and Dr Kauser Edappagath stressed on the need for empathy when dealing with such cases.
The Court orally observed that the police, who had a "great role" to play during this time, had to act with empathy. It went on to state, "We understand second wave is going on, we know that people are still violating it, a small minority is, but you cannot use police force."
4. Simply Because Police Officer Is In Uniform When He Is Assaulted, Offence Of Assaulting Public Servant Will Not Attract: Kerala High Court [Rilgin V George v. State of Kerala & Anr.]
In a bail order, a Single Bench of Justice PV Kunhikrishnan raised the question as to whether charges of assaulting a public servant in lawful discharge of his duty (Section 353 IPC) would lie when the officer assaulted was attending an inquiry.
While allowing the bail petition, it observed that simply because a police officer was in uniform, the offence could not be attracted. "At no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the defacto complainant was in lawful discharge of his duty as a public servant, at the time of the alleged incident. Simply because he is in uniform, Section 353 IPC will not attract. Then, how Section 353 IPC is added in this case is a question," the Court stated.
5. "Protectionism Operating Against Women's Interest To Be Viewed With Reservation": Kerala HC Declines Stay On Quash Of 'Men Only' Job Condition [Manager v. Treasa Josfine]
When declining to stay the operation of a Single Judge's ruling that allowed a woman to a 'males-only' job position, a Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and MR Anitha made crucial observations on protectionism how the notion operated to constrain women within the proverbial glass ceiling.
The appellants argued that since Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act remained in force, the Single Judge could not have directed that the employment application of the woman, Treasa Josfine, be considered for a position involving 'work during night hours'.
The Division Bench, however, emphasized its prima facie opinion that the provision was not intended to curb opportunities available to women. The Bench went on to impress that it was imperative upon employers to provide workplaces with sufficient protection so that women employed by them could work at all times.
6. Reservation In University Cannot Be Applied By Treating All Professors Of Different Subjects As One Cadre : Kerala High Court [Dr. Radhakrishna Pilla v. State of Kerala & Anr.]
A single bench of Justice Amit Rawal quashed a recruitment notification issued by the Kerala University on the ground that it treated professors of different departments as one unit to apply reservation for communities.
It held that reservations had to be made subject-wise and each post in a particular discipline has to be treated as a single post. The bench struck down the recruitment notification holding that it amounted to giving 100% reservation.
"There is no dispute to the proposition that reservation in respect of a post of a Professor and the provisions of the reservation provided in the rules (KSSR) would apply, but the same cannot be applied taking all Professor as a "Cadre". In fact, it has to be made "Subject Wise" otherwise, it would create an anomalous situation by treating all Professors of different subjects as one cadre. It would take away the right of consideration/reasonable opportunity to meritorious candidates belonging to general category for appointment," the Bench observed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
1. COVID-"Central Govt Should Ensure Supply Of Vaccination Doses To State, Stern Action Against Black Marketeers": Madhya Pradesh High Court [Suo Moto v. Union of India & Ors.]
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan asked the Central Government to ensure supply of required number of vaccination doses to the State at the earlier in order to "apprehend the third covid wave" by ensuring timely vaccination of people falling in both groups i.e. 18 to 48 years and 45 years and above.
The Court also directed the Director General of Police, MP to "constitute special teams in major cities" to take stern action against all black marketers of Remdesivir and other covid 19 drugs. It also directed the State Government to file a "complete action plan" for vaccination of both age groups.
Madras High Court
Taking up its own-motion petition relating to monitoring the COVID-19 response in the state of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry, the Madras High Court on Thursday (May 6) made an appeal to the Centre and vaccine manufacturers to ensure prompt supply of vaccines to the state. The Court noted that State's allocation at present was 10.3 lakh units, out of which 7.65 lakh would be supplied by one of the vendor and 2.65 lakh units by the other and that the payment for all of the 10.3 lakh units had been made to immediately receive the vaccines and start the universal adult inoculation program.
Noting thus, the Court requested the Centre and the vendors to ensure prompt supply so that preventive measures may be taken at the earliest to stop the proliferation of cases and the possible third wave that is being talked of.
