- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Madhya Pradesh High Court Annual...
Madhya Pradesh High Court Annual Digest 2021 [Compendium Of 100 Orders/Judgments]
Sparsh Upadhyay
31 Dec 2021 9:44 AM IST
![Madhya Pradesh High Court Annual Digest 2021 [Compendium Of 100 Orders/Judgments]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2021/12/28/750x450_406771-madhya-pradesh-high-court-2021.jpg "Madhya Pradesh High Court Annual Digest 2021 [Compendium Of 100 Orders/Judgments]")
As the end of year 2021 is nearing, LiveLaw brings to you a yearly digest of cases of Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur, Indore and Gwalior Benches). This digest includes 100 orders and judgments, spread across 19 different headsCriminal Law Cases 1. Madhya Pradesh High Court Issues Directions For Registration Of FIRs In Respect Of Economic Offences [Rajendra Singh Pawar & Ors....
As the end of year 2021 is nearing, LiveLaw brings to you a yearly digest of cases of Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur, Indore and Gwalior Benches). This digest includes 100 orders and judgments, spread across 19 different heads
Criminal Law Cases
1. Madhya Pradesh High Court Issues Directions For Registration Of FIRs In Respect Of Economic Offences [Rajendra Singh Pawar & Ors. v. State of MP & Ors.]
Noting that a number of petitions are filed before High Court as Police does not take any decision on a complaint made by a party regarding economic offences, a Single Bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat issued directions to the Police authorities in the State, to make sure that the complaints/ first information reports filed in respect of economic offences are disposed of properly.
2. Accused Entitled To Seek Bail On Sole Ground Of Arrest Violating 'Arnesh Kumar' Guidelines : Madhya Pradesh High Court [In reference suo moto v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.]
Days after it observed that the need of the hour is to immediately decongest jails, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan directed the High-Powered Committee to consider the suggestions received by it and make its recommendation regarding the release of prisoners.
During the hearing, the Bench was informed that despite direction issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another (2014) 8 SCC 273, the police in the State was not following the guidelines.
The Court then directed the Director-General of Police to immediately issue fresh direction to all the Police Stations in the State to adhere to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar in letter and spirit.
3. "He Is 18-Yr-Old Young Boy; Chance Be Given To Him For Course Correction": MP High Court Grants Bail To Rape Accused [Brijesh Vs. State of M.P.]
The Gwalior Bench granted bail to an 18-year-old rape accused taking into account his age and stressing that a chance be given to him for course correction.
The Bench of Justice Anand Pathak was hearing the plea of an 18-year-old man accused of committing offence punishable under Sections 363 (Punishment for kidnapping), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape on the same woman), 342 (Punishment for wrongful confinement) and 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.
4. Physical Relationship With Minor Wife Comes Within Category Of Rape: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail To Husband [Ajay Jatav Vs. State of MP& Anr.]
The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) recently denied bail to a man who has been accused of establishing a physical relationship with his 'wife' who was below the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the alleged offence and thereby booked for committing rape.
The Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia noted that in the case of Independent Thought Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2017) 10 SCC 800, the Supreme Court had read down the provision of exception 2 to Section 375 of IPC and had held that physical relationship with a minor wife, i.e., below the age of 18 years would also come within the category of rape.
5. Will Aid In Early Disposal Of Criminal Trials: Madhya Pradesh High Court Approves Establishment Of National Forensics Science University [Bharat Jatav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.]
The Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has approved and ratified the sub-committee's recommendations for the establishment of the National Forensics Sciences University [NFSU].
Justice Anand Pathak observed that it is expected that the move will aid in the early disposal of criminal trials which are long pending due to delays in preparation of DNA reports, etc.
6. Road Accident- Court Shouldn't Award Flea-Bite Sentence For Offence U/S 304-A IPC By Showing Undue Sympathy: MP High Court [Devendra Valmiki Vs. State of M.P.]
Dismissing the criminal revision plea of a convict who hit a bike in a rash and negligent manner thereby causing the death of two persons, the Madhya Pradesh High Court last week noted that the court should not award a flea-bite sentence for offence under Section 304-A of IPC by showing undue sympathy. This assertion came from the bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia that observed that the convict wasn't even eligible for a reduction of the jail sentence as two persons lost their lives due to the applicant/convict, who was solely negligent in causing the accident by hitting the motorcycle by coming from the wrong direction.
Also Read: Madhya Pradesh High Court Launches Special Drive To Dispose Old Pending Cases
7. "Can Accused Avail Remedy Of Section 156(3) CrPC To Raise Grievance Of Improper/Delayed Investigation?": MP High Court To Decide [Kishanvihari Sharma @ Satya Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others]
The Madhya Pradesh High Court sought the assistance of the Bar and had invited every Member of the Bar to address the Court on the issue as to whether the remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC so far as it relates to the grievance of improper/ delayed investigation can be availed by accused or not.
The Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anand Pathak has directed the Principal Registrar of the Court to publish the order on the notice Board of the Bar Association and communicate the same to the Office-bearers of the Bar Association so that as and when the hearing takes place after the resumption of the physical hearing, the matter can be properly adjudicated.
8. "Not Necessary That Rape Allegation Is Proved Before S. 3 Of MTP Act Is Invoked": MP HC (DB) Allows Abortion, Sets Aside Single Judge Order [Prosecutrix vs.The State of MP and Ors]
In a significant ruling, the Court has held that it is not necessary that the allegation of rape be proved before Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 [When pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners] can be invoked.
Ruling thus, the Divison bench comprising Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal set aside a Single Judge order which had refused to permit to abort a fetus of more than 12 weeks of a 19-year-old girl who had alleged, that on the pretext of marriage, a man had committed rape on her without her consent.
9. Sentencing On The Same Day As Conviction Denies An Effective Hearing: MP HC Commutes Death Sentence To Life Imprisonment [In Reference (Suo Moto) vs. Yogesh Nath @ Jogesh Nath]
While commuting the death sentence awarded to a man to life imprisonment, the Court referred to the jurisprudence laid down in Bachan Singh to observe that the accused was denied an effective hearing.
A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Ahluwalia and Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava noted that no sufficient opportunity was given to the accused-appellant for placing mitigating circumstances on record. It was further observed that the trial court did not consider the grant of any alternative punishment or the possibility of reformation.
The High Court held that for the purposes of an anticipatory bail, proclamation proceedings under Section 82 (1) and Section 82(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are similar in effect.
Justice Subodh Abhyankar while adjudicating upon a pre-arrest bail plea, opined, "The general principle that appears is that for the purposes of an anticipatory bail, a proclaimed offender also includes an offender or a proclaimed person against whom a proclamation under 82(1) of Cr.P.C. has also been issued".
11. Possession of Cough Syrup Or Medicine Containing Narcotic Substances Without Valid Documents Is NDPS Offence: Madhya Pradesh High Court [Rajkamal Namdev v. State of Madhya Pradesh]
The Court has held that possession of cough syrup or medicine containing narcotic substances without valid documents will attract the stringent provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
In a matter where cough syrup constituting of narcotics substances was found without prescription or any other valid document, Justice Rajeev Kumar Dubey refused bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 by placing reliance on precedents set by the apex court. Section 37 lays that offences under the statute will be cognizable and non-bailable.
