- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- High Courts Weekly Roundup [May 10,...
High Courts Weekly Roundup [May 10, 2021 To May 16, 2021]
Akshita Saxena
16 May 2021 5:25 PM IST
![High Courts Weekly Roundup [May 10, 2021 To May 16, 2021]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2021/05/09/750x450_393154-high-courts-weekly-roundup-1.jpg "High Courts Weekly Roundup [May 10, 2021 To May 16, 2021]")
Allahabad High Court 1. Allahabad High Court Says Compensation Must Be At Least ₹ One Crore For Death Of Polling Officers Due To COVID During Election Duty [In- Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…] A Division Bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar observed that the State must grant at least Rs. 1 crore as ex-gratia compensation to the families of polling...
Allahabad High Court
1. Allahabad High Court Says Compensation Must Be At Least ₹ One Crore For Death Of Polling Officers Due To COVID During Election Duty [In- Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…]
A Division Bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar observed that the State must grant at least Rs. 1 crore as ex-gratia compensation to the families of polling officers who died due to COVID-19 while after the UP Panchayat polls.
"It is not a case that somebody volunteered to render his/ her services during election but it was all made obligatory to those assigned with election duty to perform their duties during election even while they showed their reluctance," it observed.
It further noted that the State Government as well as State Election Commission were well aware of the threat of pandemic and yet the teachers, investigators and Shiksha Mitras were forced to take risk.
2. Election Commission, Higher Courts & Govt. Failed To Fathom Disastrous Consequences Of Permitting Elections Amid Covid19: Allahabad High Court [Prateek Jain v. State of UP & Ors.]
"The Election Commission, the Higher Courts and the Government failed to fathom the disastrous consequences of permitting the elections in few States and the Panchayat elections in the State of Uttar Pradesh," said a Single Bench of Justice Siddhartha.
It observed that due such short-sightedness, there has been a spike in Covid-19 cases in the State and the deadly virus, which had not reached the village population in its first wave has now spread to the villages.
3. Apprehension Of Death On Account Of Covid19 Pandemic Is A Valid Ground For Grant Of Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court [Prateek Jain v. State of UP & Ors.]
In a very important decision concerning the right to life of persons accused of committing a criminal offence, a Single Bench of Justice Siddharth observed that apprehension of death on account of reasons like the present pandemic is a valid ground for grant of anticipatory bail.
The order has been passed in view the inadequate medical facilities in the State, that may leave the accused persons unprotected from the threat to their life on account of arrest as per the normal procedure applicable in normal times.
The Bench observed that the established parameters for grant of anticipatory bail like the nature and gravity of accusation, the criminal antecedent of the applicant, the possibility of fleeing from justice and whether accusation has been made for injuring and humiliating the applicant by getting him arrested have now lost significance on account of present situation of the country and the State on account of spread of second wave of novel corona virus.
4. 'District Judiciary Should Restrain From Passing Orders That May Bring Disrepute': Allahabad High Court Stays FIR Against CMO Running Covid Vaccination Service [Dr. Hargovind Singh v. State of UP & Ors.]
A Division Bench of Justices Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajit Singh stayed an FIR lodged against a Chief Medical Officer, who is running vaccination services, at the instance of a Judicial Officer, for allegedly issuing a false medical certificate.
It urged all the judges of the District Courts throughout the State of to be "more careful" and restrain themselves from passing such orders which may bring disrepute to the judicial system in the State more particularly during the ongoing period of pandemic.
The Division Bench found the Trial Court's action to be perverse on two counts: (i) The Trial Judge, without any basis, declared the medical report to be false; (ii) The Trial Judge's insistence on personal appearance of the MLA was in teeth of High Court's advisory in view of the pandemic.
5. Allahabad High Court Constitutes Committee To Enquire Treatment Given To Justice V. K. Srivastava Who Succumbed To COVID [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…]
A Division Bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar constituted a Fact-finding committee to conduct an enquiry into the treatment administered to late Justice Virendra Kumar Srivastava, who succumbed to the COVID-19 virus last month, and submit the report to the Court within two weeks.
Earlier, on May 4, the Allahabad High Court had sought a response from the State health authorities about the treatment that was given to Justice V.K. Srivastava.
On May 11, the Court perused the report filed by the State Government and noted that Justice Srivastava was admitted to the hospital as he was having fever for the last five days and breathlessness for one day with no co-morbidity. The Court further noted that the documents show that he was advised life-saving drugs Remdesivir.
6. Allahabad High Court Asks Centre About Policy For Vaccination Of Physically Disabled; Orders Establishment Of Public Grievance Cells In All Districts [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…]
A Division Bench comprising of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar asked the Central Government to come out with a plan for inoculation of physically challenged persons, who cannot visit the vaccination centres, against the Covid-19 virus. It also asked the Centre and the State to devise a plan for vaccination of such persons under the age group of 18-45 years, who cannot possibly register themselves for vaccination on the COWIN App.
On the issue of vaccine procurement, the Bench stated that purchase of vaccine shouldbe done at a "war footing" given the recent surge in Covid positive cases which is now also engulfing the remote rural areas.
