High Courts Weekly Roundup [March 22 – March 28]

1. "Applicant In Jail Can't Be Left At The Mercy Of State": Allahabad High Court Expresses Displeasure At Non-Filing Of Reports In Time [Anmol Rastogi v. State of UP]

A Single Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi rebuked the Uttar Pradesh Government while noting that despite getting sufficient time, almost in every case, the AGA failed to provide counter-affidavit and viscera report of the deceased in time. "The Court is not getting sufficient cooperation from the side of the State. This is a pathetic state and the Court records its strongest exception of such type of attitude from the State," the order stated.

2. Anti CAA-Speech At AMU: Dr. Kafeel Khan Files Plea To Quash Criminal Case, Allahabad High Court Seeks UP Govt's Response [Dr.Kafeel Ahmad Khan v. State of UP & Anr.]

A Single Bench of Justice JJ Munir issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government on a petition moved by Dr. Kafeel Khan seeking to quash the criminal proceedings started against him for his alleged inflammatory speech delivered at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).

Khan was arrested in December 2019 for allegedly giving a provocative speech in the midst of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests and was jailed for seven months and slapped with the National Security Act. In September 2020, a Chief Justice led Division Bench observed that his speech "does not disclose any effort to promote hatred or violence" and is rather a "call for national integrity and unity among the citizens".

3. "He Stands Before Us With Folded Hands & In Tears", Allahabad High Court Expunges Adverse Remarks Against Judicial Officer [Mohd. Irshad v. Anjum Bano]

The Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Saurabh Lavania expunged the adverse remarks made against a Judicial Officer considering his unconditional apology and the fact that he had remained under suspension for more than a year.

As accepted by the Applicant/Judicial Officer, he was slightly anguished because he had not passed the order impugned in the first appeal yet he had to appear before the High Court and in a momentary lapse of control over his faculties, the incident recorded in the order of the Court dated 18^th November 2019 happened.

4. Any Eventuality That Interrupts Supply Of Water To Agricultural Fields Amounts To Violation Of Right To Trade Under Article 19: Allahabad High Court [Nathu Prasad Kushwaha & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.]

A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held that discontinuation of electricity supply which in turn results in interrupted supply of water to agricultural fields is a violation of the fundamental right to trade and profession of the agriculturalists.

The observation was made while deciding a PIL seeking restoration of electricity at a Tubewell that is used in all nearby agricultural fields for irrigation. "We are of considered opinion that in command area any eventuality that adversely affects the supply of water to the agricultural fields virtually amounts to the violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India as that affects business and profession of the agriculturists," the Bench observed.

Other developments:

• Apology Accepted- Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Forwarding Message Asking People To Display Black Flags To French President
• [Covid-19] "Police Has Also Become Complacent": Allahabad High Court Expresses Displeasure Over Non-Adherence To Mask Rule In UP
• "Was Defending Myself As Well As My Property", Etah Advocate Who Was Assaulted By UP Police Submits Before Allahabad HC, Granted Bail
• Law Students' Plea Seeking Implementation Of Manual Scavengers Act: Allahabad High Court Seeks UP Govt's Response
• Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Forcefully Converting Religion of 19-Yr Old

Bombay High Court

1. "Court Is Not A Pedantic School Master" – Bombay High Court Dismisses BVG's Plea Challenging Civic Body's 'No-Blacklister' Condition In Hospital Tender [BVG India Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

A tender condition disallowing a contractor from participating in the process again, because his work was previously terminated, would not amount to blacklisting, a division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni held while rejecting a petition by mechanised housekeeping major Bharat Vikas Group (BVG India Ltd).

It ruled that the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) was entitled to impose such a condition as the "terms of invitation to tender" were not open to judicial scrutiny and the condition is neither illegal nor arbitrary.

2. Setting Out Two Separate Prayers For Injunction, One For Infringement And Other For Passing Off A Singularly Unwise Practice: Bombay High Court [HUL v. An Opposing Party]

The High Court called for a halt on the practice of seeking the separate reliefs of injunction for passing off and infringement when pleadings were presented in respect of infringement. Describing the practice as singularly unwise, Justice GS Patel remarked, "I would venture to suggest as a matter of law that the operative injunction order should only be as an injunction without a restriction specifying infringement or passing off".

The Court's order, stated to be issued to address a question of both form and substance that seems to me to generally arise in applications and suits of this nature, examines whether it made sense to seek injunction as a separate relief when infringement and passing off of trademarks were being argued. Pointing out that both the claims of infringement and passing off sought only an injunction, the Court opined that such an approach would be incorrect, even venturing to state that it could be counter-productive.

