High Courts Weekly Roundup

Allahabad High Court

1. Allahabad HC Dismisses Habeas Corpus Plea Against Alleged Detention Of Hathras Victim's Family; Grants Liberty To Move SC [Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.]

The Bench of Justices Pritinker Diwaker and Prakash Padia dismissed the habeas corpus writ petition filed on behalf of the Hathras victim's family against alleged illegal detention by the UP Government. The Court observed that the Supreme Court is already seized with this matter in Satyama Dubey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and thus, it shall not be proper for the High Court to entertain this petition. The Bench further clarified that if the family has any grievance, then they shall be at liberty to file appropriate petition/ application before the Supreme Court.

The order has come in a habeas corpus writ petition allegedly filed on behalf of the victim's family, stating that the family has been prevented from even meeting or communicating freely, thereby violating their Fundamental Right to freedom of speech and expression as well as the right to receive information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Also Read: 'Orchestrated Efforts To Malign The Image Of Government': UP Govt Asks SC To Order CBI Investigation In Hathras Case

Also Read: Hathras Case: SC Asks UP Govt. To File Witness Protection Plan; Seeks Suggestions From Parties For Enlarging Scope Of Allahabad HC Proceedings

Also Read: 'Hathrass Not Only In State Of UP But Also In Jharkhand': HC Orders Appointment Of SIT As Police Displays Lax In Investigating 15-Yr-Old Burnt Victim Case

2. Allahabad HC Orders Status Quo In Google's Plea Against Ex-Parte Injunction Order Restraining Publication Of ED Proceedings Against UPSIDC Engineer [Google LLC v. Arun Kumar Mishra & Anr.]

The Single Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi granted interim relief to Google while ordering status quo in a writ petition against an ex-parte order of the Civil Judge, restraining the company from running or displaying news and YouTube video links relating to proceedings initiated by Enforcement Directorate against an Engineer of UPSIDC.

The Company had argued that a permanent injunction, a mandatory injunction and cost in favour of the Respondent was passed by the Civil Judge whereas summons were never served upon Google, and no opportunity of hearing was granted to them.

3. "Rights Under Articles 19(1) And 25 Denied Without Any Reasons": Allahabad HC Allows The Majlis In Waqaf Imambada Masjid [Waqf Imambada Masjid Meer Imam Ali Mehdi Begum v. State of UP & Ors.]

The Bench of Justices Shashi Kant Gupta and Pankaj Bhatia granted permission for performing a Majlis (religious congregation) at the Waqaf Imambada Masjid, subject to Unlock-4 guidelines and ensuring social distancing norms. It observed,

"The mandate of article 19 is only subject to Article 19(2) in respect of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) and the rights guaranteed under Article 25 are subject to public order, morality and health, none of the conditions are present enabling the State to deny the rights of the petitioner to hold the Majlis, thus we have no hesitation in holding that the action of the State in not allowing the holding of the Majlis, that too without any orders being passed, is clearly arbitrary and without any authority of law."

Also Read: Allahabad HC Disposes Plea Seeking Permission For Organizing Durga Puja With Direction To Approach DM

4. [Counterfeiting Currency Notes] 'The Crime Can Disrupt The Economy Of The Country', Allahabad HC Junks A Pre-Arrest Bail Plea [Sameer Khan v. State of UP]

The Single Bench of Justice Rajeev Misra rejected an Anticipatory Bail application filed in connection with a case registered against counterfeiting currency while holding that " the crime alleged to have been committed by the present applicant is an economic offence, which can disrupt the economy of the country. Therefore, the crime alleged to have been committed by the present applicant along with other co-accused is a crime against society."

5. 'Matter Requires Investigation': Allahabad HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Skoda Auto Volkswagen For Installing 'Cheat Devices' In Its Vehicles [Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd v. State of UP & Ors.]

The Bench of Justices B. Amit Sthalekar and Shekhar Kumar Yadav refused to quash an FIR registered against Skoda Auto Volkswagen, in connection to the alleged installation of "cheat devices" in its vehicles to show lower emissions, while holding that whether or not the company's vehicles satisfy BS-IV norms is a matter of investigation.

6. Officers Becoming Habitual And Not Complying With The Court's Orders At The First Instance; A Sorry State of Affairs: Allahabad HC [Usha Singh v. Shatrughan Sing & Anr.]

