High Courts Weekly Roundup

Allahabad High Court

1. Allahabad HC Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of Hathras Case; Says 'Incidents Have Shocked Our Conscience' [In Re : Right to decent and dignified last rites/cremation]

The Bench of Justices Jaspreet Singh and Rajan Roy took suo moto cognizance of the Hathras gang rape case, stating that is an "extremely sensitive" matter, touching upon the basic human/ fundamental rights of the citizens.

The Court has issued notices to the State of UP and other concerned officers and authorities and has asked them to be present before the Court on the next date of hearing, October 12. It has also summoned the victim's family also to hear their version.

"The incidents which took place after the death of the victim on 29.09.2020 leading up to her cremation, as alleged, have shocked our conscience, therefore, we are taking suo moto cognizance of the same"- the Court observed while directing the state to ensure that no coercion, influence or pressure is exerted upon the family members of the deceased.

2. Very Strange That Instead Of Procuring Presence Of Accused, Magistrate Dismissed The Complaint: Allahabad HC [Rajbahadur Singh v. State of UP & Ors.]

The Bench of Justice KJ Thaker quashed an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, dismissing the complaint registered against a Sub-Inspector, after he failed to appear before the Court.

Holding the impugned order to be perverse, the Court stated: "The learned Magistrate has the duty cast to see that there is no misuse of the Court proceedings. In this case, there is a clear misuse of process of law by the accused who even after coming to know that summons were issued against them and their revision were dismissed, did not appear before the Court below and strange enough the learned Magistrate dismissed that matter of the complainant at the stage of issuance of bailable warrant as accused had not appeared before it pursuant to the summons already issued. There was no question of affixing process fees and, therefore, the dismissal under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. is bad."

3. Showing Porn Videos To Children Aged 5-6 years: Allahabad HC Denies Bail To School-Van Driver [Nirijesh v. State of UP]

The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh while denying bail to a school van driver accused of showing porn videos to children aged about 5-6 years observed,

"Considering the heinousness of the offence, tender age of the victims and relationship of the accused-applicant of trust, it is not a fit case where the accused-applicant should be allowed to come out from the jail."

4. 'Even Police Personnel Outside Their Police Stations Are Not Wearing Masks': Allahabad HC Expresses Displeasure At Shoddy Implementation Of Its Orders [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres & For Providing Better Treatment To Corona Positive]

The Bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar while expressing displeasure on the police authorities failing to effectively enforce social distancing and wearing of masks, observed,

"In our country, to begin with, we very successfully locked down the country for a good three months. While the lockdown was imposed, we found that the police were really effective. Today, when social distancing and wearing of masks has to be done in letter and spirit we find that strict enforcement is missing. Quite often, it has been found that even police personnel outside their police stations are not wearing masks."

Also Read: Allahabad HC Issues Instructions To Regulate Restaurants/Eateries Amid Pandemic

5. High Risk Of Corona Infection Prevalent In Computer Section: Allahabad HC Denies Counsel's Request For VC Hearing [Babloo v. Union of India & Anr.]

The Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal denied the option to an Advocate for hearing via video conferencing, citing "high risk" of Covid-19 infection. The Court observed that the request cannot be entertained in view of the fact that staff of the High Court is already at high risk of Corona infection and this is more prevalent in the Computer Section. No infrastructure is available to carry out Video conferencing in the Chamber.

It may be noted that as per the notification for functioning of the High Court, last issued on July 24, 2020: The facility of hearing through Video-Conferencing "shall be provided" on asking by the learned Advocates. If any party desires to appear in person then the only mode would be through video conferencing.

6. Allahabad HC Dismisses Pleas Against Streaming Of Web Series Paatal Lok And XXX-Season 2 [Anniruddha Singh v. Union of India & Ors. and Sangeeta Gupta & Union of India & Ors.]

Division Bench Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Siddhartha Varma while dismissing PILs filed for censorship of web series Patal Lok and XXX-Season 2 directed to approach the competent authority first. The Court observed

"It is a settled principle of law that the person demanding writ in the nature of mandamus is first required to make a demand from the Authority competent. A deviation from such settled principle can be made only in extraordinary circumstances and no such circumstance has been pointed out by the petitioner in this petition for writ."

7. [Tablighi Jamaat] Cases From All Over UP To Be Transferred To 3 Districts; To Be Decided Within 3 Weeks: Allahabad HC [In Re Maulana Ala Hadarmi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.]