3. Investigating Officer Not To Indulge In Any Act That Tacitly Creates An Advantage In Favour Of The Accused: Bombay High Court [Md. Zaheer v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

While hearing a petition filed by the father of a woman killed in a motor accident alleged to involve a Sub-Inspector of Police, a Bench of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and B. U. Debadwar made some crucial remarks about the how investigating officers were to investigate such offences. It emphasized that an Investigating Officer is required to investigate the crime in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure/applicable procedure to the best of his ability.

The Bench added that the IO is not supposed to indulge in any such act during investigation, which would have a semblance or a flavour of the I.O. deliberately leaving loopholes in the investigation, so as to tacitly create an advantage in favour of the accused.

4. Merely Executing Notarized Document Purporting To Adoption Deed Does Not Give A Right To Child Custody: Bombay High Court [Kripal Amrik Singh & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

A Bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale refused permission to a couple to take custody over a two-year-old child on the strength of a "notarised adoption deed". It ruled, "We are of the opinion that by merely executing a notarized document purporting to be an Adoption Deed, the petitioners cannot claim that they have a right to hold custody of the girl-child."

The petitioner claimed to be the child's adoptive parents and sought a writ of habeas corpus after the child was taken away by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC). The CWC in its turn submitted in Court that it received a communication from Childline informing that a woman was unwilling to take care of her newly born child and she had decided to give the child up for adoption. By the time the CWC took cognizance of the matter and directed the biological mother to appear before the Committee, the woman had already handed the child over to the petitioners by a notarised adoption deed, it was found.

5. Bombay High Court Full Bench Rules Illegal/Authorised Constructions Undertaken By Councillors Prior To Election Can Result in Disqualification

A Full Bench of Justices Z.A.Haq, V.M.Deshpande and Amit B. Borkar made certain crucial observations pertaining to how disqualifications defined in the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Muncipal Corporations Act) would operate.

On the issue whether a past unauthorized construction by a Municipal Councillor would attract the disqualification, the Court, after analysing the objects and reasons of the legislation stated that a plain and simple reading of the provisions made it clear that the legislature intended to put a curb on the illegal activity of illegal or unauthorized construction by a person who intends to get elected as a Councillor. Therefore, the words "has constructed" would encompass past-illegal activity as well.

Access full report to read other findings

6. Developer Not Paying 'Transit Rent' For Months A 'Growing Social Injustice'; Single Default Sufficient To Terminate Agreement: Bombay High Court [Rajawadi Arunodaya Co-op Hsg Soc Ltd. v. Value Projects Pvt Ltd]

A single bench of Justice Gautam Patel held that even the slightest delay in project completion or payment in rent is sufficient to warrant the termination of a developer's contact. observed that in matters of redevelopment, which are in the realm of private law, there is no such thing as 'substantial compliance.'

"The slightest delay in project completion, unless specifically accepted by the society, and even one single default in payment of transit rent or other dues is actually sufficient to warrant a termination. There is no such thing in these matters as 'substantial compliance'. That is not the principle of obligations in the realm of private law," the order stated.

7. Give Three Days Prior Notice To Arnab Goswami Before Taking Any Coercive Action Him In TRP Scam: Bombay High Court To Mumbai Police [ARG Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale admitted Republic TV and Arnab Goswami's petition challenging Mumbai police's investigation in the Television Rating Points scam, and granted Goswami protection from arrest.

It directed the police to give Goswami an advance notice of three days in case they decide to take any coercive action against him during the course of investigation. Goswami will be at liberty to approach the court against such notice. "Serious malafides have been alleged by the petitioner (Arnab Goswami)," the bench observed.

Calcutta High Court

1. Non-Issuance Of Duplicate Share Certificates Does Not Indicate Malice Of Company At The Inception Of Transaction: Calcutta High Court Quashes Cheating Case [M/s. Avion Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.]

A Single Bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh quashed a criminal case of Cheating instituted against a company and its Directors over non-issuance of duplicate share certificates to the complainant, claiming to be a shareholder in the company. It held that mere non-issuance of duplicate share certificates on misplacement by an alleged shareholder does not indicate malice on part of the company from the inception of the transaction.

