High Courts Weekly Round Up [April 27- May 3]

1) Allahabad HC To Hear Plea For Establishment Of Commission To Assess The Impact Of COVID-19 Pandemic On The Indian Economy [Dr. Shivji Shukla v. Union of India & Ors.]

The Lucknow bench of the High Court comprising of Justices Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Karunesh Singh Pawa has agreed to hear a PIL pertaining to establishment of a Commission to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the Indian economy, on May 4, 2020.

2) Allahabad HC Rejects Shahjahanpur Law Student's Application Imputing Bias On Part Of SIT [In Re Missing Of An LLM Student At Swami Shukdevanand Law College (SS Law College) v. State of UP]

A bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Deepak Verma rejected an application moved by the Shahjahanpur law student, alleging bias on part of the SIT that had investigated her rape case and also the extortion case filed against her.

Among other things, the court observed since a FIR had been registered against the law student for extortion, the SIT was "under an obligation" to investigate the matter keeping both sets of allegations in mind. Thus, it could not be said that the SIT proceeded with a view to find her faults.

3) 'Govt Duty Bound To Act Fairly In Matters Of Appointment Of Govt Law Officers': Allahabad HC Quashes Order Disengaging District Govt Counsels [Shyam Narayan Yadav v. State of UP & Anr.]

A division bench of Justice Bala Krishna Narayana and Justice Prakash Padia quashed several Government Orders disengaging the District Government Counsels in the State for "total non-application of mind". Among other observations, the High Court stressed that engagement of Government Counsels has to be done in accordance with Legal Remembrancer's Manual, in a fair and non discriminative manner.

Bombay High Court

1) Average Time Spent On Reading Newspapers Has Increased; Bombay HC Seeks Logical Explanation For Blanket Ban On Door-To-Door Delivery [High Court of Bombay v. State of Maharashtra]

The HC Bench at Aurangabad took suo-motu cognizance of newspaper reports regarding a government notification whereby print media was exempted from lockdown but the door-to-door delivery of magazines and newspapers was prohibited. A single Judge bench of Justice Prasanna B Varale has sought a logical explanation from the state government on its decision, by June 11.

Also Read: Circular Prohibiting Door-To-Door Delivery Of Newspapers Is Arbitrary & Unreasonable Says Plea; Bombay HC (Nagpur Bench) Seeks State's Reply

2) It Pays To Litigate But Those Who Litigate Must Also Pay; Bombay HC Dismisses BPCL's Second Appeal With Costs [Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Shri Bhikulal Raghunath Jajoo]

Justice DS Naidu dismissed the second appeal filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited with costs, in a suit regarding an open plot of 14,550 sq.ft. which was leased to the said Corporation 55 years ago for 20 years only.

3) Man Who Accused Tablighi Jamaat Members Of Assaulting & Spitting On Him On Social Media; Bombay HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail [Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam v. The State of Maharashtra]

The single-Judge bench of Justice SV Kotwal allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by one Abuzar Abdul Kalam, a 42-year-old man who accused members of the Tablighi Jamaat of assaulting him and then spitting on him on social media. He was booked by Mumbai police for indulging in deliberate and malicious acts to outrage reli­gious feelings, defamation, etc., as per a complaint lodged by the Members of the Tablighi Jamaat community.

4) Nationwide Lockdown: Bombay HC Allows Father To See Children Through Video Conferencing In A Case Of Matrimonial Dispute [Madhurima Deepak Pant v. Deepak Lalitprasasd Pant]

Justice SJ Kathawalla allowed a father to see his children through video conferencing three days a week, while hearing a writ petition in a matrimonial dispute filed by the man's wife. The said order will remain in operation till the lockdown is lifted in Mumbai and that the video conferencing sessions with children shall be done thrice a week i.e. on Monday, Thursday and Sunday between 5 and 6 pm.

