- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- High Courts Weekly Roundup [August...
High Courts Weekly Roundup [August 23, 2021 To August 28, 2021]
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
30 Aug 2021 10:25 AM IST
![High Courts Weekly Roundup [August 23, 2021 To August 28, 2021]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2021/05/09/750x450_393154-high-courts-weekly-roundup-1.jpg "High Courts Weekly Roundup [August 23, 2021 To August 28, 2021]")
Allahabad High Court 1. Allahabad High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Dr. Kafeel Khan Over Anti-CAA Speech At AMU [Dr. Kafeel Khan v. State of UP & Anr.] In a huge relief to Dr. Kafeel Khan, Justice Gautam Chaudhary quashed the entire criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR & pending against him over his speech given about CAA and NRC at a protest meeting...
Allahabad High Court
1. Allahabad High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Dr. Kafeel Khan Over Anti-CAA Speech At AMU [Dr. Kafeel Khan v. State of UP & Anr.]
In a huge relief to Dr. Kafeel Khan, Justice Gautam Chaudhary quashed the entire criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR & pending against him over his speech given about CAA and NRC at a protest meeting at Aligarh Muslim University in December 2019.
"…Before taking cognizance of the offense under IPC, prior prosecution sanction has not been taken by the Central Government or the State Government or the District Magistrate and the learned Magistrate did not properly comply with the relevant provisions while passing the order of cognizance," the Court said.
2. Hathras Gang Rape Case : Allahabad High Court Refuses To Stay/Transfer Ongoing Trial [Suo-Moto Inre: Right To Decent & Dignified Last Rites]
A Bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh and Justice Rajan Roy refused to stay/transfer the criminal trial proceedings in the Hathras Gang Rape case pending before the Special Court (SC/ST Act), Hathras. It further said that the requisite security which was ordered by the Court to ensure non-disruption of the trial by any person and for facilitating a free and fair trial, will continue to be in place.
3. Awadh Bar Association Election: Allahabad HC Modifies Its Order Relaxing Criteria Determining 'Regular Practitioner' Of Court [In Re: Unruly Behaviour & Breach Of Protocol During Awadh Bar]
Modifying its earlier order (dated August 24) in the suo motu case relating to the Election of Awadh Bar Association, in which the court had fixed the date of the elections on September 25, the High Court relaxed the criteria determining 'regular practitioner' of this Court (for the purpose of contesting the election or casting his/her vote). Cancelling the entire election process which was held, amid the ruckus, on August 14, the bench of Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh had earlier framed guidelines for conducting the election on September 25.
4. Economic Offenders Have Huge Proceeds Of Crime, May Use It To Affect Probe, Win Over Witnesses: Allahabad HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused [Pankaj Grover v. Directorate of Enforcement]
The High Court recently rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by the erstwhile sleeping Director of M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt. Ltd who was accused in the National Rural Health Mission Scheme Scam. The Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, while rejecting the application filed under Section 438 CrPC noted that a criminal of economic offences has a larger amount of proceed of crime, which he may use and affect the investigation and win over witnesses.
5. Seeking Criminal Trial's Transfer At Drop Of Hat Not Recognized By Any Tenent Of Law: Allahabad High Court [Pramod Kumar Tiwari v. State Of UP & Anr.]
Dismissing a transfer application moved under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court observed that seeking of the transfer of criminal trial at the drop of a hat is not recognized by the courts or by any tenent of law. Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan also emphasized that an order of transfer is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the conduct of the trial by a Presiding Officer.
6. Allahabad HC Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost On Lawyer For Unauthorisedly Filing Plea On Behalf Of Absconding IPS Officer & Misleading Court [Dr. Mukut Nath Verma v. Union Of India]
The High Court imposed Rs. 5 lakh costs on an Advocate, Dr. Mukut Nath Verma after concluding that he unauthorisedly filed a writ petition on behalf of Suspended and Absconding IPS Officer Mani Lal Patidar and also levelled serious allegations against state authorities, and thereby misleading the Court. The Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Piyush Agrawal also asked the Bar Council of Delhi to take appropriate action against the advocate in accordance with the law.
The High Court issued notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh on the plea of a man who has been booked under various sections of IPC for allegedly promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion for his speech in which he criticized the Government's way of handling COVID dead bodies. The Bench of Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Naveen Srivastava has also directed that no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner if he cooperates in the pending investigation.
Also Read: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Shutting Down Of Uttar Pradesh State Medical Faculty
8. "Delay In Deciding Representation": Allahabad HC Quashes NSA Detention Of Accused In 'Journalist Shubham Tripathi Murder Case' [Kanhaiya Awasthi v. Union of India]
The High Court quashed the National Security Act (NSA) detention of one Kanhaiya Awasthi, who is an accused in the Unnao-based journalist Shubham Mani Tripathi murder case. Tripathi, who was a journalist by profession and the district correspondent of a news daily 'Kampumali' published from Unnao and who used to cover stories related to land mafias, was allegedly murdered by Awasthi and other co-accused persons.
9. Allahabad High Court Frames Contempt Charges Against Lawyer Who Called Judges 'Goondas' And Created Ruckus In Court [Re: Asok Pande…Alleged contemnor]
The High Court witnessed unfortunate scenes when one Asok Pande, a practicing lawyer, came to the Court room in a civil dress with an unbuttoned shirt and used abusive language against the judges and said that the Judges were behaving like 'goondas' Thereafter, initiating a Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings against him, the Bench of Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, prima facie, found him guilty of committing ex facie contempt of Court.
Other developments:
- "Plea Filed To Defame Woman, Get Her Custody": Allahabad HC Dismisses Habeas Plea With 50K Cost To Be Paid To Woman
- Names Of Senior Advocates Shouldn't Be Mentioned In The Cause List: Allahabad High Court Directs Registry
- Online Fraud : How To Make Banks & Police Accountable? Allahabad HC Asks Union, State & RBI
- Daughters Are Family's Honor; People Who Force Them Into Sex-Trade Not Entitled To Any Sympathy: Allahabad HC Denies Bail
- "Custodial Deaths A Concern For Civilized Society": Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Cop Booked For Mercilessly Assaulting Man In Custody
Bombay High Court
1. Section 438(4) CrPC- Grant Accused Three Days Interim Protection From Arrest After Rejection of Anticipatory Bail: Bombay High Court [Dr Sameer Narayanrao Paltewar v. State of Maharashtra]
In a significant ruling, the Nagpur Bench of High Court held that a Sessions Court rejecting the anticipatory bail application should grant interim protection for at least three working days to avoid his immediate arrest if the court had directed the accused to remain present, under Section 438(4) of the CrPC (Maharashtra Amendment).
Not extending interim protection which operated during the pendency of the Anticipatory Bail Application in favour of the accused, would frustrate his right to approach High Court, and the Sessions Court's order directing him to remain present at the time of the final hearing would have facilitated his arrest, observed the High Court.