The High Court has also directed the UP Government to open, within 48 hours, a "Public Grievance Cell" in every district so that (i) people can directly approach and get their complaints regarding Covid management registered and examined; and (ii) viralled news regarding Covid management may be looked into.
7. Hospitals Cannot Show Deaths As Non-COVID Deaths If Antigen Tests Showed Suspected COVID Infection : Allahabad High Court [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…]
A Division Bench comprising of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar directed that deaths of persons who were suspected to be affected by the Covid-19 virus after antigen tests will be computed as Covid-deaths for the purposes of maintaining records and disposal of bodies.
The Court noted that there has been a decline in the number of testing been conducted in the State and as a natural corollary people experiencing Covid-like symptoms are often not subjected to RT-PCR or other verified Covid-tests and their deaths are not reported as Covid-deaths. It noted that this is a "serious issue" as the dead bodies of such Covid-suspected persons are being handed over to their families, which may increase the risk of further transmission.
A Division Bench of Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Manish Mathur asked State Government to seek instructions on a PIL seeking free-of-cost treatment to the lawyers and their wards suffering from Covid-19 or reimbursement of the amount incurred on treatment of Covid-19.
9. Conviction Of A Juvenile By JJ Board Is Not A Disqualification for Employment, Requirement Of It's Disclosure Violates His Privacy, Art.21 :Allahabad High Court [Anuj Kumar v. State of UP]
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Ajay Bhanot held that using criminal prosecution faced by a candidate as a juvenile to form an opinion about his suitability for appointment is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, holding that an employer cannot ask any candidate to disclose details of criminal prosecution faced as a juvenile, the Court has also held that the requirement to disclose details of criminal prosecutions faced as a juvenile is violative of the right to privacy and the right to reputation of a child guaranteed under Article 21.
The observation came in a petition assailing the order dated 3rd September 2020 passed by Commandant of Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC), Etah wherein the petitioner was found as being not suitable for the post of Constable by the Competent Authority. It was the case of the petitioner that the Authority was "misdirected in law" by overlooking the fact that the petitioner was tried for an offence as a juveline. It was therefore argued that the impugned order for arbitrary, illegal and violative of petitioner's fundamental rights under Art. 14, 16 and 21.
10. Allahabad High Court Stays Coercive Action Against Lucknow's Sun Hospital, Its Staffers For Allegedly Spreading 'False Rumours' About Oxygen Scarcity [In- Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…]
A Division Bench comprising of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar directed that no coercive measures shall be taken against Lucknow's Sun Hospital and its staff pursuant to an FIR lodged for allegedly raising "false rumours" about oxygen shortage.
Earlier, the Court had sought response from the Lucknow DM with respect to two private hospitals (Including Sun Hospital) for allegedly claiming that several Covid-19 patients died in their premises due to shortage of oxygen supply.
Bombay High Court
1. [Eye-Witness Saw Brother Stangulating Victim] - Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Mother Who "Confessed" To Killing Daughter Over An Affair [Papu Ashok Waghela v. State of Maharashtra]
A Single Bench of Justice Prakash Naik granted bail to a 40-year-old woman who allegedly confessed to the murder of her 23-year-daughter when the latter attempted to elope with a suitor of her choice. The bail was granted based on eye witness testimonies that claimed the victim's brother (co-accused) strangulated the young woman with her dupatta.
2. At Least Fill Up Vacancies': Bombay High Court Pulls Up State Govt Over Dearth Of Medical Staff In Prisons Amid COVID19 [High Court on its own motion v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]
Hearing a suo motu PIL on the surge of Covid-19 cases among prison inmates and staff, a division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni pulled up the State officials on the shortage of medical and paramedical staff inside prisons. There are over 30,000 prisoners across 47 prisons in the State of Maharashtra, despite which one-third of the sanctioned posts for medical officers were lying vacant.
It noted there was no class-I medical officer in Mumbai Central Prison, Nagpur, Amravati and Taloja, adding that Amravati had only one class-III medical officer. The court observed that the note circulated by it on steps taken to curb coronavirus from spreading in the prisons was silent on the aspect of the large number of vacancies.
Also Read: Bombay High Court Asks Lawyer To Make Test Call To Pune COVID Control Room To Check Bed Availability
3. "Precious Life Shouldn't Be Lost Due To Deficiencies In Matter Of Oxygen Supply": Bombay High Court Directs Centre To Supply Allotted Oxygen Quota To Goa [State of Goa v. Armando Gonsalves & Anr.]
Noting that there were almost 40 Covid related casualties at the Goa Medical College the previous day, a Bench of Justice MS Sonak and Justice NW Sambre directed the Central Government to ensure that the allotted quota is made available to the State at the earliest. It expressed its anguish that some logistical gave rise to serious consequences to the Covid victims.
The Court was informed that there were logistical issues involved in maneuvering the tractor which carries the trolleys of oxygen and in connecting the cylinders to the manifold and that during this process there was some interruption, which resulted in fall of pressure in the supply lines of oxygen to the patients.