5) Victim & Accused Settle Dispute, But Bombay HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Man Accused Of Raping, Threatening TV Actress [Chirag Sundarlal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra]

A Division bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice VG Bisht refused to quash a FIR registered at the instance of a TV actress from Delhi who accused a restaurant owner from Mumbai of sexual assault and forcing her at gunpoint to get an abortion. This was after the victim filed an affidavit stating that they settled the dispute amicably. The bench stated that there are serious allegations against the accused, who allegedly lied to the victim that he was unmarried and committed sexual assault on her multiple times under the same pretext against her consent.

6) Bombay HC Admits PIL Seeking SIT/CBI Investigation Into Palghar Mob Lynching Incident, Issues Notice To State, DGP & CBI

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notices to the State of Maharashtra, the Director General of Police and the Central Bureau of Investigation while admitting a PIL seeking a CBI or SIT investigation into the Palghar mob lynching incident wherein two sadhus and their driver were brutally beaten to death.

Also Read: Palghar Lynching : SC Seeks Status Report On Probe From Maharashtra Govt

7) State & Civic Authorities Doing Their Best, Migrants Gathering At Bandra Is One Incident; Bombay HC Refuses Plea For Deployment Of Military [Shankar Sarvotam Pai & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

Justice BP Colabawalla refused to pass urgent directions in a PIL seeking deployment of military or other armed forces like the CRPC in vulnerable and red zones in Mumbai, while observing that Government and the Civic Authorities are doing their best to keep things under control.

8) Trade Unionist Illegally Quarantined? Bombay HC Directs State & BMC To File A Reply [Mahendra Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.]

Justice CV Bhadang directed the state government and the BMC to submit their reply to a habeas corpus petition filed by a member of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) alleging that a fellow member had been "illegally quarantined" by the authorities. The case will now be taken up on May 5.

9) Managements At Liberty To Deduct Wages Of Workers Who Remain Absent In Areas Where Lockdown Has Been Lifted :Bombay HC

Justice RV Ghuge allowed employers to deduct wages of workers who remain absent from work in areas, where the lockdown has been lifted. While refusing to interfere with the direction issued by Ministry of Home Affairs on March 29 regarding full payment of wages to employees during lockdown, the Court clarified that since the State of Maharashtra has partially lifted the lock down recently in certain industrial areas in the State of Maharashtra, the workers would be expected to report for duties as per the shift schedules subject to adequate protection, from Corona Virus infections, by the employer.

10) Diwan Not State Govt Can Nominate Members Of Gurudwara Board; Bombay HC Quashes State's Notification [Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

Division bench of Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice SD Kulkarni at Aurangabad bench quashed and set aside a notification issued by the State government for appointment of four persons as directors of Nanded Gurudwara board and held as per Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Act, 1956, it is only the general committee of the Diwan that can nominate members to the board not the state government.

11) ASHA Workers At The Forefront Of Fight Against Covid-19, Ensure Proposed Payment Of Rs.200/day Instead Of Rs.1000/month: Bombay HC [Shivray Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

Justice Manish Pitale passed several directions while hearing a batch of PILs and writ petition which deal with concerns of citizens regarding steps being taken by the state government and district authorities to combat the pandemic of Covid-19. This included a direction to the State and the Union of India to ensure that workers of Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHA) are paid Rs.200 per day instead of Rs.1000/month which is what they are being paid presently or else specific directions for the same will be issued.

Calcutta High Court

1) Responsible Journalism Excludes Irresponsible Reporting: Calcutta HC Asks Media To Verify Reports With Uploaded Orders [Dr. Faud Halim v. State of West Bengal & Ors.]

A division bench of Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishna and Justice Arijit Banerjee has cautioned the media to dissuade itself from "irresponsible reporting" and to verify the orders from the High Court website before reporting.

"We are sure that responsible journalism includes the need to exclude irresponsible reporting by anyone involved in the print or audio visual media. Obviously, therefore, we expect those in need of information about the contents of this Court's orders, to access the High Court website and dissuade themselves from propagating or publicizing the orders to champion the cause of anybody concerned," it remarked.

Also Read: Right To Freedom Of Speech And Expression ; Legal And Ethical Checks And Balances On Media

Delhi High Court

1) Appeals To Commercial Appellate Division Lie From Orders Passed Under HC Rules [D&H India Ltd. V. Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd.]

A bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar examined the scope of Appellate Jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts and held that under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, any person aggrieved by the judgment/ order of a Commercial Division of a High Court may prefer an appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court (within a period of 60 days) against such Judgments/ Orders that are specifically enumerated under Order 43 of CPC or are passed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, etc.

2) Delhi HC Directs Delhi Govt To Monitor Ration Shops And Ensure That Ration Is Being Disbursed To Beneficiaries [Delhi Rozi-Roti Adhikar Abhiyan v. Union of India & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul & Talwant Singh directed the Delhi Government to ensure that all the Public Distribution System (PDS) are open and efficiently disbursing ration to beneficiaries, as per the PDS scheme. The bench also asked the Delhi Government to monitor the functioning of each ration shop through Sub Divisional Magistrates, and upload data on disbursement of ration after each day.

Also Read: Denial Of Access To Food To Poor Aggravates Lockdown Distress: Delhi HC Passes Directions For PDS Shops

3) Delhi HC Asks Police To Submit Report In Plea Claiming Police Brutality For Not Wearing Masks While Roaming Outside [Sunder Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr.]

The Single Bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna has directed the Delhi Police to submit the status report in a plea claiming police brutality on public for not wearing masks while roaming around in streets. The matter will be considered on May 6.

4) Schools Are Justified In Charging Tuition Fee For Conducting Online Classes: Delhi HC Holds While Refusing To Intervene In DoE's April 17 Order [Naresh Kumar v. Directorate of Education & Anr.]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Hari Shankar rejected the plea seeking a direction to the Directorate of Education asking it to prohibit schools from charging even the tuition fee during lockdown period. The bench noted that the charging of tuition fee is justified as schools are organising online classes, providing study materials, and paying staff salaries.

5) Delhi HC Temporarily Restrains 6 PSU Banks From Taking Coercive Action Against Company For Defaults Under TReDS [Eastman Auto & Power Limited v. Reserve Bank Of India & Ors.]

A Single Judge bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla temporarily injuncted 6 PSU banks including Bank of Baroda, Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Union Bank & SBI Global Factors Limited, from taking any coercive action against Eastman Auto & Power Limited vis-à-vis default(s) arising out of and/or in relation to Reverse Factoring payment obligations under Trade Receivables Discounting System (TReDS). The RBI meanwhile sought time to seek instructions on whether the facility availed by the petitioner would be covered in terms of the COVID-19 Relief measure notifications.

6) 'Mutual Will' Comes Into Effect On The Death Of Either Of The Joint Testators : Delhi HC [Vickram Bahl & Anr. Vs. Siddhartha Bahl]

In a suit pertaining to a disputed Will, Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw has held that the rights in favor of the ultimate beneficiary under the mutual Will accrue on the demise of either of the executants and during the lifetime of the other executant of the mutual Will.

7) Delhi HC Issues Notices On Plea Against Extension Of Training Period Of Final Year Postdoctoral Medical Students Due To Lockdown; Denies Interim Relief [Dr. Devyesh J. Pathak & Ors. v. National Board of Examination & Ors.]

The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has issued notices to the Central Government and the National Board of Examination in a plea against extension of training period of Post Doctoral Medical Students purportedly due to the nationwide lockdown. However, he highlighted that he was not prima facie convinced with the Petitioners' case and as such availability of Petitioners in the hospitals in which they are undergoing training was essential during the present challenge of COVID-19.

8) Delhi HC Directs Proceedings Against Police Officers For Not Registering FIR On Complaints of Abuse and Harassment of a Dalit Man [Praveen Kumar @ Prashant v. State of GNCT of Delhi & Ors.]

The Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kaitdirected for initiating proceedings against police officers, under section 4 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, who willfully did not register the FIR upon receiving complaints of abuse and harassment of a Dalit man.

Gauhati High Court

1) Gauhati HC Directs Government Of Nagaland To Set Up At Least Two Testing Labs Of COVID-19 In The State [Kikrukhonuo v. State of Nagaland & Ors.]