The Division Bench of Justice Shashi Kant Gupta and Justice Shamim Ahmed directed that the cases pending against the members of Tablighi Jamaat in Kanpur, Gorakhpur, Prayagraj, Varanasi and Lucknow Zones be transferred to CJM, Lucknow. Likewise, cases pending in Agra and Meerut Zones be transferred to CJM, Meerut. Further, the cases pending in Bareilly Zone shall be transferred to CJM, Bareilly.

Andhra Pradesh High Court

1. Department of Atomic Energy Can't Prohibit Grant Of Exploration License Of Atomic Minerals Permissible Under The Provisions Of OAMDR Act: Andhra Pradesh HC [M/S Standard Metalloys Pvt Ltd v. Union of India]

The Bench of the Chief Justice Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari and Justice K. Suresh Reddy observed that Department of Atomic Energy can't prohibit grant of exploration license of Atomic Minerals to any private person permissible under the provisions of the OAMDR act.

The Court made it clear that in the matter of grant of the operating right, it may be given to any person or private company for the atomic minerals but at the stage of giving the production lease for atomic minerals or prescribed substance, the consultation with the department of the Government of India dealing with the Atomic energy is required.

Bombay High Court

1. We Cannot Think Of Lawyers Only, People Are Starving, Losing Their Jobs; Observes Bombay HC While Hearing Pleas To Allow Travel In Local Trains, Physical Hearings [Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa v. Union of India & Ors.]

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni while hearing PILs filed by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, Consumer Court Advocates Association seeking inclusion of the advocates in the list of essential services and seeking directions to resume physical hearing in consumer courts observed,

"Let us not keep this limited to lawyers, it may seem biased. We cannot only think of lawyers. The situation today is such that people are starving, they are losing their jobs. So we have to come up with a formula that benefits others as well."

2. [Proceedings Under RTI Act In Virtual Mode] Surprised That Maharashtra Govt. Is Still Praying For Some More Time To Make System Operational: Bombay HC [Shailesh Gandhi & Ors. v. Maharashtra State Information Commission]

The Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni rapped Maharashtra Government and expressed surprise at the fact that during the period of six months after lock-down was announced, the State did not consider it appropriate to provide for the hearing of the First Appeals under RTI Act in Virtual Mode.

It observed, "It appears, on the reading of such letter, that the Government of Maharashtra is inclined to adopt appropriate online video conferencing platform for conducting hearing of quasi-judicial/administrative proceedings; however, the procedure may take some time as a meeting will have to be convened with the concerned Departments including the Finance Department and that necessary guideline and directions would be issued to all the public authorities thereafter. It also appears that some of the authorities are already conducting the hearing through video conferencing."

3. "Emergency Parole Is Their Right"; Bombay HC Orders Enquiry By Chief Judicial Magistrates Of All Districts In Aurangabad On Allegations Of Bribery Against Jail Officials [Shaikh Moin Shaikh Mehmood v. State of Maharashtra]

The Division bench of Justice TV Nalawade and Justice MG Sewlikar ordered a thorough enquiry into allegations of demand of bribe against jail authorities for granting emergency parole which their right as per State government's notification dated May 8, 2020 after being informed that over 130 applications seeking emergency parole are pending.

The bench observed, "They are expected to see the Government notification dated 08.05.2020 and various orders made by this Court interpreting the above notification. They are expected to make inquiry with every prisoner to ascertain as to whether he was informed about his right to get emergency parole under the aforesaid notification. They are to ascertain as to whether the jail authority had refused to accept the application. They are to ascertain as to whether for some gratification, the applications of the prisoners were not accepted."

4. "We Ignore Harsh Criticism, But What If Others Who Are In Power Sensitive": Bombay HC Grants Relief To Man Booked For Abusive Tweets Against CM

The Division bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice MS Karnik granted him protection from arrest to a man booked for tweets against Maharashtra CM Uddhav Thackeray and Tourism minister Aaditya Thackeray.

The Court directed the Additional Public Prosecutor not to arrest the accused as a notice under Section 41A had been issued, and 41A doesn't contemplate arrest. Moreover, Court added that even if the police wish to add any cognizable offences, since the FIR invokes only bailable offences, the accused shall not be arrested until the next date of hearing.

5. "Right Of Minor Victims To Participate In The Judicial Process"; PIL Alleges Non-Compliance Of POCSO Provisions, Bombay HC Seeks Reply From State

The Division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni while hearing the PIL filed by Arjun Malge sought a reply from the State of Maharashtra to all criminal courts to secure efficient and effective participation of child victims through their legal representatives at all stages of the judicial process alleging non-implementation of certain provisions of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO).