4. 'Pained To Note That A Minister Has Held Physical Ceremonies' : Bombay High Court Bars Political Functions During Lockdown [The Registrar (Judicial) v. Union of India]
Dealing with a weird situation where ministers are repeatedly flouting lock-down norms and making farce appeals to people not to participate in their functions, a division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and BU Debadwar directed politicians to follow the State's "Break the Chain" circular, which bans any political gathering.
The Court has issued an order- barring political gatherings, functions, agitations and morchas when lockdown restrictions are in force.
5. Door-to-Door Vaccination Could Have Saved Many Lives, Bombay High Court Tells Centre
A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni observed that several lives could have been saved if the Centre had a door-to-door vaccination policy for the elderly and bed-ridden a few months ago. It questioned the Centre's reluctance on the door-to-door inoculation issue after the Additional Socilitor General said the Union had opposed it even in the Supreme Court.
"If we were to have this door-to-door vaccination some time back, so many of our great prominent citizens could have been saved. I am not taking names, people in all fields. Definitely, something could have been done." Justice Kulkarni said.
6. Bombay High Court Sets Aside Lower Court's Order Directing Man To Deposit ₹25 Lakh As Pre-Condition For Bail [Vijaykumar Deshraj Sethi v. Senior Police Inspector, Malegaon Camp Police Station & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice Sarang V. Kotwal modified a bail order passed by a Malegaon session judge, wherein an accused was directed to pay Rs 25 lakh as a precondition for being released on bail.
The Court was hearing an application filed by on Vijaykumar Deshraj Sethi for modification of the bail condition imposed by ASJ, Malegaon in HIS Criminal Bail Application The lower Court had directed him to be released on bail on P.R. bond of Rs.1 Lakh with two separate solvent sureties in the like amount, and further, he was also directed to deposit Rs.25 Lakhs as a pre-condition for being released on bail.
The Court noted that there was no denial that the informant had paid Rs.25 Lakhs and had not received the machine and it was a subject matter of an agreement and if there had been a breach of any of the terms in the agreement, the civil remedy is very much available with the informant. There is some force in the submission that it is purely a civil dispute. However, this can be examined during trial.
Other developments:
- Sudha Bharadwaj's 3 Co-Prisoners Tested COVID Positive : Daughter Moves Bombay High Court Seeking Release On Medical Grounds
- Bombay High Court Allows Termination Of 23-Week Pregnancy For 16 Year Old Sexual Assault Survivor
Delhi High Court
1. "System Can't Turn The Clock Back Nor 'Undo' Offence": Delhi HC Awards ₹6 Lakh Interim Compensation To Minor Sexual Assault Victim [X v. State & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice Anup J. Bhambhani while awarding ₹6 lakh as interim compensation to a minor victim of sexual assault, remarked, "Since the system cannot turn the clock back nor 'undo' the offence, there is little else the court can do other than prosecute the offender and provide to the victim whatever psychological security and sense of the empowerment that monetary compensation can give."
It directed the Delhi State Legal Services Authority to disburse and pay interim compensation in the sum Rs. Six Lacs Only, while setting aside the lower court's order assessing interim compensation at Rs. 50,000.
2. "Alcohol Testing Cannot Be Completely Exempted": Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Breath Analyzer Test At Airports [Air Traffic Controllers Guild v. Union of India & Ors.]
Observing that the testing for alcohol "cannot be completely exempted in as much as the same could be detrimental to passenger safety", a single judge bench comprising of Justice Pratibha M Singh issued slew of directions for the administration of Breath Analyzer Test at all airports for all ATCs, pilots, cabin crews and other personnel.
DGCA shall direct that the Breath Analyser test at all airports would to the extent feasible be conducted in a much bigger and an open area, which has CCTV coverage and not in a small enclosed space, the Bench said.
Access full report to read directions
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Subramonium Prasad questioned Navneet Kalra, accused in connection with the recovery and seizure of Oxygen Concentrators by the Delhi Police recently, as to in what capacity was he holding 105 oxygen Concentrators when the same can be done only via valid licenses.
If you say you are neither an importer nor a manufacturer, under what capacity you were holding 105 Concentrators? Do you have the ability to have these Concentrators without a license? If they are drugs, then they can be sold and manufactured through valid licenses." The Court orally remarked.
4. Delhi High Court Interim Grants Bail To Pinjra Tod Activist Natasha Narwal To Perform Last Rites Of Her Father [Natasha Narwal v. State of Delhi NCT]
A Division Bench comprising of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup J. Bhambhani granted three weeks' interim bail to Pinjra Tod activist Natasha Narwal, to enable her to perform the last rites of her father who passed away in Rohtak on May 9.
It noted that there is nobody else in the family to perform the cremation and last rites and that her father's body is waiting in the hospital to be accepted.
Questioning the caller tune used for awareness of covid Vaccination drive, a division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rekha Palli asked the Centre who will get vaccinated where there is not enough vaccines. Stating that there should be some sense of emergency, the Court also asked the Union of India and the GNCTD to ensure steps regarding dissemination of information of covid 19 management.
"You have been playing that one irritating message on the phone whenever one makes a call, for we do not know how long, that you (people) should have the vaccination, when you (Centre) don't have enough vaccine. You are not vaccinating people, but you still say that vaccination lagavaiye (get vaccinated). Kaun lagayega vaccination (who will get vaccinated), when there is no vaccination. What is the point of the message?" it said.
6. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Against AAP MLA Imran Hussain Alleging Hoarding Of Oxygen Cylinders
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Cabinet Minister Imran Hussain which alleged hoarding of oxygen cylinders by Hussain and their distribution for political gain.
The amicus curiae assisting the court in the Covid-19 batch of pleas, Sr. Adv. Rajshekhar Rao conducted an enquiry into the incident and has submitted a report to the court stating that he has verified that Hussain procured the oxygen from Faridabad and not from Delhi and that he had taken oxygen cylinders on rent from his personal expenses. The state has also verified and found that the local stores in Delhi have not shared any oxygen with the MLA.
Hearing a batch of pleas on various aspects of the management of the Covid-19 pandemic in the national capital, the Delhi High Court which has been hearing the pleas for nearly 3 weeks now, today remarked, "The problem is in Delhi because both Centre and State think Delhi is theirs."
To this, Sr. Adv. Rahul Mehra, responded stating that the Centre should not just think but also "act like Delhi is theirs," and further alleged that Delhi has seen oversight by the Centre in Covid-19 matters from day 1, even as the court repeated that they should not stoop to the level of "squabbling". The centre responded by saying that these were allegations leveled on a "daily basis" that would serve to "lower the level of the court" unless checked.
8. Delhi High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail to Journalist Varun Hiremath in Rape Case
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta granted pre-arrest bail to Mumbai TV journalist Varun Hiremath, accused of raping a 22 year old woman in National Capital in connection with the FIR lodged in Chanakyapuri Police Station.
According to the FIR, the woman had alleged that Varun Hiremath, while visiting Pune had met her on "Tinder", a geosocial networking and online dating platform, and had allegedly developed sexual relationship with her.
Thereafter on 19th February 2021, when Hiremath had come to visit Delhi, the woman decided to meet him in the national capital on 20th February 2021. A meeting took place between the two of them in Khan Market after which they went to ITC Maurya hotel.
9. Delhi HC Pulls Up JNU For Apathy In Responding To Requests Of Students And Teachers For COVID Care Facility Within Campus [JNU Teachers Association & Ors. v. JNU & Anr.]
A Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh pulled up the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) for not reacting with "swiftness and alacrity" as COVID cases continue to rise in a plea filed by students and teachers seeking a COVID care centre as well as oxygen production facilities to be set up within the campus.
"The University is bound to take care of the health of the students and teachers, and make available the facilities, to the extent possible, within the University campus, especially considering the prevalent shortages for hospital beds etc. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that various organisations and institutions have gone out of their way, during the current pandemic, to make various facilities available to their employees and other stakeholders, in order to safeguard their health during the current surge of the COVID-19 pandemic," the Court said.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Directs To Set Up A Dedicated `COVID Health Centre' With Oxygenated Beds In JNU
10. "A Girl, Lady Of 23 Years Is Good Enough To Decide Right Or Wrong": Delhi HC Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Rape, Making Obscene Video [Mohit Aggarwal v. State & Anr.]
"Three years prior to the year 2019, prosecutrix might have been 23 years of age and in the opinion of this Court, at the age of 23 years, a girl/lady is good enough to decide what is right or wrong" observed a single judge bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait while granting bail to a man accused of rape and making obscene video and thereafter threatening the girl to make the video public.
Other developments:
- "Ensure Correct Balance Between Patient's Well Being And Covid Situation": Delhi HC Directs AIIMS To Conduct Surgery On Cancer Patient Delayed Due To Covid
- Delhi High Court Seeks Centre's Response On How It Intends To Obtain Supply Of Tocilizumab Drug
- "Right Of A Person In Detention To Consult Lawyer Of His Choice Is A Constitutional Right, State Can't Dilute It": Delhi HC Grants Relief To Shifa Ur Rehman
Gauhati High Court
1. Gauhati High Court Stays Lower Court's Direction Which Retrained Bail Bond's Acceptance Until Accused Completes Quarantine In Jail [Hafikur Ali v. State of Assam]
"Having granted bail, the said learned Court had no authority in law to refuse acceptance of bail bond," observed a Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana while staying a Lower Court's direction that an accused person's bail bond shall be taken only after he completes his quarantine period in jail
It opined, "The question whether the accused is to remain in quarantine is a decision which has to be taken by the District Administration and that issue is not required to be dealt with by the Court granting bail as there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to refuse acceptance of bail bond on the said ground."
2. Second Covid Wave- Gauhati High Court Directs Authorities To Release Foreigner Detenues Who Have Completed Two Years Of Detention [Samsul Hoque v. Union of India & Ors.]
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak modified its last year order in the suo moto writ petition concerning covid situation in the State and directed the authorities to release the foreigner detenues who have completed their two years of detention on their personal bond of Rs. 5,000 and one surety instead of two sureties owing to the exceptional circumstances of second covid wave.
