Punjab And Haryana High Court Annual Digest 2021 [Compendium Of 108 Orders/Judgments]

1.WhatsApp Message Has No Evidentiary Value Without Certificate Under Section 65B(4) Evidence Act : Punjab & Haryana High Court [Rakesh Kumar Singla v. Union Of India]

A single bench of Justice Jaishree Thakur, while deciding a bail application in a case under the NDPS Act, observed that WhatsApp messages will have no evidentiary value unless they are certified as per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

To oppose the bail application, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) had relied on certain alleged WhatsApp chats of the accused. The NCB submitted that screenshots of WhatsApp messages connected the petitioner with the contraband. However, the Court asked if such messages are accompanied with Section 65B certificate.

On getting a negative reply, the bench observed: "The recent judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. KailashKushanrao Gorantyal and others (2020) 7 SCC 1 has held that a certificate Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is required when reliance is being placed upon electronic record. Therefore, the said message would be of no evidentiary value as on date".

2.Widow Convicted In A Murder Case Eligible For Family Pension Since The Case Doesn't Relate To Husband's Death: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Baljinder Kaur v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

A Bench of Justice GS Sandhawalia ruled that family pension to a Widow cannot be denied on account of her conviction (for the offence of murder), which is unrelated to the death of her husband.

It said, "It is not disputed that the petitioner-widow has committed the offence of murder and is on bail and her sentence has been suspended and, therefore, she requires to maintain herself and cannot be denied the financial assistance and it is not a bounty, as such, and is her right on account of the services rendered by her husband to the Government."

The Authorities in this case cited her conduct to deny pensionary benefits to her. It was stated that she had been convicted by the Court and, therefore, pecuniary benefits could not be extended to her on both accounts monthly financial assistance and the liability of family pension.

3.While Declining Bail To Juvenile Take Into Account Social Investigation Report & Not Merely Police Report: P&H High Court Directs JJ Boards [X v. State of Punjab]

A Bench of Justice Jaishree Thakur directed the Juvenile Justice Boards across the States of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory, Chandigarh decision to grant/ decline bail to a juvenile shall be founded on the basis of Social Investigation Report submitted by the Probation Officer and any other material available before the Board and not merely on the basis of records of the case and report filed under Section 173 CrPC of the investigation officer.

It may be noted that as per Section 13 (1) (ii) of the JJ Act, 2015, the Probation Officer has to be informed as soon as the child is apprehended and to prepare a social investigation report.

The JJ Board calls for a Social Investigation Report, which has been defined in Rule 2 (xvii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016. This report becomes vital for the inquiry to be done by the Board while passing such orders in relation to such child as it deems fit under sections 17and 18 of this Act.

4.Parallel Inquiry During Investigation/After Submission Of Final Report: P&H High Court Quashes Govt's Direction [Pankaj Kumar @ Panki v. State of Punjab & Anr.]

While declining the bail pleas of two accused in separate cases, a Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj ruled that holding of simultaneous inquiry, either during investigation or post submission of final report under Section 173 (2) Cr. P.C is incomprehensible under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It directed the police department of Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh not to hold a simultaneous inquiry in criminal matters and further quashed the instructions of the Director Bureau of Investigation of Punjab issued in 2017.

5. U-Turn By Prosecutrix Before Court Not Enough To Grant Bail To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Subhash Chander v. State of Haryana]

While hearing the bail plea of a rape accused, a Single Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that "U-turn" by the prosecutrix before the trial Court is not a ground to grant relief. It observed that merely because the prosecutrix has not supported the allegations in deposition before the Court, it is not enough to grant bail. The Bench further observed that it will be for the Police authorities to investigate the change in stance of the prosecutrix.

6.Social Investigation Report Must Be Considered While Deciding Juvenile's Bail Plea: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Vishnu v. State of Haryana]

A Single Bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal reiterated that the bail application of a Juvenile under Section 12 of the JJ Act must be decided after taking into account the Social Investigation Report of the child in question. "A coordinate Bench of this Court in Vishvas's case (supra) has held that application under Section 12 of the Act cannot be decided without taking into consideration of the Social Investigation Report of a juvenile," the Court observed.

In the said case, a Bench of Justice Jaishree Thakur had directed that the decision for grant or rejection of bail shall be founded on the basis of Social Investigation Report submitted by the Probation Officer and any other material available before the Board and not merely on the basis of records of the case and report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. of the investigation officer.

7. Anticipatory Bail Plea Of Juvenile U/S 438 CrPC Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The High Court has held that an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of CrPC by a juvenile is not maintainable; that bail is granted to a juvenile in a bailable or non-bailable offence, notwithstanding anything contained in CrPC.