2. Madras High Court Grants Bail To Accused Booked Under UAPA For Allegedly Raising Slogans Against Prime Minister Modi [Vilkrishnan & Anr. v. State]
A Bench of Justice M. Dhandapani granted Bail to two persons who allegedly abused the Hon'ble Prime Minister and police personnel and raised slogans against the Government. It observed, "Taking into consideration of the fact that the only allegation is that he has raised only slogan praising the deceased moist leader and said to have raised slogans against the Government."
On considering the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 2019, and on considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioners, the Court was inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
Manipur High Court
1. "Protections Afforded By Article 21 Would Indubitably Encompass Right Of Non-Refoulement": Manipur HC Allows 7 Myanmarese Citizens To Approach UNHCR [Nandita Haksar v. State of Manipur & Ors.]
In the case of 7 Myanmarese citizens, who entered India illegally, and sought permission to travel to New Delhi to seek protection from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Lanusungkum Jamir ordered safe passage to New Delhi for seven Myanmarese persons to enable them to avail suitable protection from the UNHCR.
The Court said that the seven Myanmarese individuals in question are not 'migrants', as normally understood, but are 'asylum seekers' and that they did not enter our country with the clear-cut and deliberate intention of breaking and violating our domestic laws. The Court also noted that though India has no clear refugee protection policy or framework, it does grant asylum to a large number of refugees from nearby countries.
Orissa High Court
1. 'Right To Safe Education': Orissa High Court Quashes Govt Order For Merger Of Primary Schools Citing Importance Of Neighbourhood Schools At Walking Distance [Lilly Samal & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.]
In a significant judgment concerning elementary education among the poor, a Single Bench of Dr. Justice BR Sarangi held that it is essential to ensure that primary schools are situated within walking distance of their neighbourhood.
It observed that the "Right to education includes right to safe education", and when the very purport of the Right to Education Act, 2009 is to provide at least one school within a walking distance of one kilometre of the neighbourhood, in that case, the State Government cannot take steps for abolition of schools that are already catering to the needs of the local people, merely on the ground of decreasing roll strength.
Patna High Court
1. COVID- Our Responsibility Is To Ensure That People Are Provided With The Healthcare They Need: Patna HC Seeks Bihar Govt's Response On Several Issues [Shivani Kaushik v. Union of India & Ors.]
A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay S. Karol and Justice S. Kumar observed that no one should lose life only on account of lack of adequate medical care. The Court noted the immeasurable importance of the life of every person and said, "As representatives of institutions and pillars of a democracy, we collectively hold a responsibility to ensure that the people get the help and are provided with the healthcare they need, especially in these times of great crisis."
Further, highlighting the major issues arising for consideration, the Court crystallized the following as lack of infrastructure and preparation for dealing with the Pandemic Covid-19: Testing; Hospitalization; Human resources, i.e. Doctor(s) & Paramedics; Requirement, availability and transportation of Oxygen; Medicines (both life-saving and otherwise general medication); Dissemination of information to the public, increasing public sensitivity and awareness; Performance of Last Rites of those who have fallen victim to this disease; Disposal of waste generated in testing and treatment; The availability and the administration of the vaccine.
2. 'Covid-19 Can't Be Managed By Same Department Created To Oversee Healthcare System In Normal Situations': Patna High Court Mulls Constituting Expert Committee [Shivani Kaushik v. Union of India & Ors.]
A Division Bench comprising of Justices CS Singh and Mohit Kumar Shah observed that it may not be feasible for the State Health Department, created to oversee the healthcare system in normal circumstances, to manage the recent surge in Covi-19 cases. It opined that it may be appropriate to constitute a Committee of Experts, to advise and guide the health authorities in the State.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
1. Oxygen Shortage : Ensure Allocated Quantity Reaches States Before Already Allotted Quota Is Exhausted, P&H High Court Directs Centre [Rishi v. State of Haryana & Ors.]
Taking note of the present situation of oxygen deficit in the States of Haryana, Punjab and UT of Chandigarh, a division bench comprising of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh directed the Government of India to consider reorientation of oxygen supply from various plants in a manner that the allocated quantity reaches States before the already allocated quota is exhausted.
"People in trauma cannot be made to run here and there in hospitals to get oxygen cylinders. The Governments need to be over sensitive and in a overdrive to reach out to patients in need of medical care and assistance. It is for this reason, we feel that a common strategy needs to be drawn up particularly as regards availability of oxygen," the order stated.