2. Union Minister Narayan Rane Approaches Bombay HC To Quash FIRs For Remarks Against Uddhav Thackeray
Union Minister and BJP leader Narayan Rane has approached the High Court seeking quashing of the three FIRs registered against him for his "slapping" remark against Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray. The bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar refused to hear an urgent mentioning by Adv Aniket Nikam for Rane and asked him to file praecipe as per the procedure.
Also Read: "Won't Take Coercive Action Against Rane In The Nashik FIR": Maharashtra Govt. To Bombay HC
3. Will Hold Health Secretary Responsible If Any More Children Die Of Malnutrition : Bombay High Court [Dr Rajendra Sadanand Burma v. State of Maharashtra]
The High Court warned of action if there are any more deaths of children due to malnutrition Maharashtra government or a lack of medical attention in the State's tribal belt of Melghat in Amravati District. A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G. S. Kulkarni was hearing a bunch of PILs seeking specialists, nutrition and health facilities for children and expectant mothers in the Melghat region, including those filed by Dr Rajendra Burma and activist Bandu Sampatrao Sane.
Also Read: Ganesh Visarjan : Bombay High Court To Examine Effects Of Biodegradable Idols In Water Bodies
4. NDPS Act - Purchasing Drugs For Another At A Party Doesn't Make One A Drug Peddler : Bombay High Court [Harsh Shailesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra]
The High Court granted bail to two young men arrested for possession and consumption of drugs observing that prima facie purchasing drugs for another person at a party would not make one a drug peddler to attract the rigours of Section 37 for bail under the NDPS Act. Justice Bharti Dangre adopted the reformative approach for the two first-time offenders and remarked that today's youth, with their "now or never" attitude, cannot foresee the consequences of their actions.
5. Not Necessary To Hear Respondents While Admitting Second Appeal Under CPC': Bombay High Court [Prakash Dattatray Kotambe & Ors v. Uttam Ramji Kotambe (Lad) & Ors.]
The Aurangabad Bench of the High Court has held that it is not necessary to hear the respondents at the time of admission of the second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Justice Vibha Kankanwadi observed that first, the Court has to see if the appeal raises substantial questions of law. It is only thereafter that the appeal can be admitted and notices need to be issued to the respondents.
6. Bombay High Court Stays Investigation Against Sony Pictures In FIR Over 'Scam 1992' Series [Sony Pictures Network India Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra]
The High Court stayed the investigation on Pune Police FIR in which Karad Urban Co-operative Bank (KUCB) claimed to be defamed by the web series 'Scam 1992: The Harshad Mehta story,' which aired on SonyLIV App. A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar granted the ad-interim relief until September 17 on Sony Pictures Network India Pvt Ltd and producer Applause Entertainment Private Limited's quashing petitions.
7. Dignity Of Court Can't Be Tarnished By Stray Slights Or Irresponsible Content' : Bombay High Court Refuses To Take Contempt Action Against YouTuber [Kashinath Jairam Shetye v. David Clever & Ors.]
The court's power to haul up an individual for contempt is not to protect itself from insult but to protect people's rights and ensure administration of justice, the High Court held while refusing to take action against a British 'activist' for his comments against the subordinate judiciary in Goa. A bench led by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta observed that courts are entrusted with contempt powers to fulfil their duties towards people and take action sparingly.
8. Will Amicably Resolve With CBI Issue Regarding Sharing Of Documents : Maharashtra Govt Tells Bombay High Court [State v. CBI]
The Maharashtra government told the High Court that it will amicably resolve the issue with CBI regarding sharing of its "confidential" report for the central agency's probe against former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh. A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar was hearing CBI's application against the State's non-cooperation in handing over former State Intelligence Department (SID) head Rashmi Shukla's letter, along with its report with its annexures.
Calcutta High Court
1. Free Now, No Influence Of Family Members': Calcutta HC Disposes Of Plea Alleging Police Inaction In Complaint Registered By Same-Sex Couple [Mx Parna Bal and another v. State of West Bengal]
The High Court disposed of a plea moved by a same sex couple alleging police inaction after noting that the concerned police authorities had conducted satisfactory investigation into the matter. In the instant case, the petitioner was in a relationship with one Puja Paharia, an adult woman. However, their relationship had been vehemently opposed to by the family members of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner's father, mother, her brother and her elder sister had also wrongfully confined her and had inflicted torture upon her for pursuing such a same sex relationship.
2. Calcutta High Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea Challenging Concept of 'Beneficial Nominees' Under Section 39(7) Insurance Act [Malabika Ghosh v. Union of India and others]
The Calcutta Court issued notice on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 39(7) of the Insurance Act, 1938 which was brought into force on December 26, 2014 vide the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015. Thus, the Centre's response was sought in this regard by issuing notice to the Additional Solicitor General Y.J Dastoor.
Subsequent to the amendment, the concept of 'beneficial nominee' was inserted into the provision whereby in the event that the holder of an insurance policy in his lifetime nominates his parents or spouse or children or any other family member, the concerned nominees shall be beneficially entitled to the amount payable by the insurer, unless it is proved that the holder of the policy could not have conferred any such beneficial title on the nominee.
3. What Constitutes A 'Commercial Dispute' Under Commercial Courts Act, 2015? Calcutta High Court Explains [Ladymoon Towers Private Limited v. Mahendra Investment Advisors Private Limited]
The High Court recently had the opportunity to extensively define what constitutes a "commercial dispute" as contemplated under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (2015 Act). The issue in consideration before the Court was whether a plea filed before the Commercial Division of the High Court should be tried under the provisions of the 2015 Act or be adjudicated upon as a regular suit.
A 'commercial dispute' has been defined to be a dispute arising out of 'ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents'. "In order to ascertain whether the present dispute qualifies as a "commercial dispute" within the purview of the Act, it is necessary to break down the classes of persons and transactions contemplated in the above clause", the Court noted.
4. Why Does School Teacher Have To Seek NOC With Folded Hands?": Calcutta High Court On Repeated Non Issuance of NOC For Transfer [Gandhi Memorial Girls' High School & Anr v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.]
The High Court came down heavily on a school and its Headmistress for deliberately refusing to issue a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) and a release order to a teacher who had sought leave to get transferred to another school on health grounds. The Court also instructed the concerned Headmistress to vacate her post and accordingly demoted her to the post of an assistant teacher in the school.
Chhattisgarh High Court
1. Sexual Intercourse Or Any Sexual Act By Husband With Legally Wedded Wife Not Rape Even If It Was By Force Or Against Her Wish: Chhattisgarh HC [Dilip Pandey & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh]
The High Court discharged a man of the offence of marital rape after observing that sexual intercourse or any sexual act by a husband with his legally wedded wife is not rape even if it was by force or against her wish. However, the Court went ahead to frame charges against him under sec. 377 of IPC after observing that his act of making unnatural physical relation with the wife attracted the said offence.