"The provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. are enumerated for granting the bail to the person who has apprehension of the arrest. A reading of Section 438 Cr.P.C.'s provisions vis-a-vis relevant provisions of the Act would show that a juvenile cannot be arrested, and thus, there is no question of apprehension of his arrest. Hence, the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in case of a juvenile", Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj observed.

8. UAPA- Beyond Merely Asserting That Accused Are Involved In Terrorist Activities, No Materials To Connect Him: P&H High Court Grants Bail

The Court granted bail to an accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act while noting that though allegations against him are series, however, the same are not established in the charge sheet.

Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu opined: "Beyond merely asserting that the petitioner and the other accused are involved in terrorist activities, the State has not pointed out any material collected during the investigation which would connect the petitioner with the accusations and to indicate that the allegations against the petitioner regarding the offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, are prima facie true."

9.'Peculiar and Unusual': Punjab and Haryana High Court Seeks Explanation For Petitioner Being Unaware About Grant Of Bail By Magistrate

The Court expressed shock while adjudicating upon a case wherein a Sessions Court had rejected the bail plea moved by the petitioner who was unaware that he had already been granted bail by the concerned Magistrate. The petitioner had sought regular bail before the Sessions Judge. However, when the Sessions Court declined to grant him bail, the instant petition was filed before the High Court. Consequently, the petitioner sought liberty to withdraw the bail plea filed before the High Court on the ground that he had no knowledge that he had already been granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

10.Statement Under Section 67 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Used As A Confessional Statement, Reiterates Punjab & Haryana HC (Dalijit Singh v. State of Haryana)

The Court held that a statement under Section 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offense under the Act.

However, a bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh relied on the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2013), where it was held that the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of NDPS Act are the police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Thereby, under Section 25 of the Evidence Act thus, any confessional statement made before the police officer would be hit by the said provision.

11. Can Impose Condition Of Restitution Of Benefit/Property By Accused To Victim While Granting Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Priya Sharma v. Union Territory of Chandigarh]

In an important ruling, the High Court has held that at the time of granting bail to the accused, the Court can impose the condition of restitution of benefit/property by the accused to the victim.

The Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi clarified that imposition of any such condition (while granting bail) for such restitution of the benefit/property by the accused to the victim cannot be said to fall in the category of 'impermissible onerous condition'.

12."Name Mentioned In Suicide Note Must Be Probed With All The Seriousness": Punjab & Haryana High Court [Sudha @ Babli v. State of Haryana]

The Court has recently observed that if the person dying by suicide names some other person being responsible to force him/her to take the extreme step, his/her such statement is required to be taken up with all the seriousness.

The Bench of Justice H. S. Madaan further observed: "Why should a person leaving this mortal world by ending his life himself would blame an innocent person holding him responsible for his death, is difficult to understand."

Also Read: "Can't Rule Out Possibility Of Forced Marriage": P&H High Court Directs Inquiry Into Marriage Of 19 Yr Old Girl With 67 Yr Old Man

13. International Drug Racket- "Serious Allegations Of Attempt To Revive Terrorism In Punjab": P&H High Court Refuses To Quash NIA Case [Jasmeet Singh Hakimzada v. NIA]

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently refused to quash an NIA Case against Jasmeet Singh Hakimzada, who is allegedly a Dubai-based international drug smuggler, by taking into account the allegations against him of reviving terrorism in the state of Punjab and his alleged involvement in the smuggling of heroin and psychotropic substances around the world. The Bench of Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Justice Vivek Puri also noted that during investigation it had emerged that he is indulged in narco terror network to strengthen the terrorist activities of Khalistan Liberation Force through drug smugglers/militant elements and Hawala operatives.

Fundamental/Human Rights/Constitutional Importance related cases

1. P&H High Court Allows Transfer Of Refugee Boy From Amritsar To Nuh Camp To Enable Him To Stay With His Mother [Julaha @ Julaha Yusuf v. Union of India & Ors.]

Acting on a habeas petition filed by a refugee-mother, the Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill directed that her son be transferred from Amritsar to Rohingya Refugee Camp in Nuh tehsil of Mewat district so that the mother-son duo could be kept at one place till they are deported back.

The petitioner's son was detained in Amritsar as he is alleged to have entered into India without any proper documents and without any passport and is stated to have been later registered as a refugee.

The main contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner was that even if both the petitioner and petitioner's son are to be detained, they be kept at one place being mother and son till they are deported back.

2. Punjab & Haryana High Court Stays Deportation Of Indian Origin Person To Kenya [Jugraj Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.]

In a petition raising an important question with regard to Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 which envisages an opportunity to be heard before taking any decision, a division bench consisting of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh, while issuing notice of motion to the parties, issued stay orders on the deportation of the petitioner to Kenya till next date of hearing.