12. "HC Can't Order Release Of Vehicle/Property Confiscated Under Forest Act R/W MP Amendments Either Under Article 226/227 Or U/S 482CrPC: MP HC [Dilip Buidcon Ltd. v. Chief Conservator of Forest and others]
The Court observed that if any vehicle or property is involved and confiscated in forest offence, no direction for its release can be given by the High Court either under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India or under S. 482 CrPC in view of Madhya Pradesh amendments to the Forest Act 1927.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi ruled thus while relying on Apex Court's ruling in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh (2020)12 SCC 733 wherein it was held once the vehicle is confiscated under the Forest Act, it cannot be released by the direction of the High Court.
The Court has refused to vacate a stay order on an ordinance seeking to increase the reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from 14 per cent to 27 per cent in the State. The state government had moved the Court seeking to vacate the stay which affects the admission to post graduate medical courses.
On hearing both the parties, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice V K Shukla posted the matter opposing the Ordinance to September 20 for final hearing.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has denied bail to a man accused of abetment to suicide of a minor girl after observing that he instilled a feeling of helplessness within the girl by constant harassment and made her movement difficult, thereby leading her to commit suicide. Justice Shailendra Shukla observed that prima-facie, the elements of abetment of suicide are found to be existing in this case.
POCSO/JJ Act Cases
1. Proviso To Section 15(1) Of JJ Act- "Assistance Of Experienced Psychologists Or Psycho-Social Workers Or Other Experts Is Mandatory": MPHC [Ojef Khan V. State of M.P.]
The Court held that it is mandatory for Juvenile Justice Board to take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts while conducting a preliminary assessment with regard to a child's (in conflict with the law) mental and physical capacity to commit a heinous offence.
The Bench of Justice Shailendra Shukla has held that for the preliminary assessment by Juvenile Justice Board as to whether a Juvenile ought to be tried by Children Court under Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015, the Assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts would be mandatory.
2. "Can't Say 15Yr Old Didn't Know Impact Of Her Actions; Went With Man & Gave Birth To Child": MP HC Grants Bail To POCSO Accused [Rakesh S/o Ambaram vs. State of M.P.]
The High Court recently granted bail to a man booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for allegedly raping a 15-year-old girl noting that the Girl, on her own, went with the accused and gave birth to a child as well. "It cannot be said that even though she may be 15 years of age, she was not capable of knowing full impact of her actions. She is also stated to be living with the applicant," it said.
3. "He Suffered From Schizophrenia": MP High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Man Accused Of Outraging 10-Yr-Old Modesty [State of Madhya Pradesh v. Raghunath]
Observing that the accused was suffering from 'Schizophrenia' at the time of the incident, the Court recently upheld the acquittal order passed in favour of a POCSO accused was liable to be upheld but modified the reason of his acquittal
With this, the Court dismissed an appeal filed by the State against his acquittal order, in which the accused was absolved of the charges of outraging a 10-year-old girl's modesty.
Cases that made News
1. Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Bail Applications filed by Munawar Faruqui and Nalin Yadav [Munnawar v. State of Madhya Pradesh]
A single bench Justice Rohit Arya dismissed bail applications filed by comedian Munawar Faruqui and co- accused Nalin Yadav, who were arrested on January 2 for allegedly hurting religious sentiments during their comic show. It was of the view that "no case is made out for grant of bail".
The Court said that it was not commenting on the merits of the case as investigation was under progress. However, the materials collected so far suggested prima facie commission of the offence. The judge noted in the order: "The evidence/material collected so far, suggest that in an organized public show under the garb of standup comedy at a public place on commercial lines, prima facie; scurrilous, disparaging utterances, outraging religious feelings of a class of citizens of India with deliberate intendment, were made by the applicants."
Also Read: On Munnawar Faruqui, And Why Bail Not Jail Remains A Myth
2. Indore Bangle-Seller Who Was Thrashed By Mob Granted Bail By Madhya Pradesh High Court In POCSO Case [Golu @ Tasneem @ Taslim v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh]
The Court granted bail to Taslim Ali, the bangle-seller who was thrashed by a mob in Indore in August 2021 for allegedly concealing his Muslim identity while selling bangles in a locality, in a POCSO case
Ali, who has been accused of sexually harassing a Class 6 student was granted bail by the Bench of Justice Sujoy Paul noting that the nature of the accusation against him is not such which leads to a conclusion that he should remain in custody till the decision in the case.
3. Unmarried Girls In India Don't Indulge In Carnal Activities Just For Fun Unless Assurance Of Marriage Is There: MP High Court [Abhishek Chouhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh]
"India are a conservative society, it has not yet reached such level (advance or lower) of civilization where unmarried girls…indulge in carnal activities with boys just for the fun of it, unless the same is backed by some future promise/assurance of marriage," the High Court (Indore Bench) observed recently.
The Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar also opined that a boy who is entering into a physical relationship with a lass must realize that his actions have consequences and should be ready to face the same.
Matrimonial/Child/Custody/Family/Maintenance related cases
1. Writ Of Habeas Corpus Will Not Lie When Adoptive Mother Seeks Child's Custody From Natural Mother: Madhya Pradesh High Court [Sanjana Soviya v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.]
In a plea filed by a woman claiming to be an adoptive mother (of two-and-a-half year old girl child) seeking the custody of child from her natural mother, a Bench of Justice Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla observed, "Writ of habeas corpus in a case involving such disputed questions of fact cannot be issued against natural mother".
"The petition was filed by someone who claims to be adoptive mother seeking custody from the respondent No.4, who is none other than the natural mother of the child and is disputing the genuineness of the adoption deed. Writ of habeas corpus in a case involving such disputed questions of fact cannot be issued against natural mother," the order stated.
2. "FIR Lodged By Wife After Knowing That Husband Is Going To Marry Another Lady": MP High Court Discharges Man U/S 498A IPC [Abhishek Pandey @ Ramji Pandey and others]
Observing that the wife lodged an FIR against her Husband after coming to know that he is going to marry another lady, the Court recently discharged the husband of the charges under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi also noted that the wife had alleged those incidents, which had occurred two years prior to the date of lodging the FIR and the same was lodged after the husband filed suit for seeking divorce decree.
3. Compelling A Married Woman To Live In Her Parental Home Amounts To Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court [Amar Singh v. Vimla]
A single judge bench comprising of Justice GS Ahluwalia observed that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home after marriage amounts to cruelty and that for this reason, it cannot be said that she was living separately without reasonable reason.
Judiciary related cases
1. Commercial Matters Involving Arbitration Disputes Can Only Be Heard By Commercial Court Of Status Of District Judge/Addl District Judge: Madhya Pradesh High Court [Yashwardhan Raghuwanshi v. District & Sessions Judge & Anr.]