It observed that the when the shares were issued against a consideration, loss or misplacement of such shares by the Opposite Party is a "subsequent event" which could not have been contemplated by the company at the time of issuance of the shares. It thus held, "No prima facie case of initial deception has been made out and under no stretch of imagination can it be held that the petitioners acted with criminal intent at the inception on an anticipation that the shares would be misplaced at a subsequent stage."

2. Calcutta HC Prohibits Hunting, Selling, Buying Or Exchanging Of Birds Either As Part Of Sale Of Domestic Animals Or Otherwise [In re Smuggling and illegal trading of endangered species of birds]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice Arijit Banerjee prohibited the hunting, selling, buying or exchanging of birds either as part of sale of domestic animals or otherwise. It ordered thus in the suo moto matter related to the illegal smuggling and trading of endangered species of birds in the State.

Delhi High Court

1. Delhi High Court Directs Setting Up Of Rare Diseases Fund, Committee & Notification Of Policy [Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.]

A Single Judge bench of Justice Prathiba Singh directed the Centre to set up a Rare Diseases Committee, a Rare Diseases Fund and to finalise and notify the National Health Policy for Rare Diseases on or before March 31, 2021 taking into account the court's directions from today's order. It also directed for the setting up of a National Consortium for Research, Development and Therapeutics for Rare Diseases.

The Rare Diseases Committee, which has been designated as the nodal agency and primary manager of the Rare Diseases Fund, will be responsible to carry out the task of examining applications for treatment and funding of rare diseases and will be set up at the All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).

2. Bollywood Versus Republic TV & Times Now: Delhi High Court Extends Interim Order Against Media Channels

The Delhi High Court extended its interim order until May 25, asking media houses AGR Outlier Media Pvt Ltd, Bennett Coleman and Co Ltd, and others to ensure that no defamatory content will be uploaded on their social media platforms or displayed on their channels defaming the Hindi film industry or infringing the right to privacy of persons associated with it.

The order was passed in a civil suit filed by various production houses and associations of the Hindi film industry seeking to restrain journalists Arnab Goswami, Pradeep Bhandari of Republic TV, Navika Kumar, Rahul Shivshankar of Times Now and several unknown defendants and social media platforms from publishing what they have termed as "irresponsible, derogatory and defamatory remarks against Bollywood members".

3. Delhi High Court Seeks Just Dial's Reply On IndiaMart's Plea For Contempt Of Order On Copyright Infringement [IndiaMart InterMesh Ltd v. Just Dial Ltd.]

A single judge bench of Justice Jayant Nath issued notice to Just Dial Ltd and its Managing Director seeking their replies to a contempt application by IndiaMart InterMesh Ltd for alleged infringement of a prior copyright order in favour of IndiaMart.

The brief facts of the case are that in November, Indiamart Intermesh - the owner of the B2B discovery platform indiamart.com had filed a copyright infringement suit against Just Dial alleging that in order to expedite the launch of its B2B services Just Dial had blatantly copied the entire proprietary information along with taxonomy and look and feel of their website, upon which the Delhi High Court had passed an injunction order restraining Just Dial Limited from inter alia launching its business "JD Mart" using any data copied from the IndiaMart website. IndiaMart alleged that in violation of the High Court's restraining order, Just Dial launched its stand-alone B2B platform JD Mart on Feb 25 by the name and style of Jdmart.com, using its content.

4. Mob Attack: Muslim-Dalit Couple Granted Police Protection By Delhi High Court

A single bench of Justice Anu Malhotra granted police protection and sought for a status report from the police on an incident in Delhi wherein a Muslim-Dalit couple's house was allegedly attacked by a violent mob following their marriage.

The marriage between a Muslim girl and a Hindu Dalit boy took place after the girl voluntarily and willingly "converted" into a Hindu, according to the petition. However, the petitioner states that the couple faced challenges after the wedding with the girl's family being antagonized with the knowledge of her marriage and the boy's family being attacked in their home at Harijan Basti in Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi.

5. Delhi High Court Issues Notice to MHA, CBI, ED, SFIO & Delhi Police On Plea Seeking Investigation On Westland Trade Franchise Scam

After the Supreme Court directed 'victims' of the Westland Trade Pvt Ltd (WTPL) franchise scam to move jurisdictional High Courts, a bench of Justice Anu Malhotra at the High Court issued notice to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), and the Delhi Police in a plea seeking multi-agency investigation on a franchisee scam worth nearly Rs. 30 crore run by one Westland Trade Pvt Ltd (WTPL).