6. Purpose Of Detention To Prevent Detenu From Indulging In Smuggling, Undue Delay Makes Detention Order Vulnerable: Bombay HC Quashes Order U/COFEPOSA [Suresh Gulabchand Jaiswal v. Union of India & Anr.]

The Division bench of Justice SS Shinde and MS Karnik while quashing an order of detention passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, held that the purpose of a detention order issued under the Act is to prevent the detenu from indulging in prejudicial activity like smuggling and if there is unreasonable delay in making of the detention order, it becomes vulnerable.

The Court observed that if the delay is not satisfactorily explained, that itself is ground to quash order of detention.

7. "We Also Don't Agree With What Petitioner Said But Does It Mean You Break Her House? You Are A Leader, Have Some Grace"; Bombay HC Tells Sanjay Raut's Lawyer

During the course of hearing in Kangana Ranaut's writ petition challenging the demolition of her bungalow turned office at Pali Hill, the Division bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla and Justice RI Chagla told Rajya Sabha MP and Shiv Sena's Chief Spokesperson Sanjay Raut to show some grace and questioned him on the language used against Ms. Ranaut in an interview he gave to newsnation wherein he allegedly referred to her as "haramkhor ladki'.

"Even we do not agree with what the petitioner said (referring to her tweet about Mumbai), but that does not mean that we will demolish her house. Is this the way. We are all Maharashtrians here and proud to be Maharashtrians, but this is not the way to react," the Court said.

Also Read: 'Cases Of Celebrities Are Critical Cases?' Bombay HC Grills Mumbai Civic Body Officials In Kangana Ranaut Case Hearing

Calcutta High Court

1. [Challenge Against NUJS 30% Domicile Reservation] Calcutta HC Division Bench Refuses To Interfere With Single Bench Refusal To Stay Publication Of Merit List [Utkarsh Bansal v. State of West Bengal & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Justices IP Mukherjee and MD Nizamuddin refused to interfere in the Single Bench order which refused to grant interim relief in a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the law mandating 30% domicile reservation for admission in West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS).

The Court noted that an appeal court "sparingly interferes with the grant of refusal or grant of an interim order by the trial court".

2. [Ban On Mobile In Hospitals] 'Ban Impinges Upon The Right Of Free Communication Of Patients', Calcutta HC Asks Govt. To Ease Out The Ban [Arjun Singh v. The State of West Bengal]

The Bench of Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice Arijit Banerjee opined that the State Government shall take such appropriate measures without compromising the health issues of the public at large to ease out the ban on use of mobile phones in hospitals since the same definitely causes the inconvenience and other problems for the members of the society.

It observed, "We cannot say that it was wholly unreasonable, imprudent or arbitrary on the part of the State administration to impose a ban on the use of mobile phones inside hospitals which were treating Covid-19 patients. The situation was such that everybody was groping in the dark in search of ways and means to restrict the spread of Covid-19 pandemic and find a cure for the malady. In such a situation, often it becomes necessary for the people in governance to take a decision on a trial and error basis or to impose certain restrictions on the members of the society for the safety of their health which may have the effect of curtailment of some of their constitutional rights."

Delhi High Court

1. Delhi HC Judge Suresh Kumar Kait Bars Sharing Of VC Links To Media Correspondents And Others [Satyam Kumar Sah v. Narcotics Control Bureau]

The Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait directed the Registry/Court Master to not to share the links for video conferencing with correspondents or any other person who is not connected with the case concerned.The Court further ordered that the said links for video conferencing shall only be shared with advocates concerned, Investigating Officer, parties in person in case the petition is filed for quashing and to the persons specifically directed by this court to join the proceedings.

The Court observed that: 'A very unpleasant situation came before this court during the hearing of present case, certain unidentified persons joined the proceedings through VC and could be heard talking continuously, thereby, creating hindrance in hearing the submissions of counsels and proper justice dispensation.'

2. [Discontinuation Of Insurance Policy] Delhi HC Directs Insurer To Provide Similar Alternative Insurance Plan Having Similar Coverage & Same Premium [Lokesh Chandra & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd & Anr.]

The Bench of Justice Jayant Nath while hearing a civil writ petition addressing the grievance of the petitioner on refusal of the insurance company to renew his policy as the same had suddenly been discontinued, directed the company to provide a similar alternative plan to the Petitioner-claimant, having approximately the same coverage and the same premium.

The ground that the policy in question is no longer given by the respondent cannot be taken as a defence to refusing renewal of the policy, the Court said.