2. We Cannot Decide Under PIL Jurisdiction As To When A Hindu Can Execute Will Or Muslim Can Dedicate Property For Waqf: Chhattisgarh HC [Saiyad Iqbal Ahamed Rizvi v. The State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.]
A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Rajani Dubey observed that a High Court, while exercising its Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction, cannot decide the question as to when a Hindu can execute a will or a Muslim can dedicate property for waqf. It reasoned that such questions can only be decided by way of individual petitions and not PILs.
3. 'No Work No Pay' Not Applicable When Law Expressly Provides For Grant Of Fully Pay On Exoneration: Chhattisgarh High Court [Rajendra Sharma & Ors v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.]
The High Court held that when the Fundamental Rules expressly provide for the grant of full pay and allowances on the exoneration of a Government servant from punishment/criminal charges, the principle of 'No Work No Pay' would have no application. Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal remarked that the principle of 'No Work No Pay' would not override sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules, which provides for full pay and allowances on full exoneration.
Delhi High Court
1. Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Centre On WhatsApp's Plea Challenging Traceability Clause Under IT Rules 2021 [Whatsapp LLC v. Union of India]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh issued notice on WhatsApp's plea challenging the "traceability" clause mentioned under Rule 4(2) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021, as violative of a person's right to privacy enshrined in the Supreme Court judgment of KS Puttuswamy v. Union of India.
2. High Court Issues Notice On Delhi Govt's Plea Challenging LG's Decision Appointing Prosecutors For Arguing Farmers Protest & Delhi Riots Cases [GNCTD v. LG]
The High Court issued notice on a petition filed by the Delhi Government against an order of the Lieutenant Governor, overturning the Cabinet's decision to appoint a panel of prosecutors of its choice to argue cases related to Farmers Protest and Delhi Riots. A Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh heard Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi for the Delhi Government and posted the matter for October 21.
3. 28 Years Delay: Delhi High Court Denies Claim Of CRPF Deserter's Wife For Family Pension, Other Benefits [Mrs. Birmati WD of Late CT DVR Jagbir Singh v. Union of India & Anr.]
Citing 28 years' delay in approaching the Court, the High Court dismissed a wife's plea claiming family pension and other benefits with interest from the CRPF after her husband's death. Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla dismissed the petition filed by one Birmati, whose husband was declared as a deserter by the CRPF and was dismissed from service in absentia in 1993.
4. Municipal Corporation Can't Shirk Responsibility By Removing Encroachments Occasionally, Has To Keep Regular Check: Delhi High Court [Rajan v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.]
The High Court observed that it is the responsibility of the municipal corporation, North Delhi Municipal Corporation in the present case, to ensure that side walks in the concerned area are kept clear from illegal encroachments and hawkers on a "continuous basis".
Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh observed: "The respondents cannot shirk of their responsibility by carrying out the exercise of removing encroachment occasionally. It is their responsibility to ensure that Side-Walks are kept clear from illegal encroachments and hawkers on a continuous basis."
5. Magistrate May Permit Officer Below Rank Of Inspector To Assist IO In Investigation Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: Delhi High Court [CBI v. Bhushan Power and Steel Limited & Ors.]
The High Court held that a special judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act is empowered to permit an officer below the rank of Inspector to assist the Investigating Officer in investigation. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri added that the steps taken by such an officer have to be performed under direct supervision of the Investigation Officer, who remains in control of the investigation. The Court also clarified that the IO shall be responsible for all the steps that are taken by the subordinate officer.
6. INX Media Case- Delhi HC Reserves Order On CBI's Plea Challenging Trial Court's Order Allowing Inspection Of Documents By Accused Persons [CBI v. M/S INX Media Pvt Ltd. & Ors.]
The High Court reserved its order on CBI's plea against a Special Judge's order directing it to allow the accused persons, including former Minister P. Chidambaram, to inspect the documents kept in Malkhana room collected by the agency while investigating the INX Media Case.
Justice Mukta Gupta reserved order after reiterating that she was bound by the Supreme Court judgment which held that while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects under Sections 207/208, Cr. PC, the magistrate should also ensure that a list of other materials, (such as statements, or objects/documents seized, but not relied on) should be furnished to the accused.
7. Delhi High Court Denies Interim Protection To Pinky Chaudhary In Jantar Mantar Sloganeering Case, Issues Notice On Anticipatory Bail Plea [Bhupinder Tomar alias Pinky Chaudhary v. State]
The High Court issued notice on the anticipatory bail plea filed by Bhupinder Tomar alias Pinky Chaudhary, prime accused in the alleged inflammatory and anti-Muslim sloganeering at Jantar Mantar. Justice Mukta Gupta however denied any interim protection from arrest to Chaudhary till September 13, next date of hearing. The Court also sought status report to be filed in the matter. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain appearing on behalf of Chaudhary submitted that he did not raise any slogans as alleged in the FIR.
8. Free Education May Be Availed At Govt School; Can't Force State To Pay Private School Fees Of Children Orphaned Due To Covid: Delhi High Court [Yasmin Kataria & Anr v GNCTD & Ors.]
The High Court expressed reservation over compelling the Government to pay private school fees for children, orphaned during Covid-19 pandemic. It opined that such children may be shifted to a Government school instead, for availing free education under Article 21-A of the Constitution.
"They (Government) also have their limitations...It may be very far-fetched to ask them to pay the fees of a private school..." Justice Rekha Palli remarked.
9. Misleading Drinks Allegedly Being Sold As 'ORS Solution': Delhi High Court Directs FSSAI To Decide Representation Expeditiously [Rupa Singh v. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare]
The High Court directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to treat as a representation a PIL seeking to restrain the distribution of fruit drinks, allegedly being sold in the market as "ORS" (Oral Rehydration Salt) solution. A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh directed FSSAI to provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the private companies concerned, and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible.
10. Entitled To Right To Be Forgotten & Protection From Invasion Of Privacy': Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Bengali Actress [X v. HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=IQ6K5Z3ZYS0 & Ors.]
Citing the right to be forgotten and entitlement to protection of privacy from invasion by strangers, the High Court has granted interim relief to a Bengali actress, seeking restraint on publication and streaming of her naked videos on various online platforms including YouTube. Justice Asha Menon, as an interim measure, directed the defendants to remove or pull down the impugned videos.
"...this Court is also of the opinion that the right to privacy of the plaintiff is to be protected, especially when it is her person that is being exhibited, and against her will," the Bench observed.