A bench of Justice Songkhupchung Serto and Justice S Hukato Swu has directed the Government of Nagaland to forthwith set up at least two testing labs of COVID-19 in the state. The court has also asked the Government to file an affidavit showing their level of preparedness and a statement showing the materials already supplied for the personnel who are on the line of duty amid the pandemic. This was after the Petitioner had highlighted that there were no COVID-19 testing labs in the state and samples were sent to Assam and Manipur, causing unwarranted delay in the testing process.

Jharkhand High Court

1) When Can A Court Issue Non-Bailable Warrant Of Arrest, Process For Declaring A Person As Proclaimed Offender & Order of Attachment Under CrPC: Jharkhand HC Clarifies [Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand]

A Single Judge bench of Justice Ananda Sen has reiterated that non-bailable warrant of arrest and processes and order of attachment under the CrPC cannot be issued in a mechanical manner, and the court has to record its satisfaction with regard to the pre-requisites before passing such an order. In a detailed order, he discusses the pre-requisites for the same.

2) Jharkhand HC Seeks Action Taken Report For Implementation Of Lockdown Measures [Court on its own motion v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.]

In a suo moto case registered against non-implementation of the lockdown measures in the state, especially in its capital city Ranchi that has been declared as a red zone for Corona virus, a division bench of Chief Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad has sought a reply from the state government, delineating the measures being taken for strict implementation of the lockdown. The matter will be heard on May 5.

3) GST - No Interest Recovery Without Show Cause Notice & Adjudication : Jharkhand HC [Mahadeo Construction Co. v. Union of India & Ors.]

A bench comprising Justices HC Mishra and Deepak Roshan set aside an order issued by the GST Department to a partnership firm for recovery of interest on unpaid taxes and held that the process of recovery of interest cannot be initiated against an assessee under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act without a prior show cause notice and adjudication proceedings.

Karnataka High Court

1) Can Farmers Be Exempted From Paying Toll On Highways Amid Lockdown? Karnataka HC Asks NHAI [PUCL v. State]

A bench comprising Chief Justice A S Oka and Justice B V Nagarathna has sought from the National Highways Authority of India whether any concession can be made available to the farmers so far as the payment of toll during the lockdown situation is concerned. The court also asked the State Government to inform whether any machinery has been set up by the State Government at the grass root level, taluk level and district level in order to address the grievances of the farmers when it comes to the implementation of the guidelines of the Central Government and State Government. The matter will be heard on May 5.

2) How Many Vehicle Passes Were Given For Nikhil Kumaraswamy's Wedding?, Karnataka HC Asks State

Seeking a report on whether social distancing norms were followed during the wedding of Nikhil, son of Former Chief Minister, H D Kumaraswamy, a division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice B V Nagarathna has asked the state government to place on record the policy on giving passes to vehicles during the lockdown and how many passes were given to allow people to attend the said wedding. The matter will be heard on May 5.

3) Karnataka HC Grants Bail To Six Women Accused Of Pelting Stones On Policemen During Lockdown [Shabana M Ron & Ors. v. State of Karnataka]

A single-Judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar granted bail to six women while refused bail to 17 men, all alleged to have formed unlawful assembly during the ongoing lockdown period in Hubli district and pelted stones and brick pieces against the police when they tried to disperse the mob. The court directed the accused women to not come out of their houses till the Government lifts the lock down period.

4) Karnataka HC Allows Police To Release Vehicles Seized For Lockdown Violations [Mohammed Arif Jameel v. State of Karnataka]

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Savanur Vishwajith Shetty has allowed the Bengaluru police to release 35,000 vehicles which were seized for violation of lockdown norms. The owners of the vehicles can now approach the police, and seek the return of vehicle on a deposit amount, instead of approaching the magistrate.

5) 'It Will Be Counterproductive" Karnataka HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Direction To Form An Expert Committee To Monitor Govt.Actions On COVID-19 [A-Focus v. State of Karnataka & Ors.]