The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla expressed displeasure with the Authorities/Officers for not complying with the orders of the Court at the first instance. It further observed that due to this approach of the officers, the aggrieved party is forced to file contempt application and even after granting further time to comply with the order of the writ Court passed in contempt application, the orders are not being complied with.

7. Allahabad HC Issues Further Directions For Wearing Masks In Public Spaces; Resolves Conflict Between Jurisdiction Of Development Authorities & Local Municipal Authorities [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…]

The Bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar issued detailed instructions to ensure that all persons, moving out into public places, wear masks. The Court also took serious note of issue of unauthorized encroachment on public land that often invite large congregation of men and women in violation of the Covid-19 guidelines.

The Court has repeatedly asked the local authorities to prevent encroachment of public land and the menace of parking. However, it noted that the issue is still looming as the Development authorities and the Municipal bodies have been "shifting their burden upon each other" citing various provisions of the UP Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 and the UP Municipal Corporation Act, 1959.

Deprecating the same, the Court was of the opinion that in case of any conflict, both the Acts have to be "read in harmony with each other" so that both the authorities shoulder their responsibilities in the larger public interest.

Also Read: "No Person Should be Seen Outside his/ her House Without Mask on Face": Orders Allahabad HC Saying 'If Action Not Taken Today, We Won't Be Able To Face Our Progenies'

8. Bar Council Has No Power To Constitute Elders Committee For Bar Associations: Allahabad HC [Meerut Bar Association & Anr. v. Bar Council of UP & Ors.]

The Division Bench comprising of Justices Sunita Agarwal and Ajay Bhanot clarified that the Bar Council does not have the jurisdiction to "usurp" the power for constitution of an Elders Committee under the Bye-laws of a Bar Association.

It held that Elders Committee is a "permanent statutory committee" and any dispute relating to its constitution can only be raised either before it or the General Body of the Bar Association.

Bombay High Court

1. Bombay HC Grants Bail To Rhea Chakraborty In NDPS Case Registered For Allegedly Procuring Drugs For Sushant Singh Rajput [Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India & Anr.]

The bench of Justice Sarang V Kotwal granted bail to film actor Rhea Chakraborty in the case registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau(NCB) on the allegation that she had facilitated the procurement of drugs for the late actor Sushant Singh Rajput. She was arrested on September 8 and had been under custody ever since.

The Court also allowed the bail applications of Samuel Miranda and Dipesh Sawant, the domestic helps of Sushant Singh Rajput, who were also arrested by the NCB for allegedly procuring drugs for the late actor. The Court however dismissed the bail applications of Rhea's brother Showik Chakraborty and Abdel Basith Parihar.

"She(Rhea) is not part of drug dealers. She has not forwarded the drugs allegedly procured by her to somebody else to earn monetary or other benefits. Since she has no criminal antecedents, there are reasonable grounds for believing that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail," the Court observed.

Also Read: 'She Is Not Part Of Drug Dealers', Bombay HC Says Granting Bail to Rhea Chakraborty In NDPS Case

Also Read: Rhea's Brother Showik Chakraborty Part Of Drug Dealers Chain, Says Bombay HC Denying Bail

Also Read: Giving Money To Another For Consuming Drugs Does Not Mean 'Financing' or 'Harbouring' Under Section 27A of NDPS Act: Bombay HC

2. Bombay HC Deprecates Practise Of Eleventh Hour Action In IPR Matters; Declines Injunction Against 'Zee-Plex'

Single Bench of Justice GS Patel refused to grant ad-interim injunction against 'Zee' for using the word 'Plex' in its new online movie channel service observing that the practice of parties in IPR cases moving Court at the last minute cannot expect Courts to set aside all other cases and this happens regularly, whether it is movie releases or otherwise.

Chhattisgarh High Court

1. Chhattisgarh HC Grants Interim Protection From Arrest To Alt News Co-Founder Mohammed Zubair In Plea To Quash FIR

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Agrawal ordered that no coercive action should be taken against Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of fact-checking portal 'Alt News', in the FIR lodged against him over a twitter response. The interim order was passed while issuing notice to Chhattisgarh government and the complainant Jagdish Singh on the petition filed by Zubair seeking to quash the FIR.

Last month, the Delhi High Court had granted similar relief to Zubair in the FIR registered by the Delhi police on the basis of NCPCR complaint.