2. Courts Expected To Assume Role Of A Parent Where A Litigant Is Unable To Prosecute Or Defend His Own Case Properly: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Sarjeet Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal held that Presiding Judges of the Courts are expected to assume the role of a parent in order to protect the interest of the persons, who are legally or otherwise unable to act or defend on their own behalf in the litigation.
It observed that whenever a Court notices a party to the litigation is unable to properly prosecute or defend his own case because of legal disability or poverty or illiteracy, such Court is expected to assume the role of a parent to do complete justice.
3. Gau Raksha Dal Raiding Citizens' House Contrary To Rule Of Law, Amounts To Taking Law Into Own Hands: Punjab And Haryana High Court [Mubbi alias Mubin v. State of Haryana]
A Single Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal directed the Haryana State's Additional Advocate General to address the Court on the power/authority of vigilantes to raid the houses of the citizens. It also observed that, "Such actions are prima facie illegal and amount to taking law into their own hands by private individuals. This is contrary to the Rule of Law"
The allegations in the FIR are that the local Gau Raksha Dal led by its District President raided the house of the petitioner, one Mubbi Alias Mubin (Petitioner seeking anticipatory bail), and allegedly found a bull, a cow, and a calf tethered there. Further, it has been alleged that the petitioner ran away from the spot and could not be apprehended and on return, the aforementioned persons discovered instruments of slaughter in the house.
Rajasthan High Court
1. Covid-19: Rajasthan High Court Issues Directions For Real Time Updates On Hospital Beds; Local Production Of Oxygen; Deployment Of Medical Staff [Surendra Jain v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]
A Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur issued notice to the Central Government, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the State Government on a petition seeking various directions for managing the second wave of Covid-19 in the State.
The Court has asked the Respondents to make available the position of beds on their website on a "Real Time Basis". Further, State Government as well as Central Government have been directed to ensure adequate supply of Oxygen and other medicines required to deal with the virus, on 'war footing'.
The Court has also asked the State Government to consider taking the services of final year students as well as PG courses students of MBBS/Post Graduation for the doctors and likewise for the nursing staff for their deployment on the emergent basis if they are suitable in all respects to serve the general public at large.
Telangana High Court
1. 'Not A Time To Relax': Telangana High Court Issues Directions To Ramp Up Testing, Prevent Congregations, Provide Tele-Consultation, Etc. To Curb Covid-19 [R. Sameer Ahmed v. State of Telangana]
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Hima Kohli and Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy issued a slew of directions to the State Government, the Police department and the Public Health and Family Welfare department, to break the chain and control the surge in Covid-19 cases.
It pulled up the State over dwindling number of RT-PCR Testing and asked the authorities to conduct at least 1 lakh tests, daily. "This is not a time to relax for anyone in the State. It is a time to heighten the testing and see the reality," the Chief Justice orally remarked.
Access full report to read other directions
Tripura High Court
1. Woman Commits Suicide Allegedly After Her Intimate Video Displayed In Public Tripura: High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance [Court on its own motion]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice S. Talapatra 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.
"Even if a fraction of what is reported is true, it would shock the conscience of any citizen," it remarked.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice SG Chattopadhyay gave a green signal to the Government to conduct a further inquiry in relation to a viral video of an incident that took place in Agartala wherein a marriage function was stopped midway by the DM and his team. Noting that State administration has agreed to transfer the District Magistrate out of Agartala, the Court lifted the rigors against the conduct of further inquiry instituted by the State Government.
After the video of the incident went viral on social media, the State Government had instituted a two-member Committee to inquire into the incident and for submitting a report in the incident. In another development in the case, the DM concerned was suspended by the Government vide order dated 2nd May 2021 till further orders.
Uttarakhand High Court
1. "Number Of Prisoners Being Inoculated Be Drastically Increased": Uttarakhand High Court Issues Direction On Prisoners [Omveer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.]
A Bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma ordered the Jail Department of Uttarakhand to ensure that the number of the prisoners being inoculated is drastically increased. In fact, since most of the prisoners would be above the age of eighteen years, the inoculation of prisoners must be ensured by the State Government as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within one month from the date of this order.