It observed, "In fact, we must reiterate that in view of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 15.04.2020 passed in WP(C) (Suo Moto) No.1/2020, no separate order needs to be passed in each case and the concerned authority are hereby directed, wherever such detenues are detained, to release them forthwith as and when they complete their two years of detention with the following modification that under these exceptional circumstances of the second wave of Covid-19 pandemic, they may be released on their personal bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) and one surety instead of two sureties."
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak directed the State Government to give details of the mothers, declared as foreigners, who are presently in jails with their children below 6 years and the period for which they have been put in jails within 48 hours.
The Court also asked the State Government to give details of all such persons who are eligible to be released from jails in view of the COVID-19 pandemic as per the guidelines laid down by High Court as well as the Supreme Court.
Gujarat High Court
1. 'This Is Contempt Of All Orders Passed By Us': High Court Raps Gujarat Govt. On Bharuch Covid Hospital Fire Incident That Claimed 18 Lives [Ahmedabad Medical Association v. State Of Gujarat]
A Division Bench comprising of Justices Bela Trivedi and Justice Bhargav D Karia rapped the State authority for its failure to implement judicial orders for maintenance of fire safety norms at all hospitals, to avoid any untoward incident. In view of the recent Bharuch Hospital fire incident that claimed 18 human lives, the Court said that it is contemptuous on part of State for not being vigilant.
"Every action of yours is on paper. You always issue letters through highest authority. But what action is taken by the lower authority pursuant to such higher authority's order or this Court's order is not mentioned in State's affidavit," Justice Karia said.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
1. "Mere Presence At Demonstration Spot Wouldn't Invite Criminal Action": HP High Court Quashes FIR Against Persons Protesting At National Highway [Anjali Soni Verma & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.]
Observing that all roads and Expressways are "lifelines", single judge bench comprising of Justice Anoop Chitkara quashed FIR registered against two persons for being members of an unlawful assembly which allegedly blocked National Highway, Shimla thereby causing wrongful restraint.
Opining that it is "one of the exceptional cases where Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under sec. 482 of CrPC", the Court quashed the FIR and observed thus: "All roads, be it expressways, village roads, or colony roads, are lifelines. Under any pretext, how so ever justifiable it might be, the blocking of any highway, road, street, or path can neither be condoned nor forgiven or approved. However, mere presence at the spot in the demonstration would not invite criminal acts in the facts and nature of allegations made in the present FIR."
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
1. COVID19- Plea Seeking Financial Assistance, Medical & Insurance Cover For Lawyers: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Seeks Govt's Response [M. Abubakar Pandit v. UT of J&K & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur sought the response of UT of J&K on a plea filed seeking financial assistance, medical and life insurance for lawyers who are facing grave financial hardship on account of lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Karnataka High Court
1. State Should Compensate Families Of COVID Patients Who Died Of Oxygen Shortage, Karnataka High Court
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Aravind Kumar put the state government to notice that on the next date it would consider the issue of granting compensation to the family members of the 24 people who died at a Covid hospital in Chamarajanagar due to shortage of supply of Oxygen.
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Aravind Kumar directed the state government to respond on the issue of covid-19 patients being buried without obtaining a death certificate.
"Maybe even in the cases of unnatural death the person can bury the body without a death certificate. Death certificate is required by heirs to claim various benefits also. Under the registration of Births and deaths Act it is mandatory to issue a death certificate and record a death," the Bench emphasized.
3. How State Will Give Second Dose? Karnataka High Court Rings Alarm Bells Over COVID Vaccine Shortage
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Aravind Kumar directed the state government to place on record a road map by Thursday on how it proposes to provide vaccination to everyone in the state.
"We direct the state government to place on record a road map showing how it is going to provide vaccine to beneficiaries, who have taken first dose and second dose is overdue? How is the state government going to provide a second dose to those who have taken first dose? How the state government is going to achieve the target of vaccinating those above the age of 45 years? How is it going to cover weaker sections of the society by getting them vaccinated? The State government must come out with a road map by day after tomorrow," the Court said.
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Aravind Kumar directed the Central Government and the State Government to take a call on the issue whether the benefits of Atma Nirbhar Scheme as applicable last year during the lockdown, can be extended to those who are not holding a ration card of any State.
Also Read: Karnataka High Court Passes Orders To Ensure Food Security During Lockdown
5. Why COVID Facilities Offered By Railways, Air Force Not Used? Karnataka High Court Asks State, BBMP
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Aravind Kumar directed the State government and Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to give an explanation as to why it did not take over Covid facility for the benefit of the general public offered by the Railways and Indian Air Force.
It said "Failure stares at the face when there are very few beds available in the city at any given point. BBMP owes an explanation to the court for not taking over the facility offered by the Indian Air force. That explanation is to be given next week. Similarly, the State shall also give explanation in writing why beds offered by Railways were not taken over."
Also Read: COVID Third Wave Possible: Karnataka High Court Directs State To Come Out With Action Plan
6. Illegal Parking On Footways Or Public Streets Amount To Violation Of Fundamental Rights Under Article 21 : Karnataka High Court [DS Ramachandra Reddy v. Commissioner Of Police, Bangalore & Anr.]
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that it is the duty of the authorities to ensure that the footways and public streets are kept free of obstructions including illegal parking thereon. It is also their responsibility to ensure that violations of the aforesaid provisions of law are not taken casually and criminal law is promptly set in motion.