Delhi High Court

1. Delhi HC Rejects Ashok Arora's Plea Challenging SCBA's Executive Committee Decision Of Suspending Him As Secretary [Ashok Arora v. SCBA]

Single Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta rejected a plea moved by Ashok Arora challenging the decision of the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association suspending him from the post of Secretary, as it Arora failed to establish a prima facie case in his favour.

2. Delhi HC Issues Notice In Plea Challenging Provisions of Special Marriage Act That Require 30 Days Notice Prior To Registration of Inter-Faith Marriages

The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan issued notice to the Union of India in a plea challenging the provisions of the Special Marriage Act that require inter-faith couples to send a notice to the marriage officer 30 days prior to the registration of their marriage.

The notice that the inter-faith couples have to send to the marriage officer for publication mentions their personal details - including their names, address, etc. The Petitioner, has therefore, argued that this mandatory requirement violates the fundamental Right to Privacy of the inter-faith couples as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

3. Delhi HC Issues Notice In DHCBA's Plea Challenging Classification Of Lawyers' Office As 'Commercial Property' For Assessment Of Property Tax

The Division Bench of Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan issued notices to all the Municipal Corporations in Delhi in a plea moved by the Delhi High Court Bar Association challenging the classification of offices of lawyers as 'commercial property' for the assessment of property tax.

Filed by DHCBA through its President Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, the plea challenges the assessment order passed by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation on 29/11/18, and any notice issued thereafter, asking for self-assessment of property tax returns on lawyers' offices under sections 123A and 123B of the DMC Act.

4. Delhi HC Restrains Xiaomi From Enforcing Wuhan Court's Anti Suit Injunction Order Against Interdigital Technology Corporation [Interdigital Technology Corporation v. Xiaomi Corporation]

Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar restrained Chinese electronics giant, Xiaomi from enforcing an anti-suit injunction order passed by Wuhan Intermediate People's Court against Interdigital Technology Corporation.

The court also said that the operation of the order of the Wuhan Court, would violate public policy in this country. The court also noticed that conditioning the continuance of the prosecution, by the plaintiffs, of the proceedings before it, with a penalty of about ₹ 1 crore per day, the Wuhan Court has effectively rendered it impossible for the plaintiff to continue to prosecute these proceedings.

Gauhati High Court

1. Promoting Religious Enmity Wasn't Intended', Gauhati HC Grants Bail To Man Who Uploaded Objectionable Photos Of Lord Rama [Altaf Hussain Choudhury v. State of Assam]

The Bench of Justice Rumi Kumari Phukan converted an interim bail granted to a man who uploaded the objectionable photos of Lord Rama into an absolute one, after it noted that his Facebook post containing some defamatory photos and un-parliamentary words for Lord Rama was not made to promote enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race etc.

2. Take Steps To Shift Foreigners Detention Centres Outside Jail Premises: Gauhati HC To Assam Govt [Santanu Borthakur v. Union of India & Ors.]

A single bench of Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua directed the Assam Government to take steps to shift the foreigners' detentions centres outside the jail premises. The order was passed after noting that a portion of jail premises are notified as centres to detain foreigners/illegal migrants at many places.

Gujarat High Court

1. "No One Has Become So Big Than The Institution Itself", Read Gujarat HC Judgment HC In Yatin Oza Contempt Case [Suo Motu v. Yatin Narendra Oza]

The Bench of Justices Sonia Gokani and NV Anjaria held Advocate Yatin oza guilty of criminal contempt in the backdrop of "scurrilous remarks" made by him against High Court and its Registry, during a live press conference on Facebook. It punished him till rising of the Court on Wednesday, apart from imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000.

The verdict is a reminder that "no one has become so big than the institution itself that in the name of taking up the cause of advocates, he or she can go to any extent of tarnishing the image of the institution by his expression and utterances."