11. Espionage Case: Delhi High Court Seeks ED's Response On Freelance Journalist Rajeev Sharma's Bail Plea [Rajeev Sharma v. Enforcement Directorate]
The High Court has sought response of the Enforcement Directorate on the regular bail plea filed by freelance journalist Rajeev Sharma in connection with a case alleging that he supplied confidential information to Chinese Officials, in exchange of remuneration. Justice Mukta Gupta issued notice on the bail application and granted two weeks' time to the ED for submitting status report in the matter.
12. Dismal Physical State Apart, He Is Also A Psychological Wreck: Delhi HC Awards 20 Lacs Compensation To Man Who Became Bed-Ridden After Falling From An Electric Pole [Shri Kehar Singh v. GNCTD]
The High Court has awarded a compensation of ₹20 lakh to a man who became bed-ridden after he fell from an electric pole in 2014 while performing his job as an electrician at M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (BRPL). Apart from the monetary relief, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani went on to direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to continue treating the 28-year old as a person with 100% permanent disability and provide to him other benefits including disability pension and lifelong free bus and railway passes.
13. Can't Allow Physical Visitation Of Child Unless Parent Is Fully Vaccinated': Delhi High Court [Vishal Verma v. Twinkle Vinayak]
The High Court observed that it cannot pass an order permitting physical meeting of a father with his minor son, who is living with his estranged wife, unless the former is fully vaccinated.
The observation was made by Justice Rekha Palli while denying an oral request made by the father of a four years old, seeking permission to bring his son home on the occasion of Janmashtami. The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the child's mother, challenging an order of the family Court granting 40 minutes custody per day to the father. During pandemic however, physical visitations were converted to virtual.
14. Copy Of Every Document Filed In Court Must Be Supplied To Opposite Party Unless Exempted By Court : Delhi HC [Capt Atul Jain v. NCLAT]
The High Court made it clear that whenever any party to a litigation gives any document to the Court/ Tribunal, the copy of such document has to mandatorily be supplied to the opposite party, unless otherwise directed by the Court.
It stated that an exemption from the above position can be sought only in exceptional cases, such as those concerning Official Secrets Act, etc. Observing thus, a Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh imposed Rs. 10,000/- cost on a party, seeking relief against an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, requiring it to serve advance pleadings on the opposite party.
A division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh issued notice to the Delhi Government and Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR), asking them to respond by October 11 on a petition seeking to prohibit sex-selective surgeries on inter-sex infants and children, except in cases of life threatening situations.
At the outset, the plea filed by Srishti Madurai Educational Research Foundation, an independent Trust, avers that intersex traits are often wrongly identified as Transgender or third gender. It seeks guidelines specifying the conditions when medical surgery on intersex infants and children can be performed.
16. Not Providing Virtual Hearing Facility To Party Contrary To The Spirit Of Holding Hearings During Pandemic: Delhi High Court [Sharat Das & Associates v. Rameshwar Singh & Ors.]
The High Court has observed that the act of the Controlling Authority under Payment Of Gratuity Act of not providing virtual hearing facility to the party concerned is contrary to the spirit of holding hearings during pandemic.
Justice Pratibha M Singh also observed that it is the duty of such Authority to either make available the virtual link to the party or inform it that the said request is not acceded to, in order to enable the party to make alternate arrangements.
17. Domestic Violence Act Cannot Be Used As A Ploy By Son To Claim Father's Property On The Strength Of Wife's Right Of Residence: Delhi HC [Aarti Sharma & Anr v. Ganga Saran]
The High Court held that the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, being a social welfare legislation, cannot be used by a son as a ploy to either claim a right in his father's property or to retain possession of the same on the strength of his wife's right of residence.
Justice Pratibha Singh observed thus: "The provisions of the DV Act cannot be used as a ploy by the son, to either claim a right in his father's property or continue to retain possession of the father's property, on the strength of his wife's right of residence."
18. Delhi High Court Directs Bank To Keep Rs 1.8 Cr Balance in Afghan Embassy's Account To Secure Execution Of An Arbitral Award [LA Const Technologies Pvt. Ltd v. The Embassy Of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan]
The High Court issued notice on a plea by a decree holder (KLA Const. Technologies) seeking attachment of moveable and immovable assets of the judgment debtor in light of the collapse of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the rapid take-over of the country by the Taliban. The Court was adjudicating upon a plea seeking enforcement of an arbitral award against a foreign State i.e. the Embassy of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
19. Tablighi Jamaat Congregation: Delhi HC Directs Police To Handover Keys Of Residential Premises In Nizamuddin Markaz To Maulana Saad's Mother [Khalida v. State (GNCTD) & Ors.]
Dealing with a plea moved by Tablighi Jamaat Chief Maulana Saad's mother, the Court directed the Police to handover keys of her family's residential premises in the Nizamuddin Markaz which was locked by the Police since last one year in view of Tablighi Jamaat congregation for the purpose of sanitization and disinfection by the authorities.
Justice Yogesh Khanna was dealing with a plea moved by Khalida challenging a lower court's order denying access to her residence, whose keys remain with the Police officials since April last year.
20. Reduction In Minimum Drinking Age Has No Connection With Drunken Driving: Delhi Govt Argues Before High Court [Community Against Drunken Driving v. GNCTD]
The Delhi Government argued before the Court that its decision to reduce the minimum age for consuming liquor in the national capital has no connection with the offence of drunken driving. "Drunken driving is not permissible in law. So whether the minimum age is 21 or 25, it doesn't matter," Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra said.
Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi, also appearing for the Respondents, submitted, "Nobody in his right mind supports drunken driving. Reducing the age limit does not mean we are permitting drunken driving. Even a person aged 50 can't do it. There are very strict laws against it."
21. Delhi High Court Asks Centre To Consider As Representation Plea For Compensation To Families Of Indian Citizens Who Died Abroad Due To COVID-19 [Pravasi Legal Cell v. Union of India]
The Court directed the Central Government to consider as representation, a petition seeking payment of ex-gratia compensation to Indian citizens who died abroad due to COVID19.
The order was passed by a Division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh in a petition filed by Pravasi Legal Cell, after its counsel sought permission to make a fresh representation before the concerned authorities in view of the direction issued by the Supreme Court to the National Disaster Management Authority.
22. Pvt Hospitals Overcharging Covid-19 Patients: Delhi High Court Directs Grievance Redressal Committee To Decide Senior Citizen's Plea In 6 Weeks [Keshav Gupta v. GNCTD]
The Court has directed the Committee, constituted by the Delhi Government for dealing with complaints of excess billing of Covid patients by private hospitals, to expeditiously decide a complaint made by a 63-year-old senior citizen.
Justice Rekha Palli disposed of the plea while ordering thus: "Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Committee constituted by the GNCTD. The Committee is directed that as and when a complaint is filed by the petitioner, same be decided expeditiously following due procedure within six weeks from the date of filing of complaint."