3. Delhi HC Directs DU To Set Timelines To Provide Degree Certificates And Marksheets To Both Previous And Current Students [Dhritiman Ray v. University of Delhi & Ors.]

The Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the Delhi University to set timelines to provide paper-based degree certificates and marksheets to both the students who will be graduating this year and those who had graduated in previous years. The Court further directed the University to devise a mechanism for issuance of online transcripts in respect of those students who need the same urgently and the same be set out in the affidavit.

It observed: 'The online digital degree certificates, which are now being issued are monolingual i.e., only in English, unlike the previous degree certificates which were bilingual i.e., both in English and Hindi. It is ordered that both formats of the online degree certificates whether in monolingual format or bilingual format would be valid for the candidates to submit to their respective universities/authorities in foreign countries and the present order may be used for the said purpose.'

4. Delhi HC Imposes Costs Of ₹50k On Petitioner Seeking Financial Assistance For Implementing His Project On Clean Environment [Trilok Goyal v. Union of India & Ors.]

The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan imposed heavy costs of ₹50,000 on a Petitioner seeking financial assistance of ₹70,000 from the Central Government for implementing his project on clean environment. While dismissing his PIL, the Court highlighted,

"No ground is made out by the petitioner in person for allotment of such a huge amount for his project. The petition is lacking in fundamental particulars – including as to the nature of the project which the petitioner seeks to develop and implement with the assistance of the respondents. It ought to be kept in mind that the public money and resources cannot be wasted in this manner."

5. Delhi HC Directs Centre To File Report In Rakul Preet Singh's Plea Seeking Interim Direction Restraining Media From Reporting On Her NCB Investigation

The Single Bench of Justice Navin Chawla issued notice in a plea moved by actress Rakul Preet Singh an "urgent ad interim direction" restraining the media from reporting on the Bollywood Drug Mafia case, so far as she is concerned.

The Court further directed the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Union of India, and other regulatory authorities to submit a status report stating steps taken by them in pursuance of court's last order.

6. Plea Seeking Action Against Twitter For Allegedly Hosting Anti-India Content, Delhi HC Asks Petitioner To First Move A Representation Before Centre

The Division Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Subramonium Prasad allowed the Petitioner to move a representation before the concerned authorities in a plea seeking regulation of anti-India content on social media. The Petitioner has also asked for initiation of an inquiry against Twitter for allegedly being involved in a conspiracy to promote Khalistan movement.

7. Can't Provide Legal Opinion In Application Moved Under Sec 151 of CPC: Delhi HC Holds While Advising Petitioner To Seek Advice Judge After He Demits Office [Balraj Kishan Gupta v. Panna Lal Girdhar Lal P. Ltd & Ors.]

The Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice Asha Menon clarified that it doesn't have the advisory jurisdiction to provide legal advice to the parties in applications moved under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.

While refusing to provide legal opinion, the court highlighted: "Neither Section 151 of the CPC nor any other provision of law vests in this Court, acting as the Company Appeal Court, advisory jurisdiction. It is surprising that advocates are moving application, seeking legal opinion of the Court; not only so, there are several other advocates including an advocate as Court Commissioner, in the matter. The application is thoroughly misconceived."

8. Delhi HC Stays Centre's Directions To FSSAI Prohibiting Blending of Mustard Oil [B ROil Industries Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India & Anr.]

The Single Bench of Justice Navin Chawla stayed the directions issued by the Central Government to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India prohibiting the blending of mustard oil. The order came in response to a writ petition moved by BR Oil Industries Limited challenging the directions issued by the Central Government to prohibit the blending of mustard oil with other vegetable oils.

By its order dated September 23, the Central Government issued directions to the FSSAI, asking it to prohibit the blending of mustard oil with other vegetable oils and only permit the sale of pure mustard oil in public interest.

9. [Civil Service Exams Centres In Containment Zones] 'Candidates Not Be Stopped From Reaching Their Centres', Delhi HC Directs UPSC To Request Authorities

The Bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to immediately issue a communication to the Chief Secretary, GNCTD and the Commissioner of Police notifying them of the examinations being conducted on 4th October 2020.

The Court also directed the UPSC to request the Chief Secretary, GNCTD and the Commissioner of Police to issue proper directions to the authorities concerned including the police officials to ensure that candidates who possess admit cards for appearing in the examination are not stopped or obstructed in any manner from reaching their centres, even if the same are located in containment zones. The Court further directed,

"The said communication shall also request that proper directions are issued to the authorities concerned including the police officials to ensure that candidates who possess admit cards for appearing in the examination are not stopped or obstructed in any manner from reaching their centres, even if the same are located in containment zones."