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla held that Commercial matters involving Arbitration disputes can only be heard by Commercial Court of the status of District Judge or Additional District Judge.
It held that a Civil Judge would not be the competent authority to entertain cases under Sections 9,14, 34 & 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
It held that the language employed in the definition clause of "Court" in Section 2(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act clearly indicates that the Legislature intended to confer power in respect of disputes involving arbitration on the highest judicial Court of the District. This, the Court opined, was done to minimize the supervisory role of Courts in the arbitral process and, therefore, purposely excluded any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such Principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes.
The High Court has launched the NISARG Smart Monitoring app to track the compliance of orders concerning social responsibility like tree plantation, volunteering responsibilities in hospitals, water conservation, etc.
The App was e-inaugurated by Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court, Justice Ravi Malimath, and Justice Rohit Arya (Administrative Judge), in the presence of other judges of all three benches.
3. MP High Court Issues Show Cause Notice To Trial Court Judge For Disclosing Rape Victim's Name In Her Deposition [Mahesh Kushwaha Vs. State of MP & Anr.]
The Court issued a show-cause notice to a trial court judge for disclosing the name of a rape victim in the deposition underscoring that the same is inconsistent with Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code and is also in violation of Apex Court's direction in the case of Nipun Saxena vs. Union of India [(2019) 2 SCC 703].
The Court was hearing the second bail application of rape accused booked under Sections 376 (2)(cha), 376(3), 506 of IPC and Section 5 (n) / 6(a) and 11/12 of POCSO Act, when it noted that the trial court had named the rape victim in her deposition before the Court.
4. Expected From Trial Court Judges To Be Patient & Tolerant Towards Lawyers During Examination Of Witnesses: MP High Court [Sachin v. State of Madhya Pradesh]
The Court recently observed that it is expected from the judges of the Trial court to be patient and tolerant in their approach towards the Trial Court lawyers during the examination of witnesses.
The Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed thus in a matter challenging the order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge whereby the right of the petitioner/accused to cross-examine the Investigating Officer had been closed.
Advocates/PP/Bar/Delay related cases
1. MP High Court Directs 'Mental Check-Up' Of Advocate Who Allegedly Sent Objectionable Birthday Messages To Lady Judge [Vijaysingh Yadav v. State Of Madhya Pradesh]
A Single Bench of Justice Rohit Arya directed that a mental check-up of a lawyer be done, who allegedly sent objectionable birthday greetings to a Lady Judge on her official mail ID. It noted that the primary allegation against the Advocate was that he indulged in highly objectionable unethical activity "unbecoming of an advocate while causing embarrassment to a lady judge" through WhatsApp and on social media portals.
"It appears expedient to direct for his mental checkup through a qualified Doctor or a psychiatrist and submit report before this Court," the Court remarked.
2. Section 24 CrPC- "Can Advocates With Less Than 7 Yrs Of Practice Represent State In Criminal Cases?": MP High Court Seeks State's Response [Gyan Prakash v. Government of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla expressed serious concern on contractually appointed Panel Lawyers without the requisite 7 years of experience representing the State Government in important criminal matters like criminal appeals, suspension of sentences, bail applications, etc.
It questioned the State & Centre: "Whether a Panel Lawyer may appear in the Court before the High Court in criminal matters like Criminal Appeals, Bail Applications, Criminal Revisions, application for suspension of sentence, MCRCs, etc. even without having the practice of a minimum of seven years and without the consultation with the High Court as required under Section 24 (1) of Cr.P.C.?"
3. "Advocate Filed PIL To Gain Publicity": MP High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Govt's Decision To Reopen Schools With 5K Cost [Aditya Singh Solanki v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others]
The Court dismissed a Public Interest Petition (PIL) plea with 5K costs which had questioned the decision of the MP State Government to reopen schools in the State. The bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Pranay Verma dismissed the plea as it remarked that the petitioner, an Advocate had filed the PIL without undertaking proper homework and exercise, to gain publicity.
4. Madhya Pradesh High Court Seeks Details On Intention Of State To Promulgate Advocates Protection Act [Chandra Kumar Valeja v. Union of India & Ors]
The Court has sought details about the present situation and the intention of the State with regard to promulgating the Advocates Protection Act.
The Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was hearing a plea filed by a practicing lawyer, Chandra Kumar Valeja seeking direction to expedite the work on the bill and execute and enforce the promise/declaration made by the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh High Court with regard to implementation of Advocates Protection Act.
5. MP High Court Orders Inquiry Against Public Prosecutor For Giving Up 'Important' Eye Witness In A Murder Trial [Shivsingh Tomar v. State of MP]
The Gwalior Bench directed the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs/District Magistrate, Bhind to conduct an inquiry against a Public Prosecutor who gave up an 'important' eye witness/father of the deceased in a murder trial.
The Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia has also directed the Public Prosecutor, Bhind to withdraw all the Sessions Trial involving offence under Sections 302, 307, 376/POCSO Act and all other important matters from the said Public Prosecutor Till the inquiry report is received.
6. Criminal Contempt Reference- "More Thoughtfulness & Sensitivity Required From Bar Members Toward Lady Judges": MP High Court [In Reference The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pankaj Mishra]
Dealing with a reference made to it by the court presided over by a lady Judicial Magistrate regarding the 'contemptuous conduct' of an advocate before her court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed that in view of the multitasking performed by a lady judge, more thoughtfulness and sensitivity is required from bar's end.
"…it is expected from the Bar members that they will appreciate the multitasking performed by a lady judge while taking care of her home, family as well as work front and therefore, more thoughtfulness and sensitivity is required in this regard," observed the Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anand Pathak.
7. The Practice Of Not Answering Query Regarding Maintainability Of Petition By An Advocate Is Deprecated: Madhya Pradesh High Court [Arun Singh Chouhan v. State of MP & Ors.]
The Court recently deprecated the conduct of a practising Advocate who chose not to answer the repeated queries of the Court regarding the maintainability of his petition seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto and regarding non-impleadment of necessary party
The Bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Anil Verma also dismissed his petition challenging the posting and performance of duty of an administrative officer as SDM/SDO at a particular place with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The Court has switched to a hybrid model of hearing with an option to the advocates and party-in-person to appear either physically or virtually in urgent matters. As per the freshly notified Standard Operating Procedure, the said mechanism will be effective at Principal Seat Jabalpur and Benches at Indore and Gwalior. '
There will be specified entry and exit gates for all advocates as notified by the respective benches. The procedures require all appearing advocates to be vaccinated at least with the first dose of vaccination.
9. 'Every Single Minute Of Court Is Precious': Madhya Pradesh High Court Imposes 50K Cost For Failure To Disclose Pendency Of Appeal Before SC [Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Anr.]
The Indore Bench of the High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 while dismissing a plea as withdrawn in a matter which was already pending before the Apex Court.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Anil Verma condemned the petitioner's failure to inform the Court regarding the parallel proceedings in the Supreme Court, and continuing arguments before the High Court on merits.
10. Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association Resolves To Boycott Justice Rajiv Kumar Dubey's Court
In its general meeting held, the High Court Bar Association has passed a unanimous resolution calling for an indefinite boycott of the Court of Justice Rajeev Kumar Dubey.
The resolution has been passed unanimously in the presence of the office-bearers of the three Bar Associations, members of the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council, and Advocates.
Women/Child centric cases
1. Granting Bail May Reinforce The Notion That Pre-Natal Diagnostic Regulation Act Is Only A 'Paper Tiger': MP HC Denies Bail To Woman Accused Of Female Foeticide [Rajni Lodhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh]
Calling for strict implementation of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994, a Single Bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia denied bail to a woman accused of female foeticide.
It observed, "we find it imperative that no leniency should be granted at this stage as the same may reinforce the notion that the PC&PNDT Act is only a paper tiger and that clinics and laboratories can carry out sex‐ determination and feticide with impunity. A strict approach has to be adopted if we are to eliminate the scourge of female feticide and iniquity towards girl children from our society."
2. "How Many More Nirbhayas' Sacrifice Needed To Shake Lawmakers' Conscience?": MP High Court Denies Bail To 15-Yr-Old Boy In Rape Case [Sunil s/o Budiya Parmar (Juvenile) through guardian (Father) Budiya s/o Kidiya Parmar Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh]
The Madhya Pradesh High Court denied Bail to a 15-year-old juvenile who has been accused of committing rape of a minor girl aged around 10-11 years old whereby she was left bleeding for a prolonged period of time.
Significantly, the Court further added:
"Apparently, the present law to deal with such cases is totally inadequate and ill-equipped and this Court really wonders as to how many more Nirbhayas' sacrifice would be required to shake the conscious of the lawmakers of this Country"
3. "If One-Year-Old Girl Isn't Safe It Would Create Havoc In Society": MP High Court Upholds Life Sentence Of Rape Convict [Moolchand v. State of M.P.]
"If a girl aged about 1 year is not safe in Society, then it would create havoc in the Society. Thus, such incidents are to be dealt with in all seriousness," observed the Court as it upheld the life sentence awarded to a man for raping a one-year-old girl.
The Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia and Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava was hearing the plea filed by one Moolchand assailing the judgment and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha, Distt. Datia convicting him u/s 376(2)(f) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment.
4. "Can't Permit Accused To Engage Lawyer On Prosecutrix's Behalf": MP HC Denies Bail To Man Whose Counsel Had Victim's Vakalatnama [Ramhet vs. State of M.P. & Another]
Underscoring that the accused can't be permitted to engage Lawyer on behalf of the prosecutrix, the High Court recently denied bail to a rape accused whose lawyer was having the Vakalatnama of the victim.
The Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia the bail plea of one Ramhet booked for offence under Sections 376-D, 366 & 506 of IPC, whose counsel submitted before the Court that he was holding the vakalatnama of the prosecutrix.
5. Consent For Sexual Act Obtained By Making False Promise Of Reemployment Isn't 'Free Consent': Madhya Pradesh High Court [Rajkishore Shrivastava vs. State of MP and another]
The Court recently held that getting the consent of the prosecutrix to involve in a sexual act, by making false promise of re-employment, can't be called 'free consent' and it would amount to consent obtained under a misconception of fact (as per Section 90 of IPC).
The Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia observed thus as it refused to quash an FIR registered for the offence of Rape against the Director of a hospital by the receptionist of the hospital (victim).
6. Simply Requesting Accused Not To Commit Rape Of Minor Instead Of Informing Police Amounts To 'Aiding' Under POCSO: MP High Court [Mamta Tiwari Vs. State of MP and anr.]
The Court recently observed that instead of informing the local police, the act of merely requesting the accused not to commit rape of a minor would amount to the act of aiding as defined and punished under Sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act.
The Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia was hearing a criminal revision filed against the order passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Gwalior, by which the charges under Sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act had been framed against a woman.
7. "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.
8. 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.
Detention/externment Cases
Highlighting that in many cases, on account of procedural lapses in following due process of law under the NSA, the orders of preventive detention (passed on justified grounds) suffer annulment, a Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anand Pathak issued a slew of directions for the State Government.
The Court directed the State Government to issue guidelines to all District Magistrates so that timeline provided in following due process of law u/S. 3 and other provisions of NSA are strictly adhered to by all District Magistrates/State Govt.
It also stressed that the satisfaction of competent authority is to reflect from the order of preventive detention or else it may not stand the test of law laid down by Apex Court in Shashi Aggarwal v. State of UP & Ors. [AIR 1988 SC 596].
2. Can NSA Be Invoked In A Case Of Trading Adulterated Food, Harmful And Dangerous To Large Number Of Citizens? MP High Court (FB) Answers [Kamal Khare v. State of MP & Ors.]
A Full Bench comprising of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Justice Rajeev Kumar Dubey and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla delivered a significant judgment pertaining to the power of detaining authorities to invoke the stringent provisions of National Security Act, when offence is committed under a particular Act. It held that personal liberty of an individual is the most precious and prized right guaranteed under the Constitution.
Thus, the detaining authority is under an obligation to ensure that it exercises its powers with due caution as well as upon a proper appreciation of the facts as to whether the impugned acts are indeed in any way prejudicial to the interest and the security of the State and its citizens, or seek to disturb public law and order.
3. Food Adulteration : MP High Court Calls For Stringent Punishment So That Executive Is Not 'Tempted' To Invoke Preventive Detention [Somkant Singh Vs. State of M.P.& others]
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently urged to the Legislature for either making provisions under the Indian Penal Code more stringent and deterrent or to prescribe higher punishment under the Food Safety and Standards Act so that the executive authority "is not tempted" to adopt measure of preventive detention in cases involving food adulteration.
"This Court thus beseeches the legislature to either make the provision under IPC more stringent and deterrent or prescribe higher punishment under Food Safety and Standards Act so the executive is not tempted to adopt the extraordinary measure of preventive detention in cases of food adulteration." The Court said.
The Indore Bench of the Court recently quashed a detention order on the ground that it did not contain a stipulation informing the detenue about his right to prefer a representation against his detention by the detaining authority.
A Division Bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Anil Verma relied on a catena of judicial precedents to support their observations.
5. Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Detention Order Against Person Illegally Hoarding, Black Marketing 400 Remdesivir Injections [Monica Tripathi v. State of MP & Ors.]
Observing that the State administration was struggling to ensure supply of medicines and medical facilities to the citizens, a division bench comprising of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Shailendra Shukla upheld the detention order passed under National Security Act against a person found illegally hoarding and black marketing 400 Remdesivir Injections.
A case was registered against Dr. Vinay Shankar Tripathi for offences under sec. 420, 274, 275, 276, 188 of IPC; sec. 18A, 18a(i), 18(a)(iv); Section 27 of Drug and Cosmetic Act, 1940 r/w Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act 1987. It was thus his case that since the offences were punishable under the provisions of aforesaid enactments, the detention under the NSA Act was wholly impermissible.