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty disposed of a PIL seeking directions to constitute an expert committee at State Level to deal with the issue of COVID-19 stating that the same will be "counter-productive as it will interfere with the steps which are being regularly taken by both the State Government and the Central Government."

6) Resolve Issues Faced By Junior Members Of Bar : Karnataka HC Asks KSBC

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice B V Nagarathna has suggested to the Karnataka State Bar Council to hold meetings through video conference with the chair persons/presidents of Taluk and District Bar Associations to resolve the issue faced by junior members of the Bar, during the lockdown.

Kerala HC

1) Nurses In Other States May Raise Their Grievances Before Nodal Officers : Kerala HC [United Nurses Association v. Union of India & Ors.]

A bench of Justice PV Asha and Justice Shircy V disposed of the petition filed by United Nurses Association seeking to bring back the COVID affected/ vulnerable Nurses of Kerala from other states, to ensure that they are given proper medication. The court held that the aggrieved health workers may approach the Nodal Officers appointed in each state to take care of the stranded population.

2) Kerala HC Stays Govt Order Deferring Salary Payment Amid COVID-19 Lockdown [Kerala Vydhyuthi Mazdoor Sangham (BMS) & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr.]

A single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stayed for two months the directive issued by the Government of Kerala for postponement of payment of six days' salary of government servants for five months from April 2020 citing financial crisis due to COVID-19. The court observed that the order was, prima facie, not supported by any provision of law.

Madras High Court

1) Issued Notice On Plea Seeking Insurance Coverage Of Upto 25 Lakhs For LPG Deliverymen In Case Of Death Due To Corona Virus [T. Sivakumar v. Govt. of India & Ors.]

A bench of Justice M. Sathyanarayanan and Justice M. Nirmal Kumar issued notices to the Union Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of Tamil Nadu, IOCL, Bharat Petroleum and other such organizations on a petition seeking insurance coverage of up to Rs. 25 lakhs for LPG deliverymen, in case of death due to corona virus infection. The case will be considered on May 14.

2) Rejected Plea For Quashing Govt Order On Free Distribution Of Rice To Mosques During Ramzan [Hindu Munnani v. State of Tamil Nadu]

A bench of Justice M. Sathyanarayanan and Justice M. Nirmal Kumar denied the prayer of the 'Hindu Munnani' organization for quashing of a Government Order facilitating free distribution of raw rice to mosques, during the holy month of Ramzan. It however issued notices to the concerned authorities of the state for extension of the benefit under this scheme to other marginalized groups in the society.

3) 'Matter Of Govt Policy': Madras HC Dismisses Plea For Reduction In Salary Of Government Servants [K. Amsa Kannan v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu]

A division bench comprising of Justice M. Sathyanarayanan and Justice M.Nirmal Kumar refused to order a reduction in salaries of Government employees during the lockdown period, while holding that the same is a matter of government policy.

Also Read: Union Cabinet Approves Ordinance To Reduce Salary Of MPs By 30% For One Year; MPLADS Suspended For 2 Years

Also Read: MPLADS : Why SC Upheld Constitutionality Of Scheme In 2010?

4) Madras HC Issues Notice To Centre On PIL For GST Exemption For Masks And Sanitisers Amidst COVID outbreak [S. Stalinraja v. Union of India]

The division bench of Justices M Sathyanarayanan and M Nirmal Kumar issued notice to the Union government on a PIL seeking removal of the 18 per cent GST on sanitisers and 5 per cent GST on masks in these difficult times of COVID-19 pandemic. The matter will be heard on May 18.

5) Madras HC To Hear Plea For Formulation Of An "Emergency Response System" To Assist Victims Of Domestic Violence [Sudha Ramalingam v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.]

A bench of Justice M. Sathyanarayanan and Justice M. Nirmal Kumar has agreed to hear a PIL seeking formulation of an "Emergency Response System" to aid and assist victims of domestic violence, especially amid lockdown. The matter will be heard on May 20.

Also Read: Emerging Shadow Pandemic During COVID-19: Domestic Violence

6) Madras HC Issues Notice On Plea For Providing Govt Accommodation To Destitute And Mentally Disabled Persons Stranded On Roads [M. Karpagam v. Govt of Tamil Nadu & Ors.]