10. What Are The Significant Factors To Be Considered While Hearing An Application For Bail In POCSO Cases? Delhi HC Discusses In Detail [Dharmander Singh v. GNCTD]

The single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, while discussing the legislative intent and applicability of "reverse burden" under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (POCSO) held that "the presumption of guilt engrafted in section 29 gets triggered and applies only once trial begins, that is after charges are framed against the accused but not before that."

Further it observed that the impact of Section 29, even after charges are framed, would only be to "raise the threshold of satisfaction" required before a court grants bail because, an accused does not get the opportunity to rebut the presumption or to prove the contrary by leading defence evidence, until prosecution evidence is concluded.

Gauhati High Court

Gujarat High Court

1. Gujarat HC Orders 3 Judge Committee Report In Yatin Oza Contempt Case Be Brought On Record [Suo Moto v. Yatin Narendra Oza]

The Division Bench of Justices Sonia Gokani and NV Anjaria ordered that the 3-Judge Committee's Report on alleged "favouritism and nepotism" of the Registry be brought on record in the suo moto contempt case registered against Advocate Yatin Oza.

2. [Vadodara Custodial Death Probe] "There Must Not Be Any Scope Of Either Laxity Or Soft Paddling At Any Stage Of Investigation": Gujarat HC Tells CID [Sheikh Salim Shekhbabu v. State Of Gujarat & Ors.]

In the on-going probe of the Vadodara Custodial Death Case, the Bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice NV Anjaria reminded the Investigating Officer Mr Girish Pandya that "truth is the motto and object of every investigation and in the instant case, all the accused are police personnel who are supposed to be well versed with all possible tactics to overreach the process of law, extraordinary care would be expected on his part."

The Court remarked, "Let no stone be left unturned and every possible attempt be made to go to the root of the matter. There must not be any scope of either laxity or soft paddling at any stage of investigation which is not only impermissible, but would also prove to be deleterious for the system."

3. Amid Depleting Sex Ratio, Legal Battles Fought Over Daughters To Give Them Away As Brides For Monetary Consideration: Gujarat HC

Concerned over the depleting sex ratio in the state, the Bench of Justices Sonia Gokani and NV Anjaria expressed its shock at the "illegal and unpalatable incidents" where "legal battles are fought over daughters, neither for protecting her nor with a desire to ensure her happiness, but only with a view that the giving away of the bride in lieu of monetary consideration become possible".

The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition, where it was the grievance on the part of the petitioner that he has already married to the corpus. However, as the parents of the corpus are not willing and want to marry her to a third person, they have forcibly taken her away from her matrimonial home.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

1. Traumatic For A Foreign National To Face Trial; Denying Bail No Solution; Answer Lies In Speedy Disposal Of Such Cases': HP HC [Innocent Oluchukwu v. State of Himachal Pradesh]

The Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara while hearing the bail plea of two Nigerian Nationals observed "When a Foreign National gets arraigned as an accused in a criminal case, then she gets stuck up here. It may be traumatic to her, and to her education, family, friends, business, and n number of things, which an ordinary human being cannot even imagine. The answer lies in the speedy disposal of cases of foreign nationals, whether they are in custody or on bail."

The Court further observed,

"The quantity of the substance involved in this case does not restrict bail. The incarceration of the accused during the period of trial is neither warranted, nor justified, or going to achieve any significant purpose. Any detailed discussions about the evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecution or the accused. Suffice it to say that due to the reasons mentioned above, this Court believes that further incarceration of the accused during the trial is neither warranted nor will achieve any significant purpose."

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

1. Detaining Authorities Must Be Given Proper Training About Requirements Of Law In Passing Detention Order: J&K HC Releases Man Allegedly Detained As Lashkar-e-Taiba Worker [Sartaj Ahmad Allie v. State of J&K & Ors.]

The Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Rajesh Bindal while quashing a Detention order passed by the authorities under the provisions of Public Safety Act, 1978, remarked,

"We are at pains to observe that in routine this Court comes across the cases in which the detention orders issued on the grounds of threat to the security and integrity of State are getting quashed due to non-adherence to technical requirements."

The Court further observed, "In many petitions the grounds taken are non-furnishing of the material relied upon by the detaining Authority to the detenue; not informing the detenu about his right to make representation; not informing the detenu about the grounds of detention in the language that he understands etc. The law on which is well settled."