23. "No Reasonable, Lawful Justification For LG To Object To Constitution Of HPC For Probing Into Covid Deaths": Delhi Govt Tells High Court [Riti Singh Verma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.]
The Delhi Government has informed the Court that there is no reasonable and lawful justification for the Lieutenant Governor to object to the constitution of High Powered Committee for probing into the deaths that happened due to covid 19 pandemic.
The said High Powered Committee was constituted by the Delhi Government in the aftermath of second covid wave consisting of medical experts tasked with the mandate to carry out a fact-finding exercise, on a case-to-case basis for ascertaining the probable cause of death after studying the records of the case produced by the hospital concerned.
24. Provide Free Ration To People Without Insisting On Ration Card Till Scheme Remains In Place: High Court To Delhi Govt [Adil Through His Sister & Ors. v. Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.]
The Court has asked the Delhi Government to continue providing free ration to people without insisting on a ration card till its policy remains in force in the national capital.
Justice Rekha Palli was dealing with a plea moved by seven families through Advocate Abhishek Anand, who had lost their jobs due to covid pandemic, seeking directions on the Delhi Government to provide ration facilities all Families living without insisting on any 'Ration Card' for a period of not less than three months.
25. Fire At Nehru Place Market: Delhi High Court Directs Fire Department To Conduct Mock Drill For Identifying Shortcomings [Court On Its Own Motion v. Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors]
The Court directed the Delhi Fire Services to conduct a mock drill in the Nehru Place Market, on a working day, for the purpose of identifying shortcomings for the future. The order comes in the suo moto case registered by the Court following a fire incident at a building in the market.
Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla also directed that the suggestions and recommendations put forward by the Fire Department may be considered by the Committee comprising of Chief Engineer, DDA, DCP (South East) and DCP (Traffic) and other officers, in order to keep a watch on such issues in the future.
Other developments:
- Driving Licenses: High Court Seeks Centre, Delhi Govt's Reply Over Non-Acceptance Of Fitness Certificates Issued By Ayurveda Practitioners
- Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea For Inclusion Of Advocates As 'Professionals' Under MSME Act For Availing Welfare Schemes
Gauhati High Court
1. "Victim Girl & Accused Are State's Future Assets, Talented": Gauhati High Court Grants Bail To Student In IIT Rape Case [Utsav Kadam v. State of Assam]
The Court recently granted bail to a student who is an accused in the IIT, Guwahati rape case, noting that being a talented student, the accused is the state's future asset.
Justice Ajit Borthakur, however, did hold that prima facie, an offence of rape had been made of against the student-accused who has been charge-sheeted under Sections 376/328/307/120B of the IPC.
Gujarat High Court
The High Court refused to rectify its August 19 order staying Section 5 Of Gujarat Freedom Of Religion Act noting that "We don't find any reason to make any changes in the order ".
Appearing before the Bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Biren Vaishnav, Advocate General Kamal Trivedi argued that Section 5 of the Act has nothing to do with marriage per see and therefore, the Court's August 19 order staying rigors of Section need rectification to the extent it mentions Section 5.
2. Liquor Prohibition Yet To Be Tested In Context Of Personal Food Preferences Within Right To Privacy: Gujarat High Court [Peter Jagdish Nazareth v. State of Gujarat(SCA 799/2019) and connected cases]
The High Court has observed that the law prohibiting the use and consumption of intoxicating liquor has never been put to judicial scrutiny before in context of "personal food preferences weaved within the right to privacy". Observing thus, it held as maintainable a batch of writ petitions challenging the prohibition on manufacture, sale and consumption of liquor in the state as per the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949
3. Forum Shopping: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Hear Plea Challenging Validity Of S.14 SARFAESI Act
The Court recently refused to entertain a plea challenging the vires of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, while admonishing the Petitioner for indulging in forum shopping.
Section 14 provides that the District Magistrate concerned shall assist the secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset of the borrower. The plea challenged this provision as being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution inasmuch as the above power may be exercised by the Magistrate on a mere application at the hands of a Bank or Financial Institution, without notice and without hearing the borrower.
4. Solitary Offence Under Prohibition Act No Ground For Preventive Detention Under PASA : Gujarat High Court [Karansinh Chetansinh Vaghela v. the State of Gujarat]
The Court has held that just because a solitary offence has been registered against the appellant-detenu under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, that by itself does not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order.
Quashing the detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Biren Vaishnav remarked that the detaining authority has failed to substantiate the alleged anti-social activities of the appellant-detenu adversely affect or are likely to affect the maintenance of public order adversely.
5. "People Have Stopped Hiring Goons, File FIR, Invoke PASA & Get Land's Possession": Gujarat HC On Misuse Of Anti Land Grabbing Act [Ramjibhai Nathubhai Charola v. State Of Gujarat]
The Court deplored the misuse of recently enacted Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 followed by the invocation of Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act (PASA) in private property disputes.
"People have stopped hiring goons, file FIR, invoke PASA and get the possession of the land, I have dealt with many such cases. Even in cases where the land has been purchased through a registered sale deed, PASA has been invoked. This is your Land Grabbing Act," the Bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay made these oral scathing remarks in Gujarati.
The Court quashed an externment order passed against a person, who was allegedly part of a crowd of unknown persons who were demonstrating against NRC/CAA, noting that citizens can't be subjected to externment for raising his grievance against the Government.
The Bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay was hearing the plea of a social activist Mohammed Kaleem Siddiqui who had been externed for a period of one year from several districts of Gujarat (including Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana) by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad.
7. 'Unconstitutional, Absurd, Not In Public Interest': High Court Strikes Down Gujarat Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2019 [Pravinsinh Indrasinh Mahida v. State of Gujarat]
The Court struck down the Gujarat Cooperatives Societies (Amendment Act), 2019 by ruling that the legislation is 'unconstitutional, absurd, and manifestly arbitrary and not in the public interest'. The State vide the impugned legislation could abdicate its responsibility of conducting elections of cooperative sugar factories listed under Section 74C (1)(v) of the Act.
"If the Government wants to save money and administrative time, then it should consider doing away with Section 74C itself. Why save time and expense in respect of just the Sugar factories? How much expense and time goes in these 13 Sugar societies, as opposed to the remaining which continue to be within the purview of Section 74C?" the Court observed in its order.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Court recently observed that a victim of a sexual offence cannot have any locus standi to approach the Court for quashing of FIR registered for the sexual assault which she had faced. Justice Anoop Chitkara was hearing a petition of a rape victim, wherein she sought quashing of FIR registered at her instance against the accused, on the grounds that now they (victim and accused) have decided to marry.
The Court held that once a party has died, his/her death certificate cannot be termed a 'Third Party Information' as per Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, as that information relates/related only to the deceased.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan was hearing the plea of an appellant/applicant whose application seeking a copy of the death certificate and the names and addresses of legal representatives of a deceased was denied citing Section 8(1)J and Section 11 of right to Information Act, 2005.