6. Natural Justice Principles Violated As Sufficient Time To Produce Acquittal Orders Not Provided: MP High Court Quashes Externment Order [Raju @ Pushpendra Bhadoriya v. Collector/District Magistrate, Indore & Ors.]
The Court quashed an externment order passed against a man by holding that natural justice principles were violated as the man wasn't given sufficient time to produce the orders of acquittal in the cases in which he was already acquitted.
The Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar also noted that if the man had been given an opportunity to produce the copies of acquittal orders passed in his favor, then the result of the outcome could have been different.
7. Black marketing Of Remedesivir Directly Impacts Public Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Detention Under NSA
The Court has upheld the detention of a man, accused of black marketing of Remedesivir injections amid Covid-19 pandemic, under the National Security Act, 1980. A Division Bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Anil Verma held that Black-marketing of Remedesivir injection has direct impact on "public order", and the Petitioner-accused if released, could indulge into same activity because there is still a scarcity of Remedesivir.
COVID Related Cases
1. COVID-19 "No Popular Government Can Afford To Negate The Basic Human Right To Health": MP High Court Issues Slew Of Directions [PC Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.]
Referring to various Supreme Court judgments which have interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution of India so as to expand the meaning of the right to life to also include the right to health, a Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan issued a slew of directions to the State Government to control the Covid crisis.
It remarked, "The right to health can be secured to the citizens only if the State provides adequate measures for their treatment, healthcare and takes their care by protecting them from calamities like Coronavirus."
Also Read: COVID Surge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Extends Interim Orders Till June 15
Also Read: Madhya Pradesh High Court To Hear Cases Only Through Virtual Mode From April 26, SOP Issued
2. COVID-It Is A Pity That People Are Dying Due to Lack of Oxygen, There Is No Reason Why Govt. Cannot Invest To Set Up PSA Oxygen Plants In Each Districts: HC Pulls up MP Govt. [Suo Moto v. Union of India & Ors.]
"It is a pity that people are dying in the hospitals due to lack of oxygen," observed a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan looking at the Covid-19 situation in the State.
It noted that there is no reason why the Government cannot invest an amount of Rs. 50 Crore to set up one PSA Oxygen Plants in each District. "There is no liquid oxygen manufacturing plant in the entire State. Since there is possibility of third wave of Covid-19 in the coming months, it is the duty of the State to take steps to ensure that such plants are set up in the State," the order stated.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan appealed to all State Governments and their respective Police and Transport authorities for providing green corridors to the tankers carrying liquid medical oxygen involving it's inter-state movement to ensure timely delivery of oxygen at their desired destinations.
4. MP High Court Rejects Plea Seeking Action Against Election Commission For Conducting Elections In 5 States Violating COVID Norms [Phool Chand Paliwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan disposed of a plea filed seeking actions against the Election Commission of India for the State Legislative Assemblies of West Bengal, Assam, Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry and Kerala, by violating the COVID protocol, guidelines.
Refusing to entertain the plea, it remarked, "The present dispute in respect of the elections which had taken place in the other States on the specious plea that mere travel of political leaders, party activists or passengers by trains, by air or even by road, to and from, those States would confer territorial jurisdiction of the dispute upon this Court."
5. COVID-"Central Govt Should Ensure Supply Of Vaccination Doses To State, Stern Action Against Black Marketeers": Madhya Pradesh High Court [Suo Moto v. Union of India & Ors.]
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan asked the Central Government to ensure supply of required number of vaccination doses to the State at the earlier in order to "apprehend the third covid wave" by ensuring timely vaccination of people falling in both groups i.e. 18 to 48 years and 45 years and above.
The Court also directed the Director General of Police, MP to "constitute special teams in major cities" to take stern action against all black marketers of Remdesivir and other covid 19 drugs. It also directed the State Government to file a "complete action plan" for vaccination of both age groups.
6. Can't Subject A Citizen Not Wearing Mask/Following Lockdown Norms To Corporal Punishment: MP High Court Orders Action Against Policemen [Osheen Sharma & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan reiterated its earlier direction that no citizen who is found not wearing mask or not following social distancing norms or not following lockdown conditions should be subjected to corporal punishment or beating. It observed thus while directing the Superintendent of Police, Indore to take appropriate action against the erring police officials on complaints of excesses and beating by police.
7. Reconsider Vaccination Policy's Efficacy, Consider Procuring Vaccine Doses From Outside India Rather Than Asking States To Do So: MP High Court To Centre [In Reference (Suo Motu) v. Union of India & Ors.]
Noting that Madhya Pradesh has not received even half of the promised quantity of the vaccination doses for the month of May 2021, a Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan asked the Central Government: "To take upon itself the responsibility of providing required number of vaccination doses to the State by setting up more and more units in all the States with required licence from the local manufacturers, to ramp up the production of the vaccination on war footing."
It also asked the Central Government to itself consider procuring the vaccination doses in sufficient quantity from the manufacturers from outside the country to provide the same to the States, rather than leaving it upon the States to do so.
8. Co-WIN App: MP High Court Directs Centre To Examine Representation Regarding 'Waiting List' Facility In App For Necessary Modification [ Mukesh Dhanraj Wadhwani v. State of MP & Ors.]
A Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan directed the Government of India to examine a representation regarding the facility of the waiting list, for necessary modification in the Co-WIN App. It was hearing a writ petition filed by one Mukesh Dhanraj Wadhwani aggrieved by the system of registration of citizen for vaccination of Corona Virus on Co-WIN application.
The petitioner stated that the slot for vaccination is allotted to citizens on the basis of the availability of the number of vaccination doses in a particular center and that several times the citizens make an attempt for registration but once the requisite number of registration for a particular slot on a particular date in respect of a given center is complete, the citizen have to wait till the next day and to make another attempt for their registration.
9. "Organize Blood Donation Camps Adhering To Covid Norms, Furnish Information On E- Raktkosh Portal": MP HC Directs State Authorities [Dr. Yogeshwar Prasad Shukla v. State of MP & Ors.]
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan directed the State Authorities including Director of Health Services, Director of Blood Banks and Additional Director of Health Services to organize blood donation camps district wise by adhering to covid protocols and also to furnish information of such camps in the E- RaktkoshPortal or any other media platform.
The development came in a petition moved through Advocate Rishabh Dubey seeking directions on the respondent authorities to ensure strict compliance of the advisory dated 5th May 2021 issued by the National Blood Transfusion Council (NBTC) directing to conduct blood donation camps and showing the data on E-Raktkosh Portal.
10. "Citizens Being Looted, Their Pain Is Our Pain": MP High Court Questions Govt On Amicus' Report Saying Ventilators Were Lying Uninstalled/ Unused [Suo Moto v. Union of India & Ors.]
Hearing the matters filed in connection with COVID Management in the State of Madhya Pradesh, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan expressed its concerns regarding the issue of hospitals overcharging COVID patients. It orally remarked, "Janta ko loota jaa raha hai, unka dard humara dard hai (Citizens are being looted, their pain is our pain)."