Also Read: Gujarat HC Imposes Fine Of Rs. 2000, Sentence Till Rising Of Court On Adv Yatin Oza In Contempt Of Court Case

Also Read: GHCAA Resolves To Appeal Against HC Order Holding Adv Yatin Oza Guilty Of Contempt, Intervene In Proceedings Before SC

Also Read: He Has To Tread A Long Professional Path' Gujarat HC Accepts Apology From The Advocate Found Smoking During Virtual Hearing

2. Habeas Corpus Pleas Against Preventive Detention Should Be Heard By Division Bench: Gujarat HC [Haidarsha Pir v. State of Gujarat]

A Bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice JB Pardiwala strongly recommended that the petitions challenging the executive orders of preventive detention, should be treated as Habeas Corpus Petitions and should be heard by a Division Bench. Reliance is placed on previous judgments of the High Courts of Bombay and Allahabad and has also the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

3. [Muharram Procession Amid COVID] 'Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread; The Administration Failed To Rise To The Occasion': Gujarat HC Expresses Its Anguish [Apurva Rasikbhai Kapadia v. State Of Gujarat]

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." People without good sense or judgement will have no hesitation in tackling a situation that even the wisest would avoid," remarked the Bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice J. B. Pardiwala while hearing a case against taking out of Muharram procession amid the pandemic, without requisite permissions.

The Court directed the Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Gujarat to immediately initiate an appropriate inquiry into the matter and file an appropriate.

4. Gujarat HC Allows Employed Woman To Sit For AIBE; Directs Bar Council Not Insist On Resignation From Her Current Employment [Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar v. Union Of India]

The Bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice J. B. Pardiwala passed an interim order allowing an employed woman to appear for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). The Court also asked the Bar Council of Gujarat to accept her application (for AIBE) and directed the Council to not ask the writ applicant to resign from her current employment.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

1. At Times Colleges Get Down To Blackmailing And Hand-Twisting By Retaining Original Certificates Of Their Students', HP HC Gives Relief To Students [Twinkle Pundir & Ors. v. State of HP & Ors.]

The Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua took a stern view of the issue of Private Educational Institutions retaining the original certificates and other documents of its students so as to ensure that students do not migrate to any other college or for that matter leave the college.

"It is time that the courts evolve a mechanism for awarding damages to the students whose careers are seriously jeopardised by unscrupulous management of colleges/schools which indulge in violation of all rules. This is not the occasion to go deep into that aspect but one day it has to be done," the Court said.

2. Arms Licences Cannot Be Granted To Be Used As Status Symbol, Says Himachal Pradesh HC [Chamal Lal Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh]

Arms Licences cannot be granted to be used as status symbol, observed the bench comprising Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Jyotsna Rewal Dua while directing the authorities to review all the Arms Licences granted by them.

The Court dismissed a petition filed by a person against cancellation of his two Arms Licences. The court directed that no Arms Licence shall be granted or renewed in case the applicants do not meet the parameters prescribed in this behalf under the Arms Act and Rules framed thereunder.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

1. J&K HC Revives PIL To Ensure Dignity & Equality To Persons With Disabilities; Seeks Report Regarding Framing Of Rules [Javed Ahmed Tak v. State of J&K & Ors.]

The Bench of Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Puneet Gupta revived a PIL seeking necessary directions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, so as to ensure dignity and equality to the persons who are differentiable. The Bench has asked all the respondents to place a report regarding steps being taken for notifying the rules under this Act.

2. Fair And Frank Reporting of Events By Media Cannot Be Curbed Merely Because It May Have An Adverse Impact on the Business Of Some Class of Persons: J&K HC [Mohammad Salim Pandith v. State of J&K & Anr.]

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar quashed a FIR lodged against a senior journalist who published a news item titled "Stone pelters in J&K now target tourists, four women injured". The Court did not find that the contents of FIR and the news report published by the petitioner disclose the commission of an offence under Section 505(1)(b) RPC against the petitioner.

The Court remarked that Clause (b) of Section 505 (1) of RPC, on which the prosecution's case was based, is in two parts. The first part of the clause deals with a situation where the accused makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report with intent to cause, fear or alarm to the public or any section of the public; whereas the second part of that clause is confined to making, publishing or circulating any statement, rumour or report which is likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or any section of the public.

"In both the situations, the fear or alarm must induce a person to commit an offence against the State or against public tranquillity", the Court noted.

Jharkhand High Court

1. Jharkhand HC Grants Bail To Lalu Prasad Yadav In Chaibasa Treasury Scam Case

Bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh granted bail to RJD supremo Lalu Prasad in a fodder scam case related to fraudulent withdrawal of money from the Chaibasa treasury during his tenure as Chief Minister of Bihar, on noting that he has served half of the prison term awarded by the CBI court in the case. The court, however, directed Lalu to pay fine of Rs 2,00,000 and submit two sureties of Rs 50,000 each.