Also Read: 'If Detenu Was In Custody, It Wouldn't Have Been Possible For Him To Indulge In Stone Pelting' J&K HC Quashes A Detention Order Passed 'In A Mechanical Manner'

Karnataka High Court

1. Karnataka HC Dismisses PIL Seeking To Transfer Drug Racket Case Involving Kannada Actors To NIA For Further Investigation

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ashok S Kinagi dismissed petition filed by Advocate Geetha Misra, seeking to transfer the high profile drug racket case involving Kannada actress Ragini Dwivedi, Sanjjana Galrani and others to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The Bench observed that at this stage it is not proper for this court to go into the question whether for investigation of the said offence, NIA can be appointed."

It further said at highest a SIT can be appointed to investigate a specific offence. Generally for investigation into the alleged drug racket in Karnataka or Bengaluru, SIT cannot be appointed." While concluding the bench noted that "FIR (in case involving actresses) is registered very recently therefore it cannot be concluded that investigation is not being carried out properly."

2. Karnataka HC Strikes Down 25% Domicile Reservation in National Law School of India University(NLSIU), Bangalore

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ravi V Hosmani struck down the 25 percent domicile reservation at the National Law School of India University for students of Karnataka introduced by the state government on April 27.

The bench said that the executive council of the University has powers to introduce reservation and "If we allow this thing (state reservation) to be done virtually there will be two centers of control, one with executive council and other by state which will be an unhealthy trend."

Also Read: 'NLSIU A Unique National Institution And Not A State University' : Karnataka HC While Quashing 25% Domicile Reservation

3. Set Apart A Reasonable Amount Out Of Rs 5 Crores For Clerks' : Karnataka HC Directs State Bar Council

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ashok S Kinagi directed the Karnataka State Bar Council to set apart a reasonable amount out of the Rs 5 core state grant given to it for the benefit of the advocates' clerks.

The Court gave the direction while hearing a petition filed by the Advocate Clerks Association. The bench took into the written submissions filed by the State Government wherein it is contended that out of a sum of Rs.5.00 crores granted to the Bar Council,some portion has to be set apart by the Bar Council for the benefit of the advocates' clerks.

Kerala High Court

1. [Making Allegations Of Torturing Muslim Youth] 'No Intention To Promote Enmity B/w Two Religious Groups', Kerala HC Grants Bail To SDPI Leader [Ameer Ali v. State Of Kerala]

The Bench of Justice Ashok Menon granted bail to the applicant accused of preparing posters creating or promoting hatred or ill will between two religious groups. The Court was of the opinion that the applicant has been incarcerated for long enough and there is no need for further incarceration of the applicant and hence, he is entitled to bail.

The Court remarked, "In the instant case also, the allegation is mainly attributed to the SI of Police, who had allegedly tortured two Muslim Youth. But, merely, because the persons who were subjected to torture have been described as Muslim youths by itself may probably not attract Section 505 (2) of the IPC, is the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant."

2. Kerala HC Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Kerala State Commission For SC-STs Act [M.P.Chothy v. State Of Kerala]

The bench comprising the Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly upheld the constitutional validity of Kerala State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act, 2007. It observed,

"We are of the view that the proceedings before the SC/ST Commission cannot be equated to court proceedings, nor do they partake the character of a trial or inquiry, as envisaged in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and there is no repugnancy between the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Kerala State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act, 2007, in the matter of providing TA/DA, to the victims/witnesses, required to be present for investigation, as completed in respect of an offence and trial."

3. Kerala HC Rejects Plea To Quash Sedition Case Against Man Accused Of Maintaining Parallel Telephone Exchange In Secrecy [Firoz v. SI Of Police]

Bench of Justice P. Somarajan refused to quash a Sedition case against a person accused of maintaining a parallel telephone exchange in secrecy.

While dismissing this contention, the bench observed: " Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Sections 3 and 6 of Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 are independent offences having no overriding effect over Chapter XIII of Indian Penal Code. The allegation levelled against is not confining to the provisions contained in the special enactment, but extends to the offence of sedition punishable under Section 124A of IPC and the offence of cheating by playing deception on the statutory authority. It is not a mere case of violation of any of the provisions contained in the special enactment. Hence there cannot be any overriding effect especially when the allegation levelled against would prima facie satisfy the ingredients which would attract sedition as defined under Section 124A IPC by maintaining a parallel telephone exchange in secrecy and also the offence of cheating by playing deception on the statutory authority causing unlawful loss and gaining unlawful enrichment."