The petitioners before the court have alleged that WTPL has cheated and duped them by floating bogus companies such as Hyper Supermarket, Hyper Mart, Blue Mart, Big Mart and others. Earlier a bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde, after issuing notice on the plea last year had asked the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional high courts with their pleas, saying that it had made a "mistake" by agreeing to examine the pleas for probe by multiple agencies in the "franchise racket".

6. Delhi High Court Stays AAP MLA Somnath Bharti's Conviction In AIIMS Assault Case

Hearing AAP MLA Somnath Bharti's challenge to his conviction and sentence of a 2-year jail term in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) security-staff assault case, a Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kait suspended the jail term, stayed the conviction, and issued notice to the Delhi government on the plea.

Bharti was taken into custody and sent to prison on Tuesday after the Sessions Court upheld his conviction and sentencing of 2 years in prison. In his plea before the high court, he sought setting aside of the trial court's order and acquitting him of all charges.

7. Delhi Riots : High Court Vacates Stay On Trial Of 'Larger Conspiracy' Case Under UAPA

In view of the Delhi government's submission that the accused in the case are at liberty to collect a complete hard copy of the filed chargesheet from the trial court on Mar 25, single judge bench of Justice Suresh Kait vacated its stay on the trial of the case.

The Court had earlier stayed the trial in the case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, upon the prosecution's appeal against a trial court order which had directed for hard copy of the charge sheet to be supplied to all the accused.

8. Jurisdictional Objection Under Sec. 16 of Arbitration And Conciliation Act Has To Be Raised At Inception With Sense Of Alacrity: Delhi High Court [Surender Kumar Singhal & Ors. v. Arun Kumar Bhalotia & Ors.]

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Pratibha M Singh observed that a jurisdictional objection under sec. 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by its very nature would be one which has to be raised at inception, at the earliest stage. The Court also observed that under the scheme of the Act, such an objection has to be raised with a "sense of alacrity" which must be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal with a "sense of urgency".

9. Delhi High Court Rejects RBI Appeal Against Order For Reconsideration Of JSPL Plea For $300 mln Remittance To Mauritius Subsidiary

A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed an appeal by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) against an earlier order of a Single-Judge which had directed the RBI to reconsider an application by Jindal Steel and Power Ltd (JSPL) to transmit $300 million to its wholly owned subsidiary Jindal Steel and Power (Mauritius) Ltd (JSPML).

Directing the central bank to reconsider its decision on JSPL's application, the court's earlier order had noted that the RBI's order dated 30.12.2019, vide which it had rejected JSPL's application had "serious consequences" inasmuch as the "commitments undertaken abroad with the prior consent" of the RBI would go into default causing huge losses to JSPL.

10. Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Alleged 'Homophobic' Show Broadcasted By TV9 Marathi Channel [Indrajeet Ghorpade v. Union of India & Anr.]

A Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh sought response from the Broadcasting Ministry on a petition challenging its order refusing to take any action against TV9 Marathi Channel for allegedly airing a 'homophobic' show in March last year. It also issued notice to the channel and has asked its counsel to seek instructions in the matter.

The case finds its genesis in a programme titled 'Aarogyam Dhanasampada – Sexual Problems and Solutions' broadcasted by the Marathi news channel on March 3, 2020. In the said show, the Petitioner alleges, a guest speaker was invited who communicated during the programme that homosexuality is a disease. The Petitioner, who identifies himself as a gay man, has alleged that the said programme propagated harmful information with respect to homosexuality in gross violation of Rule 6(1)(d), (i), (j) and (l) of the Programme Code.

Other developments:

• Assembly Elections: Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Fine & Debarment Of Candidates Not Wearing Masks During Campaigns
• Sarojini Nagar Redevelopment: Delhi High Court Asks Delhi Government For Relocation Plan, If Any, on Jhuggi Owners' Plea
• Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Feature Film 'Haathi Mere Saathi' Release
• "Do One Month Community Service To Atone For Your Sins", Delhi HC Directs Man Accused Of Assaulting Woman While Quashing FIR

Gauhati High Court

1. Do You Have Any Scheme To Look After Health Issues Of Transgender Community?: Gauhati High Court Asks Assam Govt [Swati Bidhan Baruah v. State & Ors.]

A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak asked the Assam Government if it has proposed any scheme to look after the health issues of the members of the Transgender community. It further directed the Central Health Ministry to come up with the list of beneficiaries under the Ayushman Bharat Yojana, who are members of transgender community from Assam.