In view of the grant of Kenyan citizenship to petitioner, his Indian citizenship automatically terminated.

3. Gau Raksha Dal Raiding Citizens' House Contrary To Rule Of Law, Amounts To Taking Law Into Own Hands: Punjab And Haryana High Court [Mubbi alias Mubin v. State of Haryana]

A Single Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal directed the Haryana State's Additional Advocate General to address the Court on the power/authority of vigilantes to raid the houses of the citizens. It also observed that, "Such actions are prima facie illegal and amount to taking law into their own hands by private individuals. This is contrary to the Rule of Law"

The allegations in the FIR are that the local Gau Raksha Dal led by its District President raided the house of the petitioner, one Mubbi Alias Mubin (Petitioner seeking anticipatory bail), and allegedly found a bull, a cow, and a calf tethered there.

Further, it has been alleged that the petitioner ran away from the spot and could not be apprehended and on return, the aforementioned persons discovered instruments of slaughter in the house.

4. Undue Delay In Investigation Infringes Right To Fair & Expeditious Trial Under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Observes In MP/MLA Criminal Case [Court On Its Own Motion v. State Of Punjab & Ors.]

"Undue delay in concluding an investigation is infringement to right to fair and expeditious investigation and trial which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution," a Division Bench of Justices Rajan Gupta and Karamjit Singh observed.

The remarks were made in the suo moto case for expeditious disposal of criminal cases against legislators in terms of directions passed by the Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr.

The Bench has asked various Central and State agencies that are investigating these cases to apprise the Court on the next date of hearing of inordinate delay, if any, in culmination of investigation(s) pending before them.

5. Confining Prisoners In Separate Cells For 22 Hours A Day Constitutes Quasi-Solitary Confinement, Violates Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Rajia v. State of Punjab & Ors]

A bench of Justice Sudhir Mitta held that confining an inmate in a cell for 22 hours a day amounts to quasi-solitary confinement and is violative of his fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

"Except for one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening, the inmate is all by himself with his solitude and there is no limit on the period for which he will be so confined. Such confinement is not strictly solitary confinement but can be called quasi-solitary because the inmate is deprived of human company for extended lengths of time and such confinement has been held to be extremely harsh and violative of basic human rights which remain the entitlement of every prisoner", the Court said.

6.Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Midnight Hearing To Protect Persons Alleged To Be Illegally Detained By Armed Mob

Stressing that the Supreme Court's ruling in Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar, is binding on it, the High Court dismissed a plea challenging the Constitutional Validity Of Sedition Law (Section 124A IPC).

The Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha and Justice Arun Palli further observed that it has no power to go beyond the Kedarnath judgment and examine the validity of the provision which has already been upheld by the Supreme Court.

8. "Freedom Of Speech Foundation Of Strong Democracy": P&H HC Grants Bail To Man Over Alleged Objectionable Speech Against Haryana CM [Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana]

The Court granted bail to a farm leader who allegedly delivered an objectionable speech (during a protest) against the Chief Minister of Haryana, Manohar Lal Khattar.

Granting him bail, the Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan noted thus: "Suffice to say that freedom of speech is a fundamental right and makes a foundation for a strong democracy. At this stage must hasten to add that embargo to freedom of speech is prescribed in Article 19 of the Constitution of India itself."

9. "Freedom Of Expression Is Democracy's Basic Foundation": P&H HC Grants Interim Bail To Gurdas Maan Booked For Hurting Religious Sentiments [Gurdas Maan v. State Of Punjab]

The Court granted interim anticipatory bail to Singer Gurdas Maan in a case registered against him for his comments which hurt the religious sentiments of the Sikh community.

An FIR was registered under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code against Maan by Paramjit Singh Akali, a member of Sikh Youth Power of Punjab alleging that while performing in the Urs of Sai Murad Shah Ji at the premises of Dera Baba Murad Shah Ji Trust, he made certain comments which hurt the religious sentiments of a community. His act was alleged to be against the Sikh Maryada as he recited the hymns of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji at Marri (Mausoleum).

10. UAPA Accused In Custody For Over 2 Yrs On Allegations Of Posting About 'Sikhs for Justice Referendum' On FB: P&H High Court Grants Bail [Deep Kaur @ Kulvir Kaur v. State of Punjab]

The Court granted bail to a UAPA Accused who has been booked for allegedly posting about 'Sikhs for Justice 2020 Referendum' on her Facebook account and who has been in custody for over two years and three months.

The Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal referred to Apex Court's ruling in the case of Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb to observe that long custody would be an essential factor while granting bail under the UAPA.

11. Recording Wife's Telephonic Conversation Sans Her Knowledge A Clear-Cut Infringement Of Her Privacy: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Neha v. Vibhor Garg]

The Court recently observed that recording of the telephonic conversation of the wife without her knowledge is a clear-cut infringement of her privacy.