Lalu will, however, remain in prison as he is also serving a sentence term of 14 (two sentences of seven years running consecutively) years in another fodder scam case related to illegal withdrawal of money from the Dumka treasury.

Karnataka High Court

1. [Section 153A IPC] Contents Of Speech Indirectly Refer To Two Religions 'In The Form Of Innuendo': Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against PFI Leader [Mohammed Shariff v. State of Karnataka & Anr.]

The Bench of Justice BA Patil refused to quash a FIR registered against a National Committee Member of the Popular Front of India (PFI), while holding that even though the offending speech does not directly refer to two religions, "it attracts the provisions of Section 153 of the IPC, which is in the form of innuendo."

Section 153 of the IPC prohibits and penalizes the offence of promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion. It is trite law that to attract an offence under this provision, at-least two such groups of communities should be involved.

Also Read: Merely Inciting Feelings Of One Community Without Reference To Any Other Community Cannot Attract Offence Of Section 153A IPC : Karnataka HC

2. May Be Ill-Precedent For Non-Punctual Students : Karnataka HC Dismisses NLSIU Student's Plea To Accept Submission Beyond Deadline [Divyanshu Badole v. NLSIU]

The Bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed a petition filed by a student of NLSIU seeking directions to the University to accept his project assignments beyond deadline. The student claimed he failed to submit the assignment in time due to a problem of internet facility at his home.

The Court observed, "The matter relating to submission of project assignments in a prescribed or extended time frame and the decision for not granting any more extension have abundant elements of academic policy as expressed through the Regulations in question; in such academic matters, writ courts ordinarily do not readily interfere, subject to all just exceptions into which the case of the petitioner is not shown to fit; no extraordinary circumstances are exhibited warranting indulgence in writ Jurisdiction."

3. Registration Of FIR Not Required On Secret Information About A Crime Which Is About To Occur: Karnataka HC [Tasleem NP v. State of Karnataka]

Single Bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said the ratio laid down in the judgement of Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2014) 2 SCC 1], which states that a station house officer on receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence is bound to register FIR, will not apply in cases wherein an officer receives secret information about a crime which is yet to occur.

The Court added, "But the secret information does not disclose a crime being committed, it only alerts the police about a crime which is about to occur. The police officer who receives such information has to proceed to spot for preventing the crime or to take such other measures that the situation demands. Thereafter if he prepares a report, it may be treated as FIR for further course of action."

Kerala High Court

1. Disheartening To Note Criminal Proceedings Of A Crime Of 1992 Is Yet To Attain Finality: Kerala HC Directs Sister Abhaya Murder Case Trial On A Day To Day Basis [Fr. Thomas Kottoor v. Cbi]

Bench of Justice VG Arun remarked that "it is disheartening to note that criminal proceedings pertaining to a crime of 1992 is yet to attain finality, whether it be by reason of providence or design," while disposing a petition filed by the accused in Sister Abhaya Murder Case.

The Bench directed the Special Court to reschedule the Trial to the nearest possible date and permit the Senior Counsel appearing for the accused to conduct cross-examination through video conference mode, if such an application is made.

2. The Plaintiff Has No Absolute Right, At The Appellate Stage, To Withdraw From The Suit: Kerala HC [Sabu Issac v. Antony Chacko]

"The plaintiff has no absolute right, at the appellate stage, to withdraw from the suit," the Bench of Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi observed. The court also observed that when an application for withdrawal of suit is filed at the appellate stage, the court has to take into consideration some other matters also.

"An application made at the appellate stage to withdraw the suit cannot be allowed by the court if granting such permission would have the effect of depriving or destroying or nullifying or annulling any right which has come to be vested with the defendant under the decree. The court shall keep in mind the fact that, when permission is granted to withdraw from the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, the parties are placed in the same position as they would have been, had the suit not been instituted at all," it held.

3. States Can Provide In-Service Quota In PG-Super Speciality Medical Courses: Kerala HC [Dr. Bilu BS v. Union of India]

Observing that the States have the power to provide quota for in-service candidates in PG-Super Speciality medical courses, division bench comprising Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly directed that the 40 % in-service quota under the Kerala Medical Officers Postgraduate and Service Quota Act, 2008 should be given effect during the counselling for PG-Super Speciality medical seats.