Jammu and Kashmir High Court
1. Triple Talaq Pronounced Prior To 'Shayara Bano' Judgment Also Null & Void: Jammu & Kashmir High Court [Showkat Hussain v Nazia Jeelano]
The Court held that the Supreme Court judgment in Shayara Bano case would apply to 'triple talaq' pronounced prior to passing of the said judgment. In this case, a 'husband' had approached the High Court seeking to quash proceedings initiated under Domestic Violence Act against him contending that he had already divorced his wife.
The Court has recently held that Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable against orders passed in proceedings for contempt which are of interlocutory nature and does not determine any right or issue between the parties finally.
Jharkhand High Court
The High Court ruled that members of a political party constitute a community within the meaning of Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act of 1951.
Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary held thus while dismissing a criminal revision petition moved by petitioners who were convicted for burning the banner of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) by Mashal during elections in February 2000.
The Court has held that an appellate court is required to consider all the materials on record and arrive at findings and in case of non-appearance of the appellant, the appellate court ought to have at least appointed an amicus to assist the court from the side of the appellant in the disposal of the appeal. Justice Anubha Rawat Chowdhary relied on the Supreme Court's observation in Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam.
Karnataka High Court
1. Make Realistic Estimates Of Oxygen Requirement For A Possible Third Wave Of Covid': Karnataka High Court Directs State [Mohammed Arif Jameel v. State of Karnataka]
The Court directed the State government to realistically estimate the oxygen requirement in time, for a possible third wave of Covid-19, by taking into consideration the figures of oxygen required during the peak of second wave.
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Aravind Kumar said, "We are of the view that state will have to, in the eventuality of third wave of covid-19, take into consideration the figures of requirement of oxygen during the second wave of covid-19, it will be a guiding factor in the possible requirement of oxygen in third wave."
2. Section 167(2) CrPC - Default Bail Not Available For Not Filing Supplementary Chargesheet: Karnataka High Court [Santosh v. State Of Karnataka]
The Court recently said that the supplementary charge sheet is only an additional material collected against the accused persons and that the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C, (default bail) cannot be made applicable to it.
"Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., is applicable only when charge sheet is not laid down and it starts operative when accused is arrested during the course of investigation, but if charge sheet is filed against particular accused and supplementary charge sheet is submitted against other accused or for additional evidence, the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., cannot be applicable", the Court said.
3. Re-Opening of Schools Should Not Become A Super-Spreader Of Covid-19: Karnataka High Court [Radha M v. State of Karnataka]
The Court directed the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) to make random inspections of government and aided schools, which have begun with physical classes from today for Standards 9th and 10th in order to verify if the Standard Operation Procedure is being followed.
A division bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice P Krishna Bhat orally said "Opening of schools is easy but it should not be a super spreader of Covid-19 so that schools have to be shut again."
4. Reopening Schools Without Providing Textbooks To Children Is Meaningless: Karnataka High Court Directs State To File Status Report [A A Sanjeev Narrain v. State of Karnataka]
"Asking students to attend schools without providing them textbooks and notebooks is meaningless and purposeless," the Court observed. It thus directed the State government to place on record a status report indicating the steps taken to provide textbooks to the students of standards 9th and 10th, studying in government and aided institutions.
A division bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice P Krishna Bhat were informed by the government that textbooks would be distributed in a phased manner by the end of September.
Also Read: Land Allocation For Former Indian Women Cricketer: Karnataka High Court Dismisses BDA Appeal
5. Individual Performing 'Public Duty' Will Come Under Prevention Of Corruption Act Though Not A 'Public Servant': Karnataka High Court [G.Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka]
The Court has held that even if an individual is not a public servant, but if he is discharging "public duty" by virtue of his office, he is answerable to the State and public and he comes within the ambit of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
G.Krishnegowda, working as a project manager at Nirmithi Kendra, Chikkaballapura, had approached the court seeking to quash the FIR registered against him by the Anti Corruption Bureau, (ACB), Chickkaballapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
6. Appeal From Tribunal's Order Under Senior Citizens Act Can Be Filed By Both Parties: Karnataka High Court [M.Sunitha (Vidyasri) v. M.Shashikala Mugadura]
The Court has said that the right to appeal under Section 16 (1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2002 is conferred on both sides and is not limited to senior citizens or parents only.
"By plain reading of section 16 of the Act, it provides right of appeal only to senior citizens or a parent against the order passed by the Tribunal. If a combined reading of the provisions of Section 15 and 16, under Section 15 nowhere mentions appeal against the order of the Tribunal be confined to a senior citizen or a parent," Justice H.T Narendra Prasad observed at the outset.
7. Cubbon Park Vehicular Ban: Bengaluru Advocates Association Files Impleading Application at Karnataka HC, Says Lawyers Will Be Detrimentally Affected [Kian Medhi Kumar v. State Of Karnataka]
The Advocates Association of Bengaluru has said that if vehicular movement is banned within and through Cubbon Park, it will cause great hardships to lawyers and will cause a delay in them attending various courts which are situated around Cubbon Park.
The association has filed an impleading application, seeking them to be made a respondent and be heard before passing any orders, in a petition filed by a 5-month-old baby, represented by his father, seeking to ban traffic movement within and through Cubbon Park, in Bengaluru. The court has allowed the application and posted the matter for further hearing next week.
8. Karnataka High Court Issues Notice In Plea Seeking Facilities For Senior Citizens & Persons With Disabilities At Konkan Railway Stations [George Fernandez v. Union of India and Ors]
The Court issued notice to the Union Government and the Managing Director M/s Konkan Railway Corporation, on a plea seeking directions for providing facilities to physically challenged, persons with disabilities as well as senior citizens at all the railway stations on the Konkan railway line.
A division bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum issued the notice while hearing a petition filed by one George Fernandez. The plea is filed through Advocate R.G Kolle & Rajesh Bhat.
Kerala High Court
1. Clinical Trials On Efficacy Of Third Dose Of Covid Vaccine Underway: Centre Informs Kerala High Court [Girikumar Thekan Kuunumpurath v. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors]
The Central government informed the Kerala High Court on Thursday that clinical trials are underway to ascertain the efficacy of administering a third dose of the Covid-19 vaccine and that it will take another few months to reach completion.
Justice P.B Suresh Kumar was told that the only remedy left for the petitioner was to wait till the results of the clinical trials were ready.
2. 84 Days' Gap May Be Contributing To Spike In Covid-19 Cases: Petitioner Seeking Early Administration Of Second Vaccine Dose Tells Kerala HC [Kitex Garments Ltd v. State of Kerala]
The Court continued hearing a plea seeking early administration of the second jab of Covid-19 vaccine to the citizenry.