The direction was passed today while hearing a PIL filed by transgender activist Swati Bidhan Baruah, raising several issues faced by members of the said community in accessing health and medical facilities.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

1. Teachers Caring For Their Self- Interests Alone & Not The Interest Of Their Pupils A 'Lamentable State Of Affairs': Himachal Pradesh High Court [Milap Chand v. State of HP & Ors.]

Observing that it is the duty of the teacher to take care of pupil(s) as a careful parent would take care of its children, a Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia rebuked a Petitioner, a School Principal who challenged his transfer on the ground that he had crossed the age of 55 years.

It sternly remarked, "Instead of being a role model, (the petitioner) indulged in an unnecessary and otherwise avoidable litigation, that too, to safeguards his individual interest, over and above that of the students."

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

1. BCCI To Run The Management And Administration Of J&K Cricket Association Till Its Elections As Interim Measure: J&K HC [City Cricket Club Srinagar & Ors. v. Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors.]

A division bench comprising of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Puneet Gupta directed the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to run the management, control and administration of the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) as an interim measure till a new body of JKCA is elected whereafter the same shall be handed over to the newly elected office bearers of the Association.

The judgment was given in a bunch of appeals and petitions challenging the order of the single judge directing that Mr Justice C. K. Prasad, retired Judge of the Supreme Court and Mr Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chief Justice of M.P. and Allahabad High Courts shall act as Administrators of the J&K Cricket Association to ensure its free and fair elections.

Karnataka High Court

1. 'Centre's Prior Approval Required To De-reserve Forests' : Karnataka High Court Quashes Notification Releasing Forest Land [Gireesh Achar v. Govt of India & Ors.]

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty struck down an order/notification dated February 23, 2017 issued by the state government by which it purported to release a total of 260 acres forming a part of a reserve forest to the revenue department for rehabilitating project affected families in the forest lands.

It said, "The impugned order/notification dated 23^rd February 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. We hold that the power under Section 28 of the said Act of 1963 (KARNATAKA FOREST ACT), cannot be exercised without obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government in accordance with Section 2 of the said Act of 1963."

2. 'Won't Repeat Again' : Man Who Sent Threatening Letter Against Judges Apologizes To Karnataka High Court In Contempt Case

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj deferred accepting the unconditional apology tendered by a 72-year-old person, against who the court has initiated suo-motu criminal contempt petition for writing a letter to the High Court registry with threats against judges.

It said "Before we decide on accepting the apology, we will have to ensure that the accused does not indulge in making similar scandalous allegations. It is for him to give undertaking to this court not to make such allegations, we are not compelling him to do so." It added "Whether an apology tendered by the accused is bonafide or not will depend on the conduct of the accused."

3. 'Lakhs Of People Assembled Without Masks And No FIR; This Is Unpardonable' : Karnataka High Court To State

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj once again directed the state government to clarify its stand on whether it would register a First Information Report against the organisers of a held on February 21 for violation of norms regarding social distancing and wearing of masks.

It said "Now you must register FIR, there is no escape. There is an offence which is not compounded you. It cannot wait till it is compounded. Otherwise, everything including Supreme Court guidelines in Lalita kumari case is set at naught."

Also Read: Karnataka High Court Directs Penal Action Against Participants Of Public Rally For Not Wearing Facemasks

4. Karnataka High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Allow All Senior Citizens To Cast Vote Through Postal Ballots

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj refused to entertain a plea which sought to permit all senior citizens to cast vote through postal ballots. It observed, "It is not for the writ court to issue a mandamus directing that all senior citizens be permitted to exercise their franchise through postal ballot."

The Bench added, "Holding of elections for Lok Sabha is a very serious business, it's a huge exercise undertaken by the Election Commission of India."

5. Failure Of State To Provide Basic Shelter To Urban Homeless Violates Right To Life Under Article 21 : Karnataka High Court

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the state government to place on record the outcomes of the survey of urban homeless carried out in the state. If the Survey is completed, the state will have to take appropriate decisions on the number of shelters required in the state, it said.

The Bench observed, "State must be conscious of the fact that its failure to provide basic shelter to urban homeless may amount to violation of Right to Life guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution of India. If poor homeless in the cities are without shelter, it is a violation of their Right to live a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

6. Not Possible To Fix Outer Limit For Disposing UAPA Cases; But Judges Should Endeavor For Day To Day Trial : Karnataka High Court

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that it was not possible to lay down an outer time limit for the completion of trial of cases under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act(UAPA).