With this observation, the Bench of Justice Lisa Gill set aside the order of a Family Court allowing the husband to prove the telephonic conversation between him and his wife in a divorce suit (U/S 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) to make out a case of cruelty against his wife.

12.Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Correction In Woman's Date Of Birth By Relying Upon Her Educational Certificate [Jyoti Bajaj v. State of Haryana and others]

In a first, the High Court recently ordered the Haryana government to carry out a correction in the birth certificate of a woman (petitioner before the court) on the basis of her educational certificates issued by CBSE.

This direction by the Bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh came on the plea of one Jyoti Bajaj who had sought directions for the respondents to correct her date of birth in her birth certificate from December 19, 1982, to December 17, 1982, being a clerical mistake.

13. "Allegations Serious": Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail To Man Who Allegedly Chopped Off A Person's Private Parts[Kuldip Kumar @ Sonu v. State of Punjab]

The Court denied bail to a man accused of kidnapping and chopping of the private parts of another man as it noted that the allegations against him are serious in nature.

The Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan was hearing the 2nd bail plea filed by one Kuldip Kumar who has been booked under Sections 344, 364, 307 IPC and Sections 325, 326, 201 IPC.

14.Capturing & Posting Injured Turbanless Man's Image Online Would Amount To Hurting Religious Sentiments: P&H High Court [Gurpreet Singh and Others v. State of Punjab]

Stressing that turban is an essential religious symbol, the High Court has recently observed that photographing an elderly person in an injured condition without the turban and uploading it for public viewing on a social platform would prima facie amount to hurting the religious feelings.

This assertion came from the bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal while dealing with the anticipatory bail plea of Gurpreet Singh and others who allegedly took off the turban of a 65 year old elderly and repeatedly beat him up.

Farmers' Rights/Farm Protest relates cases

1.Farmers' Protest- Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice To Centre, Haryana Govt. On Plea Challenging Suspension Of Internet [Sandeep Singh & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.]

A Bench of Justice Fatehdeep Singh issued notice to the Centre and the Haryana government on a plea seeking immediate restoration of Internet services in the State of Haryana.

The Petitioners assailed the "arbitrary act of the state of Haryana and Union of India", on imposing suspension and shutdown of mobile Internet services across the 17 District of Haryana, without any prior notice. It was also alleged that the act of the respondent is against the Fundamental rights safeguarded by Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. If A Middle Man Usurps Crops Price Of Hard Working Farmer & He Is Allowed To Go Scot-Free, It Would Amount To Great Injustice: P&H High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court last week denied pre-arrest bail to Darshna Rani and Vijay Kumar (husband and wife) who are accused of misappropriating the money payable to the complainants (farmers), which they had received from the Government as sale price of crops sold by the complainants through commission agency of the accused.

The Bench of Justice H. S. Madaan, while denying the benefit of pre-arrest bail, observed,

"There is no plausible and satisfactory explanation coming forward from the side of petitioners as to why they have not made payment to the complainants after receiving the price of crops sold by them to the Government through commission agency of the accused."

3. Govt. Servant Terminated On 'Vague Allegation/Suspicion' Of Joining Farmers Protest: P&H High Court Issues Notice To Haryana State [Rajuddin v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga issued notice to the Haryana Government for allegedly terminating the service of a Government Servant, Rajuddin on a vague allegation/suspicion of the petitioner having participated in the strike call given by farmers at Tikri Border, Delhi.

It also directed that till the next date of hearing, the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor (STS) (help by the petitioner) at Community Health Centre, Nuh shall be kept vacant.

Rajuddin, contended before the Court that he was appointed on the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor (STS) under National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) by Civil Surgeon-cum-Chairman, Executive Committee, District Health and Family Welfare, Mewat. Further, it was stated that he had been serving uninterruptedly since 2014.

However, merely on a vague allegation/suspicion of the petitioner having participated in the strike call given by farmers at Tikri Border, Delhi on 05.12.2020, he added, his services were summarily terminated vide impugned order dated 25.02.2021 without holding any inquiry and/or giving any show-cause-notice and/or opportunity of being heard in person.

4.Karnal Lathi Charge- "Wrong To Say That Police Attacked Protestors On SDM Ayush Sinha's Directions": Haryana Govt Submits In P&H High Court

Submitting its reply on a plea filed in connection with the clash between farmers and police in Karnal, Haryana, the Haryana government stated in the High Court that it was wrong to say that the police officials attacked protestors under the directions of Ayush Sinha SDM.

The reply further states that SDM Ayush Sinha was 13 km away from the spot and that the protesters continued to take law and order into their hands even after assuring them of peaceful protest.