"Place on record a report showing as to how many ventilators were obtained under the PM Cares Fund and how many are procured by the State Government on its own and how many of them are functional. The data shall be produced on record as to the availability of ventilators in all the Government/District Hospitals of the State," it ordered.
Also Read: Ensure No Wastage Of Genuine Remdesivir Injections: Madhya Pradesh High Court To Govt
11. Madhya Pradesh High Court Seeks State's Reply on Plea Challenging Cut-Off Date In Scheme For Children Orphaned Due To Covid-19 [Dharmesh Basedia & Anr. v. State of MP & Ors.]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla issued notices on a petition challenging the validity of CM COVID-19 Child Welfare Scheme, inasmuch it has limited its benefits to such children whose parents died due to Covid-19 between March 1, 2021 to June 30, 2021.
It is stated in the petition that though the object of the Scheme is laudable, however, due to the restrictive definition of Covid19 death as provided in clause 3.3, any child or student beneficiary who is otherwise eligible for grant of benefit under the Scheme would become ineligible simply for the reason that her/his parents or guardian have expired prior to the cut-off date i.e. 1 March, 2021.
The Court has observed that in the extraordinary situation of a pandemic or disaster involving loss of life and human suffering, the Central Government as well as the State Government are empowered to put any restriction in the larger public under the Disaster Management Act, including restriction of movement of public by inter-state bus transportation.
A single-judge bench comprising of Justice Vivek Rusia was dealing with a petition filed by MP Bus Operator Association challenging various Government orders restricting inter State bus transportation between State of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra owing to the rising number of covid 19 cases.
Media/Press freedom/rights/Freedom of speech and expression cases
1. "Can Media Report Court's Observations Not Part Of Rulings?": MP HC Issues Notice To HC On Plea Seeking Permission For Live Reporting of Court's Proceedings [Nupur Thapliyal & Ors. v. MP High Court & Anr.]
A Division Bench of Justices Sheel Nagu and GS Ahluwalia issued notice to Madhya Pradesh High Court and State Government on a plea by 4 Legal Journalists who have moved the High Courts seeking permission for Live-streaming and Live-reporting. It issued the notices while observing that the Petitioners have an arguable point and posted the matter for further hearing on June 9.
However, the Court did pose a question regarding the right of the media to report Court observations, conversation with the lawyer not forming part of the Court's proceedings. Significantly, Justice Sheel Nagu specifically observed that as far as the question of the court being open for public view is considered, Court proceedings should be open, the same shall be held in public view, unless that person creates nuisance and that Court must be open to all.
Condemning the action of nurses to go on strike at a time when the country has still not been able to come out of the ill effects of the second wave of the ill effects of the second wave of COVID-19, the Court has declared the strike of nurses in the State as illegal.
It was argued that approximately 50000 Nurses of the State are on strike, which is causing huge inconvenience to the people of the State. The Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla directed the Nursing Association to immediately call off their strike and resume their duties.
Cases of Constitutional Importance
1. Article 20(3) Isn't Violated If Magistrate Directs Accused To Give Voice Samples During Investigation Sans Consent: MP High Court [RK Akhande v. Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Bhopal & Anr.]
The Bench of Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Virender Singh has observed when an accused is asked to give a voice sample by the Magistrate, it can't be said that he is being compelled to be a witness against himself and thus, the fundamental right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution is not violated in such a case.
The Court reiterated the Supreme Court's 2019 ruling which held that a judicial magistrate can direct an accused to provide his voice samples for investigation even without his consent.
2. Can An Appeal Arise To The Division Bench From An Order Other Than Passed Under Article 226: MP HC Refers The Question to Larger Bench [The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jaipal Singh]
In a challenge to the order by the Single Judge, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has referred the matter to a larger bench with the following question:
Whether the Division Bench in the exercise of powers under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2005 may entertain the appeal arising from an order other than the order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
The Court refused to decide on the matter in the absence of clarification of the legal position. A Division Bench of Justices Deepak Kumar Agarwal and Rohit Arya observed that, "it will be tantamount to stretching the bounds of law in excess to the jurisdiction conferred under section 2 of the Act of 2005. In a way, it may be tantamount to judicial indiscipline."
3. Assertion That Corpus Is Abducted By Unknown Miscreants Isn't Sufficient To Invoke Habeas Corpus Writ: Madhya Pradesh High Court [Smt. Chhaya Gurjar v. State of M.P. & Others]
The Court ruled that only an assertion that the corpus has been abducted by some unknown miscreants, is not sufficient to seek issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
The Bench of Justice S. A. Dharmadhikari further held that the condition precedent for instituting a writ of habeas corpus is that the person for whose release, the writ of habeas corpus is sought must be in detention and he must be under detention by the Authorities or by any private individual.
Fundamental/Human/Prisoners' Rights
1. MP High Court Seeks State's Reply On Arrangements To Keep Male, Female, Under Trials & Convicted Inmates In Separate Jails [Roma Kanjar and others v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh]
The High Court called for a jail status report from the Director-General, Prison and Correctional Services (Madhya Pradesh) with regard to arrangements made to keep the male and female inmates as well as under trials and convicted inmates in separate jails.
The order came from the Bench of Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava while dealing with a bail plea filed in connection with an offence registered under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.
Observing that the directions of the Arnesh Kumar judgment is not being followed in the State for decongesting prisons, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla issued directions to the High Powered Committee to review the situation and evaluate compliance of earlier resolutions passed by it.
It observed thus: "What is disturbing to note is that as per the data available online in District Bhopal alone for the period 03.05.2021 to 16.06.2021, 1225 arrests were made out of which nearly 1060 accused were those who were arrested for the offences punishable upto 7 years of imprisonment, which constitutes 86.53% of the total number of arrests made for that period as against 165 accused who were found involved in offences punishable with more than 7 years imprisonment."
3. "Prisoners Also Humans; Consider Establishing One PHC Per Jail To Treat Heart, Kidney, Liver Diseases": MP High Court To Govt [Lalji Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of M.P.]
The Court recently advised the State Government to ensure that at least one primary health center should be established in jail campus having facilities to treat the ailments relating to heart, kidney, liver, etc.
The Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava has also asked the State to ensure that Specialist/Experts relating to aforesaid various ailments be provided in such primary health center to the prisoners.
4. Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs State Govt To Frame Guidelines On E-Mulaqat Facility To Prisoners With Lawyers, Family Members [Shyam Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh And Others]
The High Court has directed the State Government to frame a SOP or guidelines on E-Mulaqat facility to be provided to prisoners in the State thereby enabling them to meet their lawyers and family members by ensuring privacy in such meetings.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla was dealing with a plea filed by an advocate who could not get a chance to interact with his client, accused of offences involving POCSO Act, IPC and Information Technology Act, to seek instructions and understand his case.
Cases affecting the entire society
1. Wary Of Those Who Seek Fire-Arm License To Flaunt/Parade In Public As Fashion Trend: Madhya Pradesh High Court To Authorities [Gurdeep Singh Dhinjal v. State of MP & Ors.]