However, the Court added that judicial officers should endeavour for early disposal of cases, following day-to-day trial as per the mandate of Section 19 of the NIA Act and Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. Karnataka High Court Quashes Magistrate's Order Directing FIR Against Kangana Ranaut For Tweet On Farmers Protest

A single bench of Justice HP Sandesh set aside an order passed by a Magistrate in the state, asking the police to register an FIR against Hindi film actor Kangana Ranaut over a tweet posted by her on the farmers protests.

It observed that the Magistrate acted mechanically, without examining if the offences were made out. The matter is remitted back for fresh consideration.

Also Read: Tweet On Farmers Protest Not Made With Intention To Promote Enmity, Kangana Ranaut Tells Karnataka High Court

8. Sentences Can Be Made Concurrent Only If Offences Arise Out Of A Single Transaction: Karnataka High Court [C. Bharathi v. Shalini R. & Anr.]

A single bench of Justice HP Sandesh held that only substantive sentences can be made as concurrent if it is of a single transaction. If the transaction is different, the said concession cannot be given to the accused. In case of default sentences, there cannot be an order of concurrent sentences.

It was contended that when the complainants are different and the same cannot be termed as a single transaction as held by the Apex Court in Shyam Pal v. Dayawati Besoya. The complainants are different and transactions are different and cause of actions are also different. When such being the case, there cannot be an order for concurrent sentences and it should be consecutive only.

9. Section 138 NI Act - No Requirement To Serve Notice Under Certificate Of Posting; Service Through Registered Post Proper : Karnataka High Court [M. Nagappa v. Md. Aslam Savanur]

A bench of Justice Ashok G Nijagannavar held that service of notice through a registered post is proper service of notice, under section Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and there is no requirement to serve the notice under certificate of posting.

"When a sender has dispatched the notice through registered post with correct address written on it, Section 27 of General Clauses Act could be profitably imported and in such a situation service of notice deemed to have been effected on the sender unless he proves that it was really not served and he was not responsible for such non-service," it observed.

Other developments:

• Take Special Efforts To Persuade Citizens To Take COVID Vaccine : Karnataka High Court To State
• Indicate Steps Taken To Appoint Public Prosecutors In Courts: Karnataka High Court Asks Govt
• Has State Promoted Use Of Modern Technology To Replace Manual Scavenging?Karnataka High Court Asks
• Find Out If Manhole Worker Who Killed Himself Was Forced To Do Manual Scavenging: Karnataka High Court Directs State

Kerala High Court

1. ED Vs. Kerala Police- Enforcement Directorate Assails Kerala Police's FIR Against ED Officials, Moves Kerala High Court

The Enforcement Directorate moved the Kerala High Court against the State Police's FIR filed against the agency. The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justice VG Arun on Tuesday.

The Kerala Police lodged a First Information Report against the Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleging that officers of the agency coerced key accused in the gold smuggling and dollar smuggling cases to implicate the Chief Minister and others.

The ED's writ petition has sought to quash of the FIR. In the alternative, the ED prayed that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducts an investigation into the allegations contained in the FIR.

Latest Update: ED v Kerala Police : High Court Restrains Coercive Action Against ED Official; Allows Investigation To Continue

2. Divorced Wife Not Entitled To Right Of Residence Under Section 17 Domestic Violence Act: Kerala High Court [Ramachandra Warrior v. Jayasree]

A divorced wife would not be entitled to the right of residence conferred under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, held a Division Bench comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and MR Anitha. It said that such right is available only to a woman in a domestic relationship. However, the court observed that a divorced wife occupying a shared household can be evicted only in accordance with law.

The bench was considering a reference from a single bench which noticed a conflict between two single bench judgments Sulaiman Kunju v. Nabeesa Beevi [2015 (3) KHC 5] and Bipin v. Meera [2016(5)KHC 367]. The conflict is with respect to the rights of a divorced woman to invoke the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The court also considered the question whether the order of residence obtained by a wife in a shared household would seize automatically on a divorce being granted subsequently.

3. Kerala High Court Calls For Changes In Law To Penalise 'Road Rage' [Sunny Thomas v. State of Kerala]

While allowing bail to a person accused of ramming his truck into a vehicle belonging to the Kerala High Court, a Single bench of Justice VG Arun observed that India does not yet have legal provisions penalising 'road rage'. The applicant, Sunny Thomas, was supposed to have intentionally rammed his truck onto a Toyota Innova owned by the High Court on March 4, while the High Court's vehicle was parked on the side of the National Highway at Vaniyampara.