Cases related to Judiciary/Courts

1.Findings Of Higher/Coordinate Bench While Rejecting A Plea Must Be Seriously Considered By Court Hearing Similar Plea: P&H High Court [Vijay Lata v. Rajiv Arora]

Underling the fact that though the principles of res judicata and such analogous principles are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, the Bench of Justice Alka Sarin observed that the Courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our country. It further observed,

"The findings of a higher Court or a Coordinate Bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the Court entertaining a similar petition at a later stage when the same had been rejected earlier."

2.Courts Expected To Assume Role Of A Parent Where A Litigant Is Unable To Prosecute Or Defend His Own Case Properly: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Sarjeet Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal held that Presiding Judges of the Courts are expected to assume the role of a parent in order to protect the interest of the persons, who are legally or otherwise unable to act or defend on their own behalf in the litigation.

It observed that whenever a Court notices a party to the litigation is unable to properly prosecute or defend his own case because of legal disability or poverty or illiteracy, such Court is expected to assume the role of a parent to do complete justice.

3. NDPS Case- "How Did Sessions Judge Decide Bail Plea When Similar Plea Pending In HC?": Punjab & Haryana High Court Seeks Reply

The Court sought an explanation from the sessions judge of Sirsa, Haryana as to how did he entertain and decide the petition for regular bail of an Accused booked under the NDPS act, when a similar petition was pending before the High Court.

The bench of Justice H. S. Madaan has also sought the Judge's reply on whether the pendency of the petition before this Court was brought to his notice by the Public Prosecutor representing the State or by the concerned police officer.

Also Read: Instruct Judicial Officers Over The Manner Of Reflecting Facts Of FIR In Bail Order: P&H High Court To Judicial Academy

4. Punjab And Haryana High Court Orders Inquiry Into Tweets Against Court, Judge [Vishali Kapoor And Ors Vs State Of Punjab And Another]

The High Court this week ordered an inquiry into a series of tweets allegedly made against the court. The Bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh has set a three-week deadline for its Registrar-Vigilance to enquire into the tweets enquired.

5. "Bail Granted For Extraneous Considerations, Deserves Disciplinary Action": P&H HC Raps Judicial Officer For 'Grave Misconduct' [Ajay Kumar alias Kala v. State of Haryana]

The High Court admonished a judicial officer for his "grave misconduct" as it noted that he had granted bail to an NDPS Accused on account of extraneous considerations and that the bail order was passed by deliberately ignoring the material on record

Opining that the disciplinary action against the Presiding Officer deserved to be initiated, the Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj, cancelling the bail of the accused, forwarded the copy of the order to the Chief Justice for further orders on the administrative side.

6. Look Into The Backlog Of Court Cases In All The Districts: Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Registrar General Of HC [Ram Dev v. State of Punjab and others]

Observing that pendency before an Amritsar Court is phenomenally on the higher side, the Punjab and Haryana High Court last week directed the Registrar General of the High Court to look into the matter as to whether the pendency is only in the Court concerned or is it the case in every District of the state. The bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill was hearing a plea seeking directions to the court of additional sessions judge in Amritsar district to dispose of the trial in a case registered under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC within a fixed timeframe.

7. Courts Have To Be Circumspect While Allowing Foreign Travel During Pendency Of Criminal Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Daljit Singh Pandher V. State Of Punjab & Ors.]

The High Court last week observed that Courts have to be 'even more circumspect' while granting permission to a person to travel abroad during the pendency of a criminal case against him/her.

The Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, however, did underscore that the right of a person to travel admittedly cannot be curtailed. "However, if the person is seeking to travel that too outside India, during the pendency of a criminal case against him, the Court shall have to be even more circumspect while granting any such permission," the Court further added.

Also Read: Punjab & Haryana High Court Makes Verification Of Identity/Address Proof Mandatory Before Filing Of Pleas

Cases on Women/Child Rights

1.'Restricts Women From Contesting From General Wards": Punjab & Haryana HC Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Haryana Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Act [Kailash Bai & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha issued notice on a writ petition challenging the vires of the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Act, 2020, which provides 50% reservation of seats for women in local body elections.

The Petitioners have averred that the impugned Act restricts women from contesting election from general ward, thereby restricting the participation of women by 50%. Interestingly, it is pointed out that in effect, the amendment seeks to provide reservation to men in odd numbered wards, by using the qualification "persons other than woman".

2.Prohibition Of Child Marriage Law Does Not Differentiate On Basis Of Religion: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Jaspreet Kaur & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh observed that even though Muslim Personal law permits marriage upon attaining the age of puberty, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 is a secular law and does not make any such distinction on the basis of religion. The law prescribes 18 years as the minimum marriageable age for a female and 21 years for a male.