"The state is witnessing 30,000 cases every day despite 70% of the State population being vaccinated with the first dose. This implies that it is high time to start administering the second dose of the vaccine," the Petitioner argued before Justice PB Suresh Kumar.
3. 'Show Some Respect To The Orders Passed By The Court': Kerala High Court Slams Centre Over Delay To Appoint KAT Chairman [Kerala Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Advocates' Association v. Rajiv Gauba IAS and Anr.]
The Court heavily condemned the Centret's failure to comply with the Court's orders for the immediate appointment of a chairperson to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT).
A Division Bench of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked orally that the "orders of the Court should be treated with some respect." "How can an ordinary citizen respect the Court when the Government fails to do so?" the Bench asked.
4. Provide Solace To The Mentally Ill Prisoners: Kerala High Court Directs State To Set Up Mental Health Unit In At Least One Prison [Suo Motu v. State of Kerala]
Addressing the plight of mentally ill prisoners, the Court recently directed the State to set up a mental health establishment in at least one prison for their well-being as per Section 103(6) of the Mental Healthcare Act.
Justice VG Arun passed the order after considering a report submitted by the Secretary of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KELSA), a statement submitted on behalf of the government and the relevant provisions under the CrPC and the Mental Healthcare Act.
5. Division Bench Of Kerala High Court To Examine If Marriages Under SMA Can Be Solemnised Via Video Conferencing [Dhanya Martin v. State of Kerala]
A Division Bench of the Court will examine whether a marriage under the Special Marriage Act (SMA) can be solemnised online through video conferencing.
Justice P B Suresh Kumar referred the matter to a larger Bench for further consideration. In the previous hearing, the Court had heard arguments on the issue, and had reserved order in the matter.
6. Citizenry Should Behave In A Civilized Manner: Kerala High Court Calls For Stringent Action Against Attacks On Medical Workers [Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. State of Kerala]
While coming down heavily on the increasing number of attacks on medical personnel in the State, the Court directed the State government to take all possible steps to provide adequate protection to those manning the healthcare system.
Calling for stringent measures against the same, the Court has also directed the State and other stakeholders including the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police to take immediate action on such complaints to ensure that these incidents do not take place in the future.
7. Kerala High Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Single Bench Decision To Stay GO Including Christian Nadars In SEBC Category [State of Kerala & Anr. v. S. Kuttappan Chettiar & Ors]
The Court refused to interfere with the Single Judge's decision to stay the operation of a Government Order dated 6th February 2021 including the Christian Nadar community under the SEBC communities in the State.
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly remarked that the matter may be considered elaborately by the Single Bench while dismissing the appeal.
8. 'Clear Case Of Excessive Delegation': Plea Before Kerala High Court Challenges Condition To Obtain License From BIS To Manufacture PVC Pipes [All Kerala Small Scale PVC Pipe Manufacturers & Anr v. Union of India & Ors.]
A plea has been filed before the Kerala High Court challenging the 'Lead Stabilizer in Polyvinyl Chloride Pipes and Fittings Rules, 2021' and the requirement therein to obtain a license from the Bureau of Indian Standards for manufacturing PVC pipes and fittings.
The plea challenges a notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEF) dated 30.03.2021 notifying the said Rules.
9. 'Arbitrary Exercise Of Power': Kerala High Court Quashes District Collector's Order Cancelling Appointment of Seva Bharati As Relief Agency [Deseeya Seva Bharathi v. Union of India & Ors.]
The Kerala High Court on Thursday quashed the order of a District Collector cancelling the appointment of a Seva Bharati as a Relief Agency on account of all the service rendered by its volunteers during the pandemic.
Justice N. Nagaresh while allowing the petition remarked: "The fact that complaints are made by the Panchayat President or District Panchayat President, does not make such complaints acceptable as such without any enquiry."
Also Read: Illegal Felling Of Rosewood Trees: Prime Accused Move Bail Plea Before Kerala High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
1. Policewoman Alleges Rape By Colleague- "Damage To Victim's Dignity No Proper Reason To Not Conduct Dept Enquiry": MP High Court [Amit Chaurasia v. The State of MP & Anr.]
The Court set aside an order of dismissal passed against a constable, who had been accused of committing rape against a fellow policewoman noting that the reason for dispensing with the regular departmental enquiry against him was not satisfactory.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi also observed that for imposing major penalties, there must be some strong and cogent reason with the Authority competent to impose such punishment and should be assigned in writing as to why enquiry is not reasonable and practicable to be held.
2. "Stigma To Civilized Society, Robbed Innocent Girl's Respect": MP High Court Denies Bail To 'Exorcist' Accused Of Raping Woman [Mangilal v. State of MP]
The Court denied bail to an 'exorcist' held on charges of committing rape upon a woman who had come to him for the purpose of exorcism. Noting that the applicant/rape accused had committed misdeeds by violating respect of a married lady by utilizing his position of respect of being exorcist of evil soul, the Bench of Justice Anil Verma rejected his bail application.
"…such a hypocrite exorcist is a stigma to any civilized society, who robs the respect of innocent girl on the pretext of exorcism, in my considered opinion applicant does not deserve for bail," added the Court.
3. Revenue Authorities Have No Jurisdiction To Determine Genuineness Of Will; MP High Court [Rajkumar Sharma & Ors v. Manjesh Kumar]
The Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that that a revenue authority does not have the power to determine the validity of a will while considering an application for mutation.
Referring to an earlier judgment in Kusum Bai & Anr v. Ummedi Bai (2021), Justice Vishal Mishra held that it is for the civil court to adjudicate the validity of a Will as per Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 98 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Madras High Court
The Court has recently termed as "unfair and unreasonable" the reduction in the parliamentary seats assigned to Tamil Nadu in the Lok Sabha after the State had managed to reduce its population in 1967 owing to the implementation of successful birth control measures.
It remarked that such a practice amounted to punishing States which implemented family planning measures successfully.
The Court observed that there cannot be any discrimination between regularised and non-regularised married women Government servants with regards to availing the benefits of maternity leave.
The Court made the observation while issuing notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) moved by Advocate C Rajaguru seeking the Court's directions in order to ensure that the Public Health and Preventive Medicine (DPHS) and the office of the joint director of Health Services, Government District Headquarters Hospital Campus in Villupuram district take immediate steps to identify and process pending applications of maternity leave moved by regularised and non-regularised married women government staff.
The Court disposed of a 2017 suo moto public interest litigation (PIL) that it had initiated after a sitting judge of the High Court, Justice S. Vaidyanathan had been contacted by fake placement agencies with dubious job offers.
A Bench comprising Justices N Kirubakaran and S. Vaidyanathan also emphasised on the need to create more job opportunities and promote entrepreneurship in order to tackle such a menace of fake job rackets.