The Court directed the State Government to prepare the list of candidates eligible for the 40% in-service quota and directed the Director General of Health Services and the National Medical Commission to implement the same.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

1. Properties of the Erstwhile Ruler of Holkar State, Maharaja Yashwant Rao Holkar Belong To State Of Madhya Pradesh: HC [State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Khasgi (Devi Ahilya Bai Holkar Charities) Trust, Indore & Ors.]

Resolving the dispute as to the current title of properties of the erstwhile Ruler of Holkar State, Maharaja Yashwant Rao Holkar, the Bench of Justice SC Sharma and Justice Shailendra Shukla held that the title belongs to the State of Madhya Pradesh.

The Court was however informed that some of the Trust's properties had been sold by the trustees for peanuts, for personal gains by playing a fraud. It thus remarked, "As fraud vitiates everything and in the present case, trustees have played a fraud upon the State Government, the sale deeds executed by the Trust in respect of the properties of the State Government are null and void and stands vitiated."

2. Bail Granted Under SC/ST Atrocities Act May Be Recalled/ Cancelled Under Crpc; Procedure Under POCSO Act Prevails Over SC/ST Act: MP HC [Sunita Gandharva v. State of MP & Anr.]

"High Court can entertain application under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted in exercise of powers conferred under Section 14-A(2) of Atrocities Act," observed the Bench of Justice Anand Pathak while emphasizing that a victim cannot be rendered "remediless" if the accused gets bail but keeps on interfering in the investigation / trial and intimidating the victim or the witnesses. (Section 14-A (1)(2) of Atrocities Act provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail.)

The Court came to a finding that when an accused is being tried by Atrocities Act as well as POCSO Act simultaneously, then Special Court under POCSO Act shall have the jurisdiction. Reasons thereof may be read in the full report.

Also Read: The Legislature In Its Wisdom Has Conferred Precedence On The POCSO Act Above The Atrocity Act: Gujarat HC

3. "Not Pakistan's Flag": MP HC Grants Bail To Persons Accused Of Hoisting Pak Flag, Appreciates Their Sentiments Towards Motherland [Farukh Khan & Aman Mansuri v. State of MP]

The Bench of Justice Virender Singh granted bail to uncle-nephew duo accused of hoisting the Pakistani flag at their house. This was after it was submitted that the flag unfurled by the petitioners was actually the religious symbol usually unfurled at the religious occasions like Moharram.

It was pointed out that the colour shades of both the Pakistani National flag and the flag unfurled by the petitioner are substantially different and also the position and orientation of the crescent moon and the star in the flag unfurled are totally different from the one depicted in the Pakistani national flag.

4. [Political Gatherings Amid COVID] "No One Howsoever Big, Should Be Allowed To Go Scot-Free": MP HC To Law Enforcement Agencies [Ashish Pratap Singh v. State of MP & Ors.]

The Bench of Justices Sheel Nagu and Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava directed the law enforcement agencies of the state to ensure that the Covid-19 protocol is followed to the hilt and no one howsoever big, is allowed to go scot-free without being subjected to the rigours of the penal provision on the occasion of breach of Covid-19 protocol.

The Court specifically noted, "Congregation of persons have the potentiality of giving rise to the number of infected people by Covid-19. The world is opening up as no one can stay indoors for very long, but compliance of Covid-19 protocol becomes all the more necessary when one starts moving outdoors more often."

Madras High Court

1. Interim Bail In Habeas Petition Challenging Detention Only In Exceptional Circumstances: Madras HC [Govt of Tamil Nadu v. S. Indramoorthy]

A division bench comprising Justices T S Sivagnanam and Pushpa Sathyanarayana observed that interim bail in habeas corpus petitions challenging preventive detention can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, when it is made out that the intervention of the cour is indispensable.

"...it is amply clear that this Court while dealing with habeas corpus petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein, the validity of the detention orders are sought to be questioned, has jurisdiction to grant interim bail, but the exercise of the said jurisdiction is inevitably circumscribed by the considerations which are special to such proceedings", the Court added.

2. [Offences Under The POCSO Act] Sessions Court Can't Entertain Anticipatory Bail Pleas; Only Special POCSO Courts Are Empowered To Do So: Madras HC [Reference sought by District Judge, Karur]

The Bench of Justices M. Sathyanarayanan and V. Bharathidasan ruled that the Special courts, as designated under the provisions of POCSO Act alone are empowered to entertain pre-arrest bail petitions in respect of offences under the POCSO Act; and Sessions Court cannot entertain such applications.