The bail order takes note of the absence of law in this respect, either under the Motor Vehicles Act or penal legislation. "This is an aspect which should engage the attention of the law makers, particularly in view of the increase in the number of road rage incidents in the country", Justice Arun opined.

4. Howsoever Erroneous Rejection Of Nomination Is, Judicial Intervention Not Contemplated At Intermediate Stage Of Election: Kerala High Court [N.Haridasan v. State of Kerala & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice N Nagaresh iterated the legal position that the High Court cannot exercise its power under Article 226 to interfere with questions relating to the acceptance or rejection of nomination papers.

In its detailed order rejecting writ petitions moved by various candidates for this year's Kerala Legislative Assembly elections challenging the rejection of their nomination papers, the High Court has emphasized that any interference with the same would interfere with the progress of the election. It remarked, "Rejection or acceptance of nomination papers cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution."

5. Kerala High Court Issues Guidelines To Family Courts For Early Disposal Of Cases [Shju Joy A v. Nisha]

After hearing a batch of petitions highlighting the hurdles faced by the parties in resolving their matrimonial disputes, a Division Bench comprising of Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and CS Dias issued guidelines to streamline and prescribe a uniform procedure for disposal of cases before Family Courts in the State.

Access full report to read guidelines

6. [Kerala Assembly Elections 2021] Ramesh Chennithala Moves HC Over Alleged Double Electoral Roll Entries, Bogus Voter IDs

Leader of Opposition in the Kerala Legislative Assembly, Ramesh Chennithala moved the Kerala High Court alleging the existence of bogus voters and double entry of voters in the Electoral Rolls for the upcoming Kerala Assembly Elections.

The petition states, "Unless those fake/multiple entry voters are restrained from participating in the poll and criminal action is launched against those who are responsible for fake/multiple entries, and punished in accordance with law, far reaching consequences will be caused to the electoral system."

7. Kerala High Court Removes 'Tainted Officer Facing Charges' From Post Of Director Of Mining & Geology [Civic Responsibilities & Empowerment Association & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.]

A Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly quashed the Government's appointment of CK Baiju as Director of the Mining and Geology Department. It observed,

"On consideration of the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that sufficient public interest is involved in the matter at hand, and that Mr. C.K.Baiju, respondent No.6, was appointed to the post of Director, Mining and Geology Department, even though styled as temporary and giving charge, is overlooking all canons of law and beyond comprehension of the normal procedure followed in the matter of promotion, especially due to the fact that he is a tainted officer facing charges and imposed with penalty, and thus, violated fair play and equal opportunity."

Other developments:

• Kerala High Court Directs State Government To Notify Forward Community List For EWS Reservation
• Kerala High Court Directs Central Government To Review Certification Given To Film Maradu 357

Madras High Court

1. Madras High Court Grants Bail To Ex-Judge CS Karnan In Abusive Videos Case [CS Karnan v. State]

A single judge of Justice V Bharathidasan granted bail to former HC judge CS Karnan in the criminal cases registered over the abusive videos uploaded by him with threats against judges of higher judiciary and their family members.

The bench allowed bail to Karnan considering the fact that he has spent more than 110 days in custody, the unconditional apology tendered by him and his undertaking to not repeat the offensive acts. It also took note of his medical complications which developed after he was infected with COVID-19.

2. 'Threat By Using Caste Name' : Madras High Court Restrains National SC/ST Commission, TNHRC From Taking Cognizance Of Karnan's Complaints

A division bench comprising Justices M Sathyanarayanan and AA Nakkiran passed an interim injunction restraining the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission from taking cognizance of the complaints made by former High Court judge CS Karnan against the officers probing the abusive videos case against him, and also the judges deciding the case and the complainant.

The order was passed after forming a prima facie opinion that the complaints amounted to "intimidation", "threat by using caste name" and were an attempt to "prevent the investigating officers from discharging their duties".

3. Hyper Nationalism Goes Against Prosperity Of Our Nation From All Its Past Glory: Madras High Court [State v. D. Senthilkumar]

A Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that cutting of a cake that is iced like the National Flag will not amount to an 'insult' to attract the offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. It observed that patriotism is not determined by a physical act and that the intention behind the act is the true test in such cases.

It observed, "There is no doubt that nationalism in a democracy like India is very vital. But, hyper and surfeit adherence to it goes against the prosperity of our nation from all its past glory. A patriot is not one who only raises the Flag, symbolises his national pride and wear it on his sleeve, but also, a person who bats for good governance. The symbolisation of national pride is not synonymous with patriotism, just like how cutting a cake is not unpatriotic."