4. Madras HC Upholds 27% OBC Reservation In AIQ Seats In Medical Colleges; Doubts Validity Of EWS Quota Without SC Approval [DMK v. Rajesh Bhushan]
The Court held that Centre's notification dated July 29, 2021 implementing 27 percent reservation for Other backward Classes (OBC) candidates in All India Quota (AIQ) seats of medical colleges in Tamil Nadu may be permissible subject to the Supreme Court's formal approval of the same. The Court passed the judgment in a contempt plea filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) over the delay in implementing OBC reservations for AIQ seats of medical colleges in the State for the academic year 2021-2022 despitethe High Court's earlier decision directing such an implementation.
5. Rather Than Caste System Being Wiped Away, Reservation System Perpetuates It Endlessly: Madras High Court [DMK v. Rajesh Bhushan and ors]
The Court opined that the Constituent Assembly had envisioned the reservation system to be in force only during the infancy period of Independent India, however it is now being endlessly extended through repeated amendments thereby perpetuating the caste system in the process.
The Court made the observation as a footnote while dismissing the contempt of court plea filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party against the Central government on the issue of implementing reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in All India Quota (AIQ) medical college seats.
6. Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Electricity Minister Senthil Balaji In Job Recruitment Scam After Victims Enter Into A Settlement [Shanmugam v. The Inspector of Police and Anr]
The Court has quashed a 2018 cheating case against incumbent State Electricity Minister and DMK MLA Senthil Balaji filed in relation to allegations of a 2014 recruitment scam since all thirteen alleged victims had compromised the issue and wanted the case to be quashed.
The case pertained to alleged irregularities in recruitment when Mr. Senthilbalaji was the Transport Minister in the AIADMK led government.
Also Read: Five Year Bumper To Bumper Insurance Mandatory For New Vehicles From September 1: Madras High Court
7. Non-Resistance At Time Of Sexual Assault From First Time By Accused Amounts To Victim's Pre-Consent: Madras HC [Chinnapandi v. State]
The Court has observed that the non-raising the resistance by the Victim at the time of committing the sexual assault as from first time by the accused would amount to pre-consent of the Victim and therefore, the consent so given can't be held as a misconception of fact.
Justice R. Pongiappan was dealing with an appeal filed to set aside a man/accused conviction under Sections 376 of IPC who allegedly promised to marry the victim, however, didn't fulfill the promise.
8. 'Paid News Is One Of The Menaces Afflicting Our Media': Madras HC Directs Constitution Of Press Council Of Tamil Nadu Within 3 Months [S Sekaran v. S.Sekaran and Ors]
In a bid to clamp down on fake journalists, paid news and journalists who are indulging in illegal, unethical practices, the Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to create a Press Council of Tamil Nadu (PCTN) which would act as a State level media regulatory body.
A Bench of Justices N Kirubakaran (since retired) and P Velmurugan ordered that the proposed PCTN must be constituted within 3 months and should be headed by a retired judge of either the Supreme Court or the High Court. Furthermore, it was directed that experienced and reputed journalists, retired civil servants and Indian Police Service (IPS) officers must be its members.
Manipur High Court
1. Intimidatory Measures Can't Be Adopted: Manipur High Court Directs State To Not Deny Food-Grains To Non-Vaccinated Beneficiaries Under PMGKAY [Thangjam Santa Singh v. State of Manipur & Ors]
The Court passed an interim direction asking the State authorities to not deny supply of food-grains to such beneficiaries under the PMGKAY scheme, who are yet to be vaccinated against Covid-19.
Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari told a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Lanusungkum Jamir that as per a public declaration made by the people's representative from Khurai Assembly Constituency, food-grains under the Prime Minister Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY) would not be supplied to those who have not been vaccinated.
Orissa High Court
Taking into account the issue of overcrowding of prisons in the state, the Court has emphasized that best practices adopted elsewhere in the world be used to address the issue of overcrowding of jails and examine how far they can be adopted for implementation in Odisha.
The Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice B. P. Routray also asked the state prison authorities to examine the applicability of employing the quarantine process recommended by a high power committee (HPC) of Bihar for jails during the COVID-19.
2. Gandhi's Dream That Women Feel Safe To Walk At Midnight Is Falling Short Of Reality: Orissa HC Upholds Man's Conviction Under POCSO [Lilu @ Ashok Kumar Das Adhikari v. State of Odisha]
Upholding the conviction of a man under POCSO for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old minor girl, the Orissa High Court recently observed that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's dream that women feel safe to walk in the streets of India in the midnight is "falling short of reality".
The Bench of Justice S. K. Sahoo specifically observed thus: "The father of nation Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who led Indian independence movement with great sons of soil like Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Bhagat Singh, Chandra Sekhar Azad, Subhas Chandra Bose and many more had once said, 'India will be free when the women feel safe to walk in the streets of India in the midnight'.
Punjab and Haryana High Court:
1. Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes 1K Cost On Lawyer For Abstaining From Work, Allows Cost Recovery From Bar Association [Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab]
The Court imposed 1,000/- cost on a lawyer who had abstained from work on the very day his application seeking early hearing of a case was listed before the court.
Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan noted that the Courts are working through virtual mode with great difficulties, and even then the lawyers had abstained from work on August 11, 2021.
2. Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders FIR Against 4 Cops For Allegedly Detaining Couple 'Illegally' In Suicide Case [Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others]
The Court last week directed that a First Information Report (FIR) be registered against four policemen for allegedly detaining a couple 'illegally' in an abetment to suicide case.
The Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi ordered thus after receiving the report from the District and Sessions Judge, Moga.
3. Murder Case Against Gurmeet Singh: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restrains CBI Court From Pronouncing Verdict On August 26 [Jagseer Singh v. CBI & Anr.]
The Court restrained the special CBI judge, Panchkula from pronouncing the verdict on August 26, in the Ranjit Singh's murder case, who was allegedly killed by Dera Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.
The Special CBI judge Panchkula, Sushil Kumar Garg, was set to pronounce verdict on August 26, however, the Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan has restrained the Court from doing so.
Rajasthan High Court
1. Prisoner's Failure To Surrender On Completion Of Parole Amounts To Escape From State's Lawful Custody: Rajasthan High Court [Gajja Ram v. State and others]
Finding that a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court in the year 2020 isn't the correct law, the Rajasthan High Court on Thursday held that failure of a prisoner to surrender to the prison authorities on completion of parole period would amount to escape from the lawful custody of the State and that ordinarily such prisoner would not be entitled to be transferred to Open Air Camp as per Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules.
Uttarakhand High Court:
The Court has sought response of the State Government on the steps taken by Indian Medical Research Council (ICMR) in issuing directions to all laboratories approved by it to mandatorily provide RTPCR reports with bar codes or QR codes.
The State Government apprised a bench comprising of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma that a letter dated August 5 was written by the Health Department to Director General of ICMR to direct all approved laboratories to mandatorily provide RT-PCR reports with such codes to people getting tested.