While allowing the protection petition of an inter-faith runway couple, the Court observed that if upon verification of the age certificates furnished by the parties, the age of the girl is found to be below 18 years of age, then action may be taken under the Child Marriage Act.

3.Rape Charges Against Cop- "Protector Of Law Turned Into Predator, Widow Made Victim Of Lust": P&H High Court Orders All-Women SIT

A Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga ordered the DCP of Punjab Police to form a three-member all-women SIT (Special Investigation Team) to probe into the rape allegations leveled by a 38-year-old woman against a policeman of the CIA (Crime Investigation Agency) Bathinda.

It dissolved an already constituted SIT noting that it had no lady police official and formed a new three-member all-women SIT while observing: "It is rather intriguing, given the nature of the sensitive investigation, that no lady police official has been involved, which is even otherwise the requirement of law in cases of this kind. To say the least, it is highly deplorable to see the insensitiveness with which the district police officials have acted, in constituting the SIT having all male members."

4. "16-Yr-Old Muslim Girl's Second Marriage Void, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act Applicable": P&H HC Directs To Lodge Her In Nari Niketan [Sahib & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

Hearing a protection plea filed by a runaway married couple, a Single Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal observed that: "(Since the girl is a minor and so) the prohibition contained in Section 12 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 would be attracted as also the fact that a second marriage of a Muslim girl is void."

The Court observed that Petitioner No.2 (Muslim Girl) was stated to be 16 years of age and thus, she is a minor. "It is also noticed that this marriage (if it can be called so) is her second marriage," added the Court.

Significantly, when the Counsel for the Couple tried to rely on the P&H HC's Judgment in Mohd. Samim vs. State of Haryana- where it was held that under Muslim law puberty and majority are one and the same- the Court specifically stated that it was not in agreement with that case.

5. Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Protection To Muslim Woman Who Converted To Hinduism To Marry Hindu Man

The Court directed the senior superintendent of police, Sangrur to provide protection to a Muslim woman (and her husband) who converted to Hinduism to marry a Hindu man. The bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill was hearing the plea filed by one Rajina @ Jyoti and her husband Jaspal Sharma.

Fearing threat at the hands of private respondents, as the couple got married the wishes of their families, they had moved the court seeking issuance of a direction to official respondents to protect their lives and liberty.

6.Marriage Involving 20 Yr Old Boy- "Examine Matter, Priest's Role & Check Prohibition of Child Marriage Act's Violation": P&H HC Directs CP [Neha and another v. State of Punjab and others]

The Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Panchkula to examine the matter which involved a marriage of a 20-year-old boy, who had, along with her alleged wife (19-year-old), filed a protection plea.

The Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill noted that though the girl is of marriageable age being 19 years, the boy, who is aged 20 years, cannot be said to be of marriageable age being less than 21 years.

Custody/Family/Matrimonial Cases

1.Deemed Custody Of Minor Below 5 Yrs Would Be With Mother Even Though He/She Isn't Residing With Mother: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Akshay Gupta v. Divya & Ors.]

A Bench of Justice Arun Monga made it clear that even if a minor, who is under five years of age may not be residing with mother, but his/her custody would be deemed to be at the place where the mother is residing and the matter could be heard there. The observation was made in a case of parents litigating over the custody of their minor daughter "Kyna", currently aged 6 years.

The Court interpreted section 6 (a) Hindu Minorities and Guardians Act, 1956 to mean and intend that even though a minor below five years may not be in physical custody/residing with mother, but her/ his custody would be deemed to be at a place where the mother is residing.

It specifically said that at the time of instituting proceedings before the family court, the mother was the deemed natural guardian of the minor child and therefore, the natural custody would also be presumed to be with mother, regardless of the place where the child was actually residing physically at the that time.

2. 'Panchayati Divorce' Has No Legal Sanctity, Such Customs Ceased To Exist After Formulation Of Hindu Marriage Act: P&H High Court [Nishan Singh and another v. State of Punjab & Ors.]

While noting that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is a complete Code and provides for the conditions of marriage as well as the procedure for divorce, a Bench of Justice Alka Sarin clarified that a 'Panchayati' divorce has no recognition in the eyes of law. It observed that in view of Section 4 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 all customs like 'Panchayati' divorce and related usages ceased to have effect.

3. No Inherent Right Vested In Husband Or His Relatives To Claim Custody Of Minor Girl By Filing Habeas Corpus Plea: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Ranjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.]

Underlining the principle of paramount welfare of child, a Single Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri held that a minor girl who marries with her consent and refuses to stay with her parents, can be sent to child protection home. It said that there is no inherent right vested in the husband or his relatives to claim custody of the minor girl by filing writ of habeas corpus.