4. Mere Presence Of A CPI (M) Party Member Along With The Members Of BJP Cannot Be Viewed To Hold That He Has Joined BJP: Kerala HC [Subramanian S v. Kerala State Election Commission]

The Bench of Justice Muhamed Mustaque observed that mere presence of a CPI(M) party member along with the members of BJP cannot be viewed to hold that the member of CPI(M) has joined BJP. The Court further said,

"There is nothing on record to show that the second respondent at any point of time supported BJP, at least to infer that he has given up membership of CPI(M). Apart from pointing out the presence of the second respondent with BJP members or Hindu Aikkiya Vedi there is nothing on record to show that the act of the second respondent would amount to giving up membership with CPI(M)."

5. [Nun Rape Case] 'Its In The Interest Of All That Case Attains Finality At The Earliest', Kerala HC Dismisses Franco Mulakkal's Plea To Adjourn The Trial Due To COVID [Bishop Franco Mulakkal v. State of Kerala]

The Bench of Justice VG Arun dismissed the petition filed by Former Bishop Franco Mulakkal seeking to adjourn the trial in the nun rape case citing a big spurt in COVID cases in Kerala. The Court observed,

"It is high time for us to accept this reality and move on with our affairs. In any case, the wheels of justice delivery system cannot be permitted to come to a grinding halt by reasons of the pandemic."

Madhya Pradesh High Court

1. [Political Gatherings Amid COVID] Authorities Responsible For The Execution Of COVID Protocol Are Unable To Discharge Their Duties: MP HC [Ashish Pratap Singh v. State of M.P. & Ors]

The Bench of Justices Sheel Nagu and Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava observed that the executive authorities who are responsible for the execution of the COVID Guidelines (to contain the spread of COVID) are unable to discharge their duties. It noted,

"In such a situation if the Executive Authorities do not prevent the congregation of a large number of people in violation of restrictions laid down by the Central Government, State Government and the District Magistrate then this Court may have to step in to do something which the Executive Authorities of the State failed to do."

2. Don't Charge Penal Rent From Any Teacher/Employee And Don't Evict Them From Residential Premises: MP HC Directs Indore School Associations [Deepesh v. School Education Department]

The Bench of Justice SC Sharma and Justice Shailendra Shukla directed the Private School Association, Indore; Association Of Unaided Schools, Indore and the Daly College (Indore) not to charge damage or penal rent from any teacher/employee or family members and they shall not be evicted from their School/Hostel/Residential premises.

The Court opined that it was also clarified that the teacher/family members/employees shall be paid their terminal dues, their terminal dues will not be withheld by the respondent on the ground that the schools are entitled to charge damages rent.

3. [Criminal Cases Against MPs/MLAs] Madhya Pradesh HC Registers Suo Moto Petition; Issues Notices

In compliance of the SC order in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal and Justice Sanjay Yadav registered a suo motu petition for monitoring the progress of the trials of the pending criminal cases against sitting/former Legislators (MPs & MLAs).

It may be noted that the Supreme Court has asked the State Government to ensure that they cooperate and take initiative in the establishment of "safe and secure witness examination room" and the provision for "Video Conferencing" in these Courts to aid and assist in the early and speedy conduct of the trials.

Madras High Court

1. Advocate Who Acted Professionally As Per Client's Instruction Cannot Be Made Criminally Liable For Defamation: Madras HC [ML Ganesh v. CA V. Venkata Siva Kumar]

The Bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that an advocate who acted professionally as per the instruction of his or her client cannot be made criminally liable for offence of defamation under Section 500 unless contrary is alleged and established. It observed:

"A lawyer is an advocate, one who speaks for another. Naturally beyond what his client tells him the lawyer has no opportunity to test the truth or falsity of the story put forward by the client. Therefore no lawyer could ever be prosecuted for defamation in regard to any instructions which he might have given to his lawyer, because it is the lawyer's business to decide whether he could properly act upon the instructions, and whatever responsibility might ensue from acting upon those instruction would be his, and no one else's, is opposed to the entire trend of decisions defining the scope and extent of the privilege conferred upon the lawyer."

2. Courts Have Limited Jurisdiction, No Expertise In Matters Of Determination Of Fees: Madras HC

The Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh directed the State Government to consider the students' representation for waiver of additional fees, levied by the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University for various facilities offered by it, that are not being utilized during online classes. The Court observed that the University does not have the power to fix/ waive fees and the same is decided by the State Government. Further, he remarked that the Court does not have the expertise to determine fees. It said,

"This Court is aware of the fact that there is a very limited jurisdiction vested with this Court when it comes to fixation of fees. Fees is fixed after taking into consideration a lot of factors and this Court is not an expert to sit over in judgments and re-determine the fees. Any such exercise will amount to over stretching the jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India."