The Court was of the opinion that the entire Chapter XXXIII of Cr.P.C., which deals with bail and bonds, are applicable to the proceedings before the Special Court, there cannot be any doubt that Section 438 of Cr.P.C., which deals with Anticipatory Bail, is also applicable to a Special Court.

3. Madras HC Constitutes Committee To Boost Indian Pharma Sector; Raises Concern Over Heavy Dependence On Chinese Markets [Vinkem Labs Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.]

"India has emerged as a pioneer in pharmaceuticals. Yet, for the basic ingredients of medicine making, it is heavily dependent on imports from one single neighbour nation, viz., China," a Single Bench of Justice N Kirubakaran remarked while emphasizing on the need to establish a self-reliant environment in India for production of medicines.

"Though we do not import medicines as such, we import the active ingredients of a medicine that is known as Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients/Bulk Drugs and make finished dosages out of it for domestic and export purposes.

This dependency handicaps us in responding effectively to security and other breaches by the neighbour. It also makes our patients to more often contend with spurious and sub-standard drugs and placing them in a vulnerable prospect of going without medicines if tensions escalate between the two countries, especially after galwan valley tussle," the Court said and constituted a Committee to look into the aspect of financing Indian Pharma sector.

4. Corruption In Judiciary Worse Than That In Public Departments: Madras HC Calls For Strengthening Of Vigilance System, Surprise Visits, Inspections [N. Ulagaraj v. .Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr.]

While making observations regarding the corrupt practices in the Public administration of the Government Departments, the Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam endorsed the fact that the judiciary also is not exempted from corrupt practices. "The conscience of this Court would not permit it, if this Court fails to mention the increasing corrupt practices in the Judiciary Department as well as in Court premises," the Court remarked.

The Bench was of the view that undoubtedly, the judiciary has to strengthen its vigilance wing and the prevailing vigilance system in the judiciary is insufficient to crush the corrupt practices. "Frequent surprise visits and inspection in the judicial departments and premises are needed", it said, noting that many former Chief Justices of India had lamented that the judiciary is not exempted from corrupt practices.

Orissa High Court

1. When Parties Decide The Place Of Arbitration, Only The HC Having Territorial Jurisdiction Over That Place Can Entertain Application U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Orissa HC [M/s. SJ Biz Solution Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Sany Heavy Industry India Pvt. Ltd.]

The Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq refused to entertain a petition filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of India, 1996 observing that "the Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition".

"Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the court at a particular place, only such court will have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and parties intended to exclude all other courts. In the present case, the parties have agreed that the "venue" of arbitration shall be at Bhubaneswar. Considering the agreement of the parties having Bhubaneswar as the venue of arbitration, the intention of the parties is to exclude all other courts. As held in Swastik, non-use of words like "exclusive jurisdiction", "only", "exclusive", "alone" is not decisive and does not make any material difference," the Court held.

Punjab & Haryana High Court

1. P&H HC Permits Australian NRI To Join Criminal Investigation Via Video Conferencing Until Resumption Of International Flights [Sher Partap Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.]

The Single Bench of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur permitted an Australian NRI to join a criminal investigation pending against in India, him via video conferencing, until resumption of international flights. It further ordered that no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner- Sher Partap Singh, in pursuance of the summons issued by the lower Court, until January 31, 2020.

2. Can't Direct State To Decide Representation Of Land Owners To De-notify Land Under Acquisition; The State In Its Discretion Can Do So: P&H HC [Rghubir Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

The Division Bench of Justice Daya Chaudhary and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta ruled that the State alone has the power to de-notify the land under acquisition, under Section 101A (inserted vide Haryana Act no. 21 of 2018) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Notably, this is the first time when P&H HC has interpreted the provision enumerated under Section 101-A (inserted vide Haryana Act no. 21 of 2018) of the Act of 2013. The Court made it clear that under the aforesaid provision, an individual land-owner has not been given the right to seek de-notification of his land under acquisition.

Tripura High Court

1. [COVID-19] People Shouldn't Get A False Idea That The Situation Has Improved And Life Can Get Back To Normal: Tripura HC [Court of its own motion]

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Subhashish Talapatra, whiel examining the situation of the spread of coronavirus in the State, observed that the people of the State should not get a false idea that there is a dramatic improvement in the Coronavirus spread and that life can get back to normal.

Read a series of directions passed by the Court in the full report.