"Keeping a minor girl child in such like circumstances either by an order of judicial Court or by the Child Welfare Committee by following proper procedure cannot be held to be an illegal detention," it said. It further held that the plea taken by the in-laws of such minor girl that the marriage was performed with the girl's consent would pale into insignificance in view of the fact that child marriage itself is an offence.

4. "Perversity Requiring Correction": P&H HC Sets Aside Trial Court's Order Denying Children Custody To Mother Relying On Infidelity Allegations [Megha Sood v. Amit Sood]

A Single Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal set aside a Trial Court's Order by which the custody of the children was denied to the Mother by relying on allegations of infidelity levelled against her. It observed that in view of Section 17 of the Guardian Act as well as Section 13 of the Minority Act, the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration to be kept in mind by the Court while appointing a guardian.

"Children are innocence personified. For their ideal development, it is essential that the period of innocence be cherished and protected. This, however, remains a pipe-dream where parents clash," the Bench remarked. It added, "The learned trial Court was correct in observing so while passing the impugned order but apparently it has still been influenced by the allegations made against the mother which is a perversity requiring correction."

5. Extramarital Affair No Ground To Conclude Woman Wouldn't Be A Good Mother & Deny Her Child Custody: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Mandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.]

Noting that in a patriarchal society, it is common to cast aspersions on the moral character of a woman, a Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal while granting custody over a four-year-old child to her mother, recently observed thus: "Even assuming a woman is or has been in an extramarital relationship, the same by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that she would not be a good mother to deny her the custody of her child."

The Bench was hearing a plea filed by the mother, who had moved the High Court for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus seeking custody of her minor daughter.

Importantly, the Court noted that her husband couldn't substantiate the allegations pertaining to the character of the Woman that she was in an extra-marital relationship with her relative. "Aside of the bald assertion in the petition, no supporting material has been brought before this Court," noted the Court.

6.P&H High Court [DB] Allows Registration Of Marriage Through VC Mode, Sets Aside Single Bench 'Judgment' [Ami Ranjan and another v. State of Haryana & Anr.]

Overruling a Single-Bench Judgment refusing to permit e-registration of marriage, a Division bench comprising of Justices Ritu Bahri and Archana Puri allowed the registration of marriage of a couple through video-conferencing facility.

The Single Judge Bench had held that there is no provision for registration of the marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 without parties appearing in person before the marriage officer.

The Division Bench however observed that under the criminal law, presence of the witness is not necessary before the Court for recording of his evidence. In the same manner, for the purpose of issuing the marriage registration certificate, as held by the High Court of Jharkhand in Upasana Bali and another vs. State of Jharkhand and others, (2013) 1 AIR Jhar R 741, parties to the marriage can appear before the Registering Officer through video conference."

7.'They Resided Together Only For Two Days': P&H HC Condones Mandatory Period Of 1Yr For Filing Divorce Petition; Dissolves Marriage Of 'Young Couple' [Shivani Yadav v. Amit Yadav]

The Court granted a divorce decree to a couple who had stayed together only for two days after they had gotten married.

A Division Bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Archana Puri went on to allow the application filed by the couple under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act wherein they had prayed that mandatory period of one year before filing the petition under Section 13-B of the Act for dissolution of marriage be condoned.

8. Punjab and Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Plea Challenging Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act [X Vs Union of India and Another.]

A division bench of the High Court has issued notice to the Union government in a petition challenging the validity of the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ("HSA").

The bench comprising of Chief Justice R.S. Jha and Justice Arun Palli also issued notice on the prayer of the petitioner to stay Section 15 of the HSA.

9.Writ Of Habeas Corpus Can Be Issued For Restoration of Custody of Minor to the Parent Wrongfully Deprived Of It: Punjab And Haryana High Court [Kiran V. Bhaskar v State of Haryana]

Holding that habeas corpus can be issued for restoration of custody of minor to the parent wrongfully deprived of it, the High Court recently granted relief to a father who had filed a petition alleging illegal custody by his wife and her parents.

The High Court went on to rely on the Supreme Court's observation in Yashita Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan and others wherein it had rejected the contention that a writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable if the child is in the custody of another parent and held that the court can invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for the best interest of the child.

10. Son Cannot Insist On Staying In Father's House Saying He Has Contributed To Renovation : P&H High Court Upholds Eviction Order Under Senior Citizens Act

The High Court recently upheld an eviction order passed against a son and his wife at the instance of the father under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act).

In this case, the father had not transferred the house in question to the son by way of gift or any other deed. The son sought to maintain the claim by saying that he had contributed to the renovation of the ground floor of the house.

Cases on Live In Relationships/Right To Choose Partners/Protection Pleas

1.Parents Or Society Cannot Compel A Major Child To Live A Life On Their Terms: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Mafi & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

A Bench of Justice Alka Sarin reiterated that merely because the boy is not of marriageable age (though major) the right of petitioners to live-together cannot be denied. Further, noting that "Parents cannot compel a child to live a life on their terms and that every adult individual has a right to live his or her life as he or she deems fit", the Court upheld a couple's right to be in a live-in relationship.