Stressing that an individual's own feeling of insecurity is an important factor while granting the fire-arm license, a Bench of Justice SA Dharmadhikari ruled that the Authority, however, must be wary of those needs which are fanciful or simply pretentious or purely fired by a desire to flaunt or parade in public the fire-arm as a fashion trend.
It remarked: "It is now a settled law that as possession of a non-prohibited fire-arm helps effectuate a person's right to protect himself, the right is considered as a part of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, subject of course to reasonable restrictions."
2. 'Musclemen Aided Land Grabbing Has Become Order Of The Day': Madhya Pradesh High Court While Refusing Bail [Nitin v. State of Madhya Pradesh]
In a bail matter, the Indore Bench has observed that land grabbing with the aid of muscleman has become the order of the day at least in Indore, as suggested by a sizeable number of litigation coming to the Court.
Justice Sujoy Paul noted that the actual landowner with a registered sale deed is either dispossessed or not granted the possession of the land with the aid of the land mafia.
3. Make Indore Bench Of NCLT Functional At Least For 2 Days A Week: Madhya Pradesh High Court To Centre
The High Court has asked the Centre to leave no stone unturned to make the Indore Bench of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) functional at least for two days a week.
The Bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Pranay Verma said this taking into account the fact that the litigants and lawyers of the jurisdiction are required to travel all the way to Ahmedabad, as the Indore bench of NCLT isn't functional yet.
4. MP High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Direction To Election Commission Of India To 'Rule Out Discrepancies In EVMs' [Madhya Pradesh Jan Vikas Party v. Election Commission of India]
The Court dismissed a plea seeking a direction to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to take effective measures to rule out the discrepancies in the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) so as to conduct free and fair upcoming assembly and general elections. The Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla was hearing the plea filed by Madhya Pradesh Jan Vikas Party, a registered political party under the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RPA) that sought several directions to the ECI including a direction to comply with the RP Act, 1951.
5. 'Beating Of Doctors And Other Hospital Staff By Attendants Of Patients Has Become A Very Regular Feature': MP High Court Directs State Gov To Amend Law To Curb Such Violence [Dr. Sanjay Maheshwari v. State of M.P. and other]
The Jabalpur Bench expressed strong reservations against the increasing practice of beating, manhandling and attacking doctors and other paramedical staff in hospitals by the attendants of the patients.
The Court was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition which had been registered on the basis of a letter dated November 18, 2013 written by Dr. Sanjay Maheshwari, Head of M.P. Birla Hospital & Priyamvada Birla Cancer Research Institute, Satna (M.P.) and addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court.
6. It Is State's Primary Duty To Ensure Uninterrupted Supply Of DNA Test Kits To Forensic Science Laboratory: MP High Court [Deepak Tomar v. State of MP and Anr.]
The Court stressed that it is the primary responsibility of the State to ensure uninterrupted supply of "consumables and standard kit" to the Forensic Science Laboratory so that DNA tests can be conducted without any difficulty.
The Bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed thus while dealing with a bail plea filed by the rape accused claiming that since the prosecutrix had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case, he was entitled to bail.
Education/Students/Service-related cases
1. Police Warning Against University Webinar For 'Anti-National' Speakers : MP High Court Seeks State's Response [Professor Rajesh Kumar Gautam v. The State Of M.P. and Others]
The Court has sought the response of the State Government on a writ petition challenging the letter issued by the Superintendent of Police, District Sagar, warning DR. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar of actions against it citing the presence of 'anti national' speakers in the webinar.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi granted three weeks' time to the state to file its reply on the plea filed by Professor Rajesh Kumar Gautam, the convener of the Webinar.
2. Primary Teacher Should Be One Of The Highest Paid Employees Under Government: Madhya Pradesh High Court [Seema Shakya and others vs. The Board of Secondary Education thr. And others]
Expressing concern over the steep decline in the standard of education in primary schools in Government Sector, the Court observed that salaries, allowances, and perquisites attached to the post of a primary teacher in the Government Sector should be attractive.
"In fact, a primary teacher should be one of the highest-paid employees under the government so that the most meritorious available in the society is attracted and the best out of them have sterling qualities are ultimately picked up to be appointed as teachers," the Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal observed further.
3. "Issue Already Stands Referred To SC's Larger Bench": MP High Court Disposes Plea Challenging 100% Reservation In 600 PG Medical Seats [Association of Private Universities, Madhya Pradesh and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others]
The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition challenging 100% reservation in Post Graduate Medical seats holding that it is against the propriety to take a view on an issue that has already been referred to a Larger Bench for reconsideration.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay K Shukla held so while hearing the plea filed by the Association of Private Universities and Medical Colleges challenging the 100% reservation made for Domicile candidates from Madhya Pradesh and candidates who had completed MBBS from the Medical Colleges of the State.
4. Madhya Pradesh High Court Stays MPPSC's Selection Process For Appointment Of Medical Officers, Issues Notice To State Govt [Dr. Ronak Sharma and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others]
The High Court stayed notification issued by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) for conducting interviews for the purpose of appointment of Medical Officers in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
The Bench of Justice S. A. Dharmadhikari was hearing the plea filed by Dr. Ronak Sharma and others being aggrieved by the alleged arbitrary selection process adopted by the MPPSC for the purpose of appointment of Medical Officers in the State of M.P.
5. Applying Principle Of Promissory Estoppel, Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs State To Refund College Fees Under Reimbursement Scheme [Prashant Singh Kaurav v. State of Madhya Pradesh]
Applying the principle of promissory estoppel, the High Court recently directed the State Government to reimburse the entire admissible fees to a law student belonging to the OBC category under its Backward Class and Minority Welfare Scheme.
A Division Bench of Justices SA Dharmadhikari and Vishal Mishra upheld the claim of full reimbursement while observing that: "the principle of estoppel and acquiescence will apply and the State Government cannot stop payment of scholarship/fees to the dis-advantage of the petitioner particularly in the light of the Clause 5.3 and 6.2 of the Policy quoted above."
6. Post Expiration Of Probation Period, Automatic Confirmation Cannot Be Claimed As Matter Of Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court [Sinnam Singh vs. State of MP and Ors]
The High Court has recently observed that automatic confirmation cannot be claimed as a matter of right after the expiry of probation period, unless there is a vacancy for the same job.
While modifying the order related to discontinuation of services dated January 2, 2018 ("impugned order") Single Judge bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia remarked that, "Expiry of the probation period does not necessarily mean confirmation and at the end/ expiry of the period of probation, normally an order confirming the officer is required to be passed and if no such order is passed, he shall be deemed to have continued on probation unless the terms of appointment or the relevant rules governing the service conditions provide otherwise."
Cases on Live In relationship/Protection pleas
The Court has granted protection to a couple receiving threat from their parents after observing that persons, being major, voluntarily marrying each other should not be harassed by anyone merely because they have objection to such a marriage.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Vivek Rusia observed thus: "If the petitioners are major and entered into the marriage voluntarily, then they should not be harassed by any one, just because they have objection with their marriage."