Justices M. Sathyanarayanan and M. Nirmal Kumar issued notices on a plea seeking food and shelter in government accommodations for dying, destitute and mentally disabled persons, who are living on the road sides of Tamil Nadu. The matter will be heard on May 21.

Also Read: COVID-19: Madras HC Seeks State's Response In Plea For Conversion Of Private Colleges As Makeshift Hospitals For Migrants & Roadside Dwellers

7) 'Fiscal Policy Matter': Madras HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Enhancement Of Cash Benefits For Ration Card Holders [K. Bharathi v. The State & Anr.]

A division bench comprising of Justice M. Sathyanarayanan and Justice M.Nirmal Kumar dismissed a petition seeking enhancement of the cash benefit of Rs. 1,000/- being provided to the Ration Card Holders in the state of Tamil Nadu during the lockdown, stating the same was a "matter of fiscal policy" as it involved spending of precious amount available with the Government from the Coffer.

8) 'Revealing Identity Of Covid Patients Will Definitely Lead To Social Stigma': Madras HC [K. Narayanan v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu]

A division bench comprising of Justice M. Sathyanarayanan and Justice M. Nirmal Kumar disposed of a petitionseeking to reveal the identity of the COVID-19 affected persons while observing that the same may further aggravate the "social stigma" being attached to the victims.

9) Madras HC Directs Criminal Courts To Expeditiously Dispose Of Alcohol Items Stored In Their Property Rooms [Court on its own motion]

A division bench comprising of Justice PN Prakash and Justice T. Krishnavalli directed to all the Criminal Courts in the State to expeditiously "dispose of" alcohol items that are stored in court's "Property Rooms" after it was informed that some "desperate addicts" stole alcohol from the court's custody.

Orissa High Court

Orissa HC Directs State To Expedite Investigation Into Death Of Kidney Patient Who Was Allegedly Denied Treatment By Private Hospital On Religious Grounds [Azra Jamal v. State of Odisha]

A division bench of Justice S. Pujahari and Justice KR Mohapatradirected the State government to expedite the investigation into death of a Cuttack resident, who was allegedly denied treatment at a private hospital on the basis of his religion, during the lockdown. The order was passed in a petition seeking apposite action against the Shanti Nursing Home in Cuttack, which refused to treat a kidney-patient namely Sayed Abdul Hasan in wake of the Talibaghi Jamat incident.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

1) Lodging Of Petitioners In Quarantine Centre To Avoid Spread Of Covid-19 Impact Is Not Illegal Confinement: Punjab & Haryana HC [Mustak Hussain & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

The bench of Justice Lalit Batra dismissed a Habeas Corpus petition while holding that a person kept in quarantine by the authorities due to the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be said to be in "illegal confinement/ detention".

Rajasthan High Court

1) Reproductive Choice of Woman Is a Fundamental Right Flowing From Article 21 Of Constitution :Rajasthan HC [State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. S & Anr.]

A Division Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati reiterated that reproductive choice of a woman is a fundamental right encompassed under the umbrella of Article 21 of the Constitution and thus held that right of child rape survivor to make any reproductive choice outweighs the right of the unborn child to be born, even in cases where pregnancy is at an advanced stage.

Also Read: Karnataka HC Allows Woman To Terminate Her 25 Week Pregnancy

2) Rajasthan HC Directs Not To Mention Caste Of Persons In Any Judicial Or Administrative Judicial Matter

Following the controversy over the mention of caste name in a judicial order last week, the Rajasthan High Court issued a notification stating that caste of any person, including accused, should not be incorporated in any judicial or administrative matter. The same is against the "spirit of constitution" it said.

Telangana High Court

1) Provide Free Of Cost Ration, Food and Medicines To Transgenders : Telangana HC To State Govt

A division bench of Justice Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice A Abhishek Reddy has directed the state government to provide food, ration and medicines to the transgender community free of cost and without insisting on a ration card. The court will further hear the case on May 11.