3. [Siddha Medicine 'Kabasura Kudineer'] It Is The Duty Of Ministry Of AYUSH To Popularize Every Indian System Of Medicine Across India: Madras HC

The Division Bench of Justice N. Kirubakaran and Justice P. Velmurugan observed that it is the duty of the Central Ministry of AYUSH to popularise every Indian system of medicine including Siddha in all the States. It further opined that "It is incumbent on the Ministry of AYUSH to open at least one hospital for each system in every State and instructions shall also be obtained by the learned Assistant Solicitor General in this regard."

Manipur High Court

1. Criminal Cases Against MPs/ MLAs: Manipur HC Directs Govt To Establish Two Special Courts; Seeks Monthly Status Reports [In re: Monitoring of Criminal cases against MPs & MLAs]

The Bench of Chief Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar and Justice A. Bimol Singh in order to enable "timely action" in criminal cases pending against sitting and former MPs and MLAs directed the State Government to create two "exclusive Special Courts" at Imphal at the Sessions and Magisterial levels.

The Court directed the State Government to set up Special Court (MP/MLA) No.1, Manipur [Sessions Court to be manned by MJS Grade-I] & Special Court (MP/MLA) No.2, Manipur [Magisterial Court to be manned by MJS Grade-II] having jurisdiction over whole of Manipur. As a corollary, the Court further directed the State Government to create two cadre posts of Manipur Judicial Services MJS Grade-I : 1 post and MJS Grade-II : 1 post along with 2 posts of Special Public Prosecutor.

Patna High Court

1. Clarify The Steps Taken For Affording Reservation In Field Of Education/services To Members Of Transgender Community: Patna HC Seeks Govt. Response [Veera Yadav v. Government of Bihar & Ors.]

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar asked the State Government to explain and clarify the steps taken for affording reservation in the field of education or services to the members of the Transgender community.

To read the questions asked by the Court, access Full Report.

Punjab & Haryana High Court

1. Punjab & Haryana HC Restrains Schools From Levying Transport Charges During Online Classes; Building Maintenance Fee Capped To 50% [Ashish Kumar Garg & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

"In view of the fact that the students are not going to school," the Bench of Justices Rajan Gupta and Karamjit Singh restrained all schools situated in areas within its jurisdiction from charging transport fees from students. Inter alia, the Court has ordered that annual charges, meant for maintenance of the school building, shall remain stayed to the extent of 50%.

Telangana High Court

1. Telangana HC Seeks Centre's Response In Plea Against Publication Of Communal Content On Social Media [Khaja Aijazuddin v. Union of India & Ors.]

The Bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy directed the Central Government to file its reply in the plea against circulation of communally painted content on social media platforms in India.

The Court directed the Addl. Solicitor General of India to file replies of Union Cabinet Secretary and Union Home Secretary, Government of India by October 18, 2020. The order was passed in a plea against trending of "communal hashtags" on US-based micro blogging platform, Twitter.

Also Read: [Communal Hashtags] Twitter Tells Telangana HC It Is Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction In India, Seeks Safe Harbour Protection Under IT Act

Tripura High Court

1. [Resettlement-Accord For Bru Community] 'Matter Predominantly Socio-Political In Nature; Will Intervene At The Appropriate Stage', Tripura HC

The Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice S. Talpatra heard a PIL regarding the concerns and anxiety over full implementation of the resettlement accord of the displaced Bru community.

It prima facie observed that the issues raised by the Counsel for the petitioner are predominantly socio-political in nature. Further the Court remarked, "If at any stage, we find that the role of the Court in bringing about smooth implementation of the accord has arisen, we may consider intervening at the appropriate stage."

2. [COVID-19] Unfortunately The Rule Of Wearing Of Mask Which Is Meant For Safety Of People Needs To Be Enforced Through Coercive Measures: Tripura HC

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice S. Talapatra while acknowledging the State Government's special drive against violation of the directives for wearing masks in public on 18th and 19th observed:

"It is unfortunate that a measure, such as wearing of the mask which is simple and which is meant for the safety of the person himself or herself, needs to be enforced through coercive measures. Unlike the safety measures, such as wearing a seat belt in a car or helmet on a two-wheeler, the person breaching the rule of wearing a mask in public not only exposes himself or herself, but also other members of the society by being careless."