4. Same-Sex Couple's Protection Plea- "Society Still Grappling To Come To Terms With Same-Sex Orientation": Madras HC Directs In-Camera Hearing

While hearing a protection plea filed by a same-sex couple, a Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh expressed its desire to hear the parties in-camera in view of the sensitivity involved in the matter and thus posted the matter for hearing on March 29. It observed,

"The case in hand requires to be dealt with more sensitivity and empathy and it is a sample case of how society even now is grappling to come to terms with same-sex orientation. Considering the sensitiveness of the issue involved, this Court wants to hear the parties in-camera."

5. Re-Opening Of Train Services- It Is For Rly Authorities To Decide As To What Extent Services Should Be Resumed: Madras High Court [B. Ramkumar Adityan v. Chairman, Railway Board & Ors.]

Opining that the distancing protocol may not be possible to be maintained once suburban railways and passenger trains are resumed, a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy disposed of a plea seeking resumption of suburban railways and passenger trains. The Bench said it shall refrain from "recklessly directing regular train services".

6. "Don't Pass The Buck, Look Into Allegations": Madras High Court To Election Commission On Plea Alleges BJP Targeting Voters Via Aadhaar Data

In response to a PIL alleging that the Puducherry unit of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has misused Aadhaar details of voters for election campaigning purposes, a bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy directed the Election Commission to investigate the allegations immediately and with the degree of seriousness that it deserves.

"It will not do for the Election Commission to pass the buck in this case and say that the cybercrimes division is conducting an investigation," the Bench observed.

Latest Update: Evident That Voters' Personal Details May Have Been Obtained By BJP & Put To Use For Campaign Purposes: Madras High Court

Other developments:

• Plea Seeking Excavation Of 'Eganaathar Gurumadam' Temple: Madras High Court Directs State To Conduct Inspection
• Ensure That No Encroachment Takes Place On Forest Land, Preserve Wildlife Corridors: Madras High Court To TN Govt
• Fishermen Killing: "Investigate Matter, Decide On Compensation Within 8 Weeks: Madras High Court To UOI, State
• "Passengers Suffer Due To Inadequate Security", Madras HC Grants 8 Lakh Compensation To Woman's Family Who Fell From Overcrowded Train
• Ensure That At Every Political Gathering Masks Are Worn By All, Social Distancing Norms Are Maintained: Madras High Court

Patna High Court

1. Non-Implementation Of Several Schemes, Central Act For HIV/AIDS Victims' Welfare: Patna High Court Calls For Status Report [Council For Protection Of Public Rights & Welfare v. Union Of India & Ors.]

Dealing with a plea inviting the attention of the Court towards the non-implementation of the several schemes notified by the Government (for welfare of HIV/AIDS Victim), a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar directed the ascertainment of several issues.

It has sought the following information: (i) The factual position/status with regard to implementation of all the schemes floated by the Central Government, with respect to the State of Bihar; (ii) The implementation of the provisions of the Act in the State of Bihar; (iii) As to whether any rule stands framed by the Central Government or the State Government and their implementation also needs to be ascertained.

2. UAPA- "In Absence Of Any Connection Between Alleged Act And Property Recovered, It Cannot Be Assumed That Property Was Acquired By Terrorist Act": Patna HC [Ramchandra Mandal & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.]

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Birendra Kumar observed that in absence of any connection between the act alleged and the property recovered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, it cannot be assumed that those properties were acquired by the terrorist act.

The observation came while dealing with a petition filed by the family members of an accused person challenging the order of Designated Authority allowing ex post approval under sec. 25 of UAPA with regards to seizure of certain properties which were not connected with the acts so alleged against the accused.

3. "Toilets Unfit To Be Used Even By Animals": Patna High Court Asks Govt. To Provide Funds For Educational Institutions' Infrastructure [News Report Published in Hindustan Patna Live v. State of Bihar & Ors.]

Perusing the inspection report submitted by a court-appointed Committee, a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar observed that there is a lack of infrastructure, toilets, etc in girls' educational institutions in Patna.

"The condition only depicted the place unfit to be used even by Animals. From the report, it is apparent that there is a lack of infrastructure, toilets, etc. Also, they are ill-maintained…In most of the educational institutions, sanitary vending and disposal machines have yet not been installed. Also, as is evident from the record and the discussion across the Bar, there is lack of funds for maintenance of toilets", the Court said.