Relying on an order passed by the court on 31st July 2019 in W.P.No.42927/2015, the Bench said "This Court has held that a right to have streets including footways in a good and reasonable condition will have to be held as an essential part of the fundamental rights conferred on the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the footways or public streets are encroached upon in any manner including by parking of vehicles, it will amount to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held by this Court."
7. Officers With Cyber Expertise Should Probe Bed Allocation Scam, Says Karnataka High Court
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Aravind Kumar directed the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) Sandeep Patil to file a report of the investigation carried out in the two first information reports (FIR) filed to probe the alleged the scam related to allocation of hospital beds to COVID patients in Bangalore.
It said "It is necessary for the state to consider whether an investigation team consisting of officers having expertise in the field such as cyber crimes are part of the special investigation team." It added "The decision shall be taken immediately by the state government in this regard." During the hearing the bench orally observed that "Officers of cyber cell should be part of the investigation. The examination of data by some expert is required."
8. Police Should Avoid Excess Force Against Lockdown Violators: Karnataka High Court
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Arvind Kumar observed that police should avoid excess force against lockdown violators.
Amicus Curiae Advocate Vikram Huilgol brought to the attention of the Court the reports about police lathicharge against violators of lockdown rules. He informed the court about the order issued by the court on March 30, 2020 by which it had directed the Director General of Police to issue a circular not to use excessive force to implement lockdown.
Justice Kumar orally observed that "Excess force should be avoided. If people are not cooperating, make the people sit in the nearest police station, for the entire day."
Kerala High Court
A Division Bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan and MR Anitha directed the State Government to respond on a petition seeking that advocates and judicial officers be included in the priority category for vaccination.
"There are no vaccines here, what is the point in saying judicial officers and Advocates should be vaccinated. I also want to be vaccinated but what can be done?" Justice Vijayaraghavan said.
After hearing a plea assailing the Centre's Liberalised Pricing and Accelerated National Covid-19 Vaccination Strategy (Vaccine Policy), a Division Bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan and MR Anitha directed the Centre to apprise it of the time frame within which Covid vaccines could be supplied to the State.
In the course of a special sitting convened by a Division Bench comprising of Justices Devan Ramachandran and Dr Kauser Edappagath to discuss measures to rationalise COVID-19 treatment tariffs across private hospitals, lauded the Government of Kerala for its latest order detailing tariffs for various components of Covid-19 treatment in private hospitals It orally observed that it reduced the Court's burden in this respect to a large extent.
Orally describing the new Order as fantastic, the Court observed that it could be allowed to operate for the next two weeks and then the Court would take stock of compliance/whether changes would be necessary.
4. Kerala High Court Stays CBFC Certification Of Malayalam Film 'Aquarium' On Nun's Plea That It Offends Religious Sentiments [Sr Josia v. Union of India]
A Bench of Justice PV Kunhikrishnan stayed for two weeks the certification granted to Malayalam Film 'Aquarium' slated to be released on an Over-The-Top Platform (OTT) 'Saina Top Play'.
It issued the stay order upon a petition by a nun, Sister Josia. In Court, Senior Advocate George Poonthottam for Sister Josia argued that the film is highly defamatory to Roman Catholic Christians, and stated that the film was slated to be released over OTT. With this submission, the senior counsel took the Court through some of the scenes in the script, contending that the script contained defamatory statements about nuns.
5. Kerala High Court Allows KSRTC An Extension In Time To Install Tracking System, Emergency Buttons In Public Vehicles [Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Jaffer Khan & Ors.]
A Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Dr Kauser Edappagath acceded to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's (KSRTC) request seeking an extension in time to comply with the Court's directive to install emergency buttons and tracking systems in public vehicles. It allowed the request, giving the KSRTC time till June 30, 2021, to enforce the Court's Order from November 23.
6. A Plea Of Indigency Should Be Made With Utmost Bonafides, Omissions In Listing Property Should Be Explained: Kerala High Court [Jagadamma v. Sheela & Anr.]
A Division Bench of Justices A. Hariprasad and Ziyad Rahman AA iterated the principle that a plaintiff who filed a suit as an indigent was to explain omissions in the properties listed. It underscored the necessity of utmost honesty and bonafides when presenting an indigency suit.
The Court said, "The plea of indigency should be made with utmost honesty and bona fides since approval of the same will have an impact on the exchequer as well as on the opposite party."
Madhya Pradesh High Court
1. "The Need Of The Hour Is To Immediately Decongest Jails": Madhya Pradesh High Court Issues Directions To High Powered Committee [Suo Moto v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan observed that in view of the fact that all the Jails in Madhya Pradesh are presently housing prisoners almost double the number of their capacity, the need of the hour is to immediately decongest them.
Access full report to read instructions
Madras High Court
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy directed the State Government to issue advisory to local bodies to sanitize, spray disinfectant areas within their jurisdiction to the extent possible and to equip (with necessary facilities) the ESI Hospitals to treat COVID patients.
As far as the railway and port hospitals were concerned, the Court noted that since these are meant exclusively for railway and port employees, and both railways and the port authorities continue to function, "these may not be appropriated for general use at the moment".