Cases on Police Atrocity/Brutality/Directions Issues to MP Police
1. MP High Court Raps State Police Dept. For Its Failure To Execute Summons, Warrants Issued Against Police Personnel [Gaurav Yadav Vs. State of M.P.]
The Gwalior Bench rapped the State Police department for its failure to execute bailable warrants/warrants of arrest issued against its own police personnel.
The Court was dealing with the bail application filed by one Gaurav Yadav, charged for robbery (Section 392 IPC) who has been behind the bars for more than four years as the trial in the matter couldn't come to an end due to the non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses, including two policemen.
PIL/SUO MOTO/Other Public related matters
1. MP High Court Dismisses Law Student's PIL Seeking Framing Of Rules Regarding Working Conditions, Stipend For Law Interns[Siddharth Shrivastava Vs. Bar Council of India and another]
The High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by a Law Student seeking a direction to the Bar Council of India to frame rules regarding working hours, other conditions, and payment of stipends to the Law Interns.
Observing that the Writ Petition is miserably misdirected in the context of reliefs sought for, the Bench of Justice Rohit Arya and Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal noted that If a law student is expected to do an internship, he can not be a liability either that of a Bar Council of India.
2. "Unbecoming Of Elected Representative": MP High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Councillor Booked For Destroying Public Properties [Atamdas Vs. State of M.P]
The High Court denied bail to a sitting Councillor, Atamdas who has been booked for an offence that took place in the year 2018 wherein he, alongwith other co-accused, had led an unruly mob of 700- 800 persons who were protesting against the ratio of a decision of Apex Court.
Allegedly, they were protesting against the Top Court's ruling in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) 6 SCC 454 under the impression that the decision was against the interest of the SC/ST community.
3. Samrat Mihir Bhoj 'Caste' Row- "Should A National Hero's Statue Installed With Public Funds Contain Caste In Its Description?": MP HC Asks Committee To Examine [Rahul Sahu v. State of M.P. & Ors]
The High Court has directed an enquiry committee to examine whether the Statute of a National Hero installed over a public place (through Public Funds) can be referred with caste attached to its description.
The Court ordered thus while dealing with a matter pertaining to the dispute that erupted between two communities (Gurjars and Kshatriyas) over the title/nomenclature to be inscribed over the statue of Samrat Mihir Bhoj (installed in Gwalior City).
4. Only The Election Commission Of India Is Competent To Decide When To Conduct Bye-Elections: Madhya Pradesh High Court [Nagrik Upbhokta Margdarshak Manch v. State of Madhya Pradesh]
While dismissing a plea seeking deferring of bye-elections to the Khandwa parliamentary constituency and Prathvipur, Jobat, and Rajgarh assembly constituencies, the Court held that only the Election Commission of India is competent to decide when to conduct bye-elections.
The Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla was hearing a plea moved by the Nagrik Upbhokta Margdarshak Manch seeking deferment of bye-polls amid the possibility of a third wave of COVID-19.
5. 'Rule of Law' Cannot Be At Mercy Of Archaic Method Of Investigation: MP HC Expresses Concern Over Govt's Myopic Approach In Establishing Of Forensic Sciences University [Bharat Jatav v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr]
The Gwalior Bench of the Court has expressed its discontentment over the myopic approach of the state government in establishing a Forensic Sciences University.
"....approach of Authorities in M.P. regarding the establishment of Forensic Sciences University is still myopic and the reason appears to be their approach to equate the Forensic Sciences subjects with DNA or FSL report only whereas Forensic Sciences subjects go much beyond."
Cases on the protection of vulnerable
1. Complainant's Caste Is Of Paramount Importance & Is 'Sine Qua Non' In A Case Under SC/ST Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court [Alkesh and others v. State of M.P]
The Court observed that in a case under SC/ST Act, the caste of the complainant is of paramount importance and is a sine qua non and that it can't be assumed that the complainant would forget to mention in the FIR that the assailants had made aspersions against his caste.
Holding thus, the Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar quashed charge under Section 3(2)(5A) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against a man who has been accused of making aspersions on the caste of the complainant party.
2. Provide Assistance To Transgenders In Preparing ID, Ration & Aadhar Cards: MP High Court Directs MP State Legal Service Authority [Noori v. State Of Madhya Pradesh and others]
The High Court directed the M.P. State Legal Service Authority to provide assistance to transgender across the State to help them in getting their Identity Cards/Transgender Cards, 'Ration' Cards, and 'Aadhar' Cards prepared.
The Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla was hearing a PIL Petitioner by a Transgender espousing the cause for the welfare of the people of the Transgender Community.
Directions to State/Reply sought
1. Patwari Strike: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs State Patwaris To Resume Duties, Govt Asked To Discuss Their Demands [Manoj Kushwaha & Others vs State of MP And Others]
While directing the state government to negotiate with the Madhya Pradesh Patwari Sangh and to consider and discuss with them, their demands, the Court directed approximately fifteen thousand Patwaris to call off their ongoing strike and to forthwith resume duties.
Without going into the details of the demands of the Partwaris, the Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Pranay Verma directed the Chief Secretary of the State to call the representatives of Madhya Pradesh Patwari Sangh and hold discussions on their demands and take decision within the next two months.
2. Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses To Vacate Stay On Raising OBC Reservation To 27% [Ashita Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.]
The High Court has refused to vacate a stay order on an ordinance seeking to increase the reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from 14 per cent to 27 per cent in the State. The state government had moved the Court seeking to vacate the stay which affects the admission to post graduate medical courses.
On hearing both the parties, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice V K Shukla posted the matter opposing the Ordinance to September 20 for final hearing.
3. Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs State & Municipal Corporation To File Compliance Report on Road Safety Policy, 2015 [Abhishek Singh Parmar v. Gwalior Municipal Corporation Thr. & Ors.]
The Gwalior Bench has ordered the State and Gwalior Municipal Corporation [GMC] to submit a compliance report to the Madhya Pradesh State Road Safety Policy, 2015.
A Division Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Deepak Kumar Agarwal was hearing a petition alleging failure to maintaining and levelling the roads with a lack of adequately lighting of the public streets in important locations of Gwalior, leading to severe road safety concerns.
4. State's Total Dependence On Outsourcing Mode Even For Discharge Of Sovereign Functions Not A Healthy Practice: MP High Court [Lalit Mohan Sharm v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others]
The High Court recently observed that the State's total dependence upon the mode of outsourcing even for discharge of sovereign functions which is not a healthy practice. "It is unfortunate to know that the work of building basic infrastructure of e.g. roads is being outsourced by the State," the Court noted.
The Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal observed thus while hearing a PIL relating to the dilapidated condition of a State Highway (from Tentra to Vijaypur to Dhobani road within District Sheopur) having link about 47 K.M.
Civil Cases
1. 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.
The Gwalior Bench ruled that for the purpose of the exercise of the power under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (to stay a second suit), an application is not required to be filed before the Court and the Court can, on its own, stay the second suit.
The Bench of Justice Rajendra Kumar (Verma) further observed that a court has inherent power to consolidate suits between the same parties in which the matter in issue in both the suits is substantially the same.