2. Man Fails To Obtain Passport Due To FIR For Not Wearing Face-Mask During COVID: Madras High Court Directs Issuance Of The Same Within 4 Weeks [Nagalingam v. Regional Passport Officer & Anr.]
A Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh granted relief to a man who failed to obtain a passport due to an FIR, which was registered against him for allegedly not wearing a face mask, when he was driving his two-wheeler during the Pandemic condition.
It directed passport authorities to process the application submitted by him, if he satisfies all the other requirements. "The very registration of an FIR cannot be construed to be criminal proceedings unless it translates itself into a final report and the same is taken cognizance by a competent Court," it observed.
Underlining that this is a war-like situation where treatment has to be afforded to all who need the same, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy directed that additional stretchers by government hospitals be procured to house patients in corridors and other places available.
The Court noted that there is a shortage of vaccination in the State and that, though a decision had been taken to call for a global tender, the allocation otherwise to be made by the Centre to this State should not be diverted in the wake of the State's decision to call for a global etc. tender, particularly as it may be a long-drawn process.
Manipur High Court
1. 'Not Proper For Us To Issue Directions For Oxygen Supply When Supreme Court Has Constituted National Task Force': Manipur High Court [Naresh Maimom v. Union of India & Ors.]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Kh.Nobin Singh refused to issue directions for procurement/ supply of medical Oxygen in the State, saying that it would be inappropriate to issue directions in that regard when the Supreme Court has already taken note of the matter and has constituted a National Task Force to formulate a methodology for scientific allocation of liquid medical oxygen to all the States and Union Territories.
"In the light of the comprehensive mandate visited upon the National Task Force and the committees to be constituted by it, it would be appropriate to await the suggestions and recommendations that emerge from the exercise undertaken by these identified experts and the response of the Supreme Court thereto. It would therefore not be proper for this Court to issue any directions at this stage as to how the available supplies of oxygen in the State of Manipur should be utilized," the Court said.
2. COVID19- Can't Subject Genuine Pharmacy-Goers To Harassment Even If They Don't Have Doctor's Prescription: Manipur High Court [Aribam Jankinath Sharma v. State of Manipur & Ors.]
While issuing several directions to the State Administration to curb further spread of COVID-19 in the State of Manipur, a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Kh. Nobin Singh observed, "It is therefore not only for the State administration to be mindful and conscious of what is required of it at this time and to rise to the occasion but also for each and every citizen to do all that is within his ken to arrest the spread of this virus."
It also directed the state government to ensure that essential shops are adequately stocked with necessary products and goods, including vegetables, so as to meet peoples' needs.
Orissa High Court
1. Submit Status Report By May 31 On Release Of Prisoners Unable To Avail Bail Despite Getting Bail: Orissa High Court To State Govt [Krushna Prasad Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors.]
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice BP Routray sought a status report by May 31 from the State Government on the release of prisoners, who are languishing in jails and have been unable to avail bail despite being granted the same by the Courts.
Regarding the prisoners who are unable to avail bail despite being granted bail by the respective Courts, the Amicus Curiae pointed out before the Court that in terms of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81, the said prisoners, wherever they unable to furnish bail bonds should be released on Personal Recognisance Bond (PR Bond).
Patna High Court
1. Failure Of Private Hospitals To Provide Timely Medical Treatment Is Also Violation Of Article 21: Patna High Court [Shivani Kaushik v. Union of India & Ors.]
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar issued slew of directions while observing that the government hospitals, medical officers are duty bound to extend medical assistance and failure on the part of even private hospitals to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in a violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21.
Access full report to read directions
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S Kumar sought response of Commissioner of the Districts Buxar and Kaimur with regard to disposal of the dead bodies found flowing in the river Ganga in view of the second Covid wave.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
1. "Entire Social Fabric Of Society Would Get Disturbed": P&H High Court Refuses To Grant Protection To A Live-In Couple [Ujjawal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal refused to grant protection to a live-in couple who allegedly faced threats from the girl's family since their elopement while noting that "if such protection as claimed is granted, the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed."
2. P&H High Court Reviews COVID Situation In Haryana, Punjab & Chandigarh UT [Rishi v. State of Haryana & Ors.]
A division bench comprising of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh asked the States of Punjab, Haryana and UT of Chandigarh alongwith representative of Central Govt. regarding various issues arising due to Covid 19 pandemic.
Beside other things relevant health issues like shortage of ventilators in Govt Hospital Chandigarh, wastage of vials of vaccine, over-burdened ambulance facilities shortage of medical staff, allocation of oxygen were also taken up by the Court.
3. Not Giving Second Dose Of COVID Vaccine Is Violation Of Article 21 : Karnataka High Court
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Aravind Kumar observed that not giving second dose of COVID-19 vaccine will be a violation of fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court in its order said "Once dose is due it is the obligation of the state government to provide the second dose. If a second dose is not provided, it will be a violation of fundamental rights of citizens under Article 21."
Further it said "This is a fit case for issuing a mandatory direction to both the government to ensure that sufficient quota of vaccines is procured which will ensure that all those persons to whom second dose is due get the second dose."
Rajasthan High Court
1. What Steps Taken For Welfare Of Advocates Hit By COVID? Rajasthan High Court Asks State Bar Council
A single bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur asked the Bar Council of Rajasthan about the steps being taken for the welfare of advocates who are affected by COVID-19. The Court has issued notice to the Bar Council of Rajasthan, Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, The Bar Association Jaipur, State Health Department returnable by May 20.
2. Do Prisoners Have Right To Choose Medicinal System For Treatment? Rajasthan High Court To Consider In Plea Filed By Aasaram Bapu's Son [Narayan Sai v. State Of Rajasthan]
A Single Bench of Justice Arun Bhansali sought response from the State Government on a petition seeking Ayurveda medical treatment for Asaram Bapu who is lodged in Jodhpur's Central Jail in connection to a sexual assault case.
The writ petition filed by his son stresses on the fundamental right of prisoners under Article 21 of the Constitution to avail of efficacious medical treatment. It raises, inter alia, a question whether the fundamental right of a person to be medically treated under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses within itself the right of a Prisoner to undergo treatment under such a medicinal system, out of the various systems of medicines Allopathy, Ayurveda, Homeopathy etc recognized by the State, as he desires or is hopeful of improving his health?
Sikkim High Court
1. Covid-19: Woefully Low Number Of Hospital Beds, No Supply Of Oxygen: Sikkim High Court Seeks State's Response [In Re: Covid 19 Management]
In a suo moto PIL for Covid-19 management, a Division Bench comprising of Justices Meenakshi Madan Rai and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan expressed concern over the 'woefully low' number of hospital beds that are available for treatment of Covid-19 patients in the State.
The Bench was informed that presently, ICU facilities are also not available in the District Hospitals. Further, emergency arrangements for Covid patients are almost non-existent and no supplies of Oxygen are available at Primary Health Centres and Sub-Health Centres.
Due to this, it was submitted, that a 26-year-old woman who was brought to STNM Hospital in an ambulance from Singtam District, succumbed to the disease on account of paucity of bed in the ICU and non-availability of Oxygen.
2. Mere Acquittal In Case Involving Moral Turpitude Not Sufficient": Sikkim HC Upholds Full Court Resolution Withdrawing Appointment Of Civil Judge [Tara Prasad Sharma v. State of Sikkim & Ors.]
In order to secure an appointment, in this case a judicial one, a Bench of Chief Justice Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari observed that the acquittal of the applicant involved in a criminal case must be an honourable one. It ruled that acquittal of a person in a case involving moral turpitude by giving benefit of doubt is not sufficient to grant him employment.
It observed, "The employer is having right to consider all relevant facts available and as to antecedents and may take appropriate decision as to continuation of the employee in the employment looking to the standard of propriety and probity. The employer cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate for holding the civil post, if not acquitted clearly."
Telangana High Court
1. "Delaying Access To Medical Assistance Violates Art. 21, 19(1)(d)": Telangana High Court Stays Govt. Guidelines Prohibiting Inter-State Travel Of Ambulances, Patients [Garimella Venkata Krishna Rao v. State of Telangana & Ors.]
Observing that no State action can be validated that results in avoiding or delaying the access of medical assistance to patients in dire need of treatment, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Hima Kohli and Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy stayed the Guidelines issued by the State Government prohibiting inter State travel of ambulances and patients.
The Court also cautioned the State not to adopt any other circuitous route by issuing any fresh guideline which will result in putting fetters on inter-state travel of ambulances carrying COVID-19 patients from the neighbouring States for hospitalization in the State of Telangana or insisting upon persons applying in the prescribed format to the control room set up for tying up with hospitals in Telangana for purposes of COVID admissions.
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Hima Kohli and Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy asked the State Government to explain as to why the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and/ or the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 are not being invoked for regulating prices of life saving drugs essential for treatment of Covid-19.
It ordered the State Government to submit by the next date the manner in which it proposes to fix the maximum retail prices for Covid related treatment administered by the Government as well as private hospitals. It has also sought capping of Covid-testing prices, and other essentials like medicines, PPE kits, etc.
Uttarakhand High Court
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma pulled up the state government over its lack of preparedness to deal with the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. "Despite the fact that in January 2021 the scientific community kept on warning about the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the State did not pay any heed", it observed.
"Even though the State has been reeling under the pandemic for the last one and a half years, there seems to be lack of planning by the State to deal with the pandemic", the bench added. "Unfortunately, for certain mistakes committed, for certain negligence shown, COVID-19 pandemic has taken gargantuan proportions, both in the State and the Nation", the bench noted.
A division bench of Chief Justice RS Chauhan & Justice Alok Kumar Verma heard a PIL filed in connection with the issue of bed availability in the COVID hospitals, among other prayers and observed that the State Government needs to establish more centres for Plasma Donation as the state has only one Centre.
While hearing the matter, it raised an issue as to why the State of Uttarakhand was being forced by the Central Government to procure its oxygen quota from other States, despite the fact that there are three oxygen production units within the State. The Bench also raised the concern that the Central Government had issued 25 injections to a state which has a population of 2 crores.