2. "Unholy Alliance": P&H High Court Dismisses Protection Plea Of Married Woman Residing With Another Man, Imposes Costs Of 25K [Sono @ Sonu & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.]

A Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj dismissed a protection plea filed by a married woman who decided to live with another man, without dissolution of her marriage. Calling it an "Unholy Alliance", the Bench dismissed the petition with direction to deposit the cost to District Legal Services Authority, Patiala.

Also Read: Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes Cost On Runaway Couple For Manipulation Of Aadhar Card Details

3.Protection Of Runaway/ Inter-Faith Couples : Punjab & Haryana High Court Suggests Steps At Executive Level [Lovepreet Kaur & Anr v. State of Punjab & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan expressed concern over the enormous number of protection petitions being filed before it by runaway and inter-faith couples. While stating that the genuine cases of threat are often overlooked amid a pile of cases that are filed on a daily basis, the Bench suggested several steps to make the executive responsible for offering protection to the lives of such couples, so that burden on Courts is reduced.

4. "Cannot Be Morally Accepted In Society": P&H HC Declines Protection To Couples In "Contractual Live-In-Relationship"Which is Not A "Marital Relationship" [Moyna Khatun & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan registered its disapproval of 'new concept of contractual Live-In-Relation' backed by a deed, wherein parties state that their live-in-relationship is not 'Marital Relationship'. It opined that "especially stating (in the deed) that it is not a 'Marital Relationship' is nothing but the misuse of the process of law as it cannot be morally accepted in society."

The Court was hearing a plea seeking issuance of direction to official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of the private respondents. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Petitioners had executed a deed of Live-In-Relationship dated 04^th March 2021 and certain terms and conditions have been settled in the deed of live-in-relationship by way of mutual consent.

5.Muslim Woman Didn't Convert To Hinduism Before Marrying Hindu Man, Marriage Not Valid But Couple Entitled To Live-In-Relation: P&H High Court [Nasima & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

In a protection plea filed by an interfaith couple, a Single Bench of Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi observed that the marriage between a Muslim woman and a Hindu man won't be valid as the bride didn't convert to Hindu religion before the solemnization of marriage in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. It however ruled that the couple would be entitled to live in live-in-relationship in nature of marriage and also to the protection of their life and liberty.

6. "Entire Social Fabric Of Society Would Get Disturbed": P&H High Court Refuses To Grant Protection To A Live-In Couple [Ujjawal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal refused to grant protection to a live-in couple who allegedly faced threats from the girl's family since their elopement while noting that "if such protection as claimed is granted, the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed."

7.Can Court Grant Protection To Two Persons Living Together Without Examining Their Marital Status?: P&H High Court Refers Matter To Larger Bench [Yash Pal & Anr. v. State Of Haryana & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal referred to a larger bench, the question as to whether the Court is required to grant protection to two persons living together, without examining their marital status and the other circumstances of that case? It also added, If the answer to the above is in the negative, what are the circumstances in which the Court can deny them protection?

The Court referred the matter to a larger bench on the view of the fact that various benches of the Court, of co-ordinate strength, have formed different opinions on the matter concerned, which, according to the court, cannot be easily reconciled.

Also Read: Working Mechanism Proposed For Assessing Threat Perception & Offering Protection To Runaway Couples In 72 Hours: Punjab Govt Tells High Court

8. Social Acceptance For Live-In-Relationships On Rise, No Difference Between Married & Live In Couple Seeking Protection: Punjab & Haryana HC [Pardeep Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal held that an individual has the right to formalize the relationship with the partner through marriage or to adopt the non-formal approach of a live-in relationship. It observed thus in a matter pertaining to a live-in-relationship couple, who are both major and decided to enter into such a relationship as they are sure of their feelings for each other.

This significant observation from the Punjab & Haryana High Court came days after the High Court refused to grant protection to a live-in couple who allegedly faced threats from the girl's family since their elopement while noting that "if such protection as claimed is granted, the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed.'"

Also Read: Live-In Relationships May Not Be Acceptable To All But Living Together Without Marrying Doesn't Constitute An Offence: P&H High Court

9. Couple Claims 'Saptapadi' Performance By Lighting Fire In A Utensil: P&H HC Imposes 25K Cost Noting 'No Valid Marriage' In Protection Plea [Aarti and another v. State of Haryana and others]

The Court imposed Rs. 25K cost on a couple while hearing their plea protection plea, wherein they had claimed that they were married as they had exchanged garlands and had performed "saptapadi" (Saat Phere) by lighting fire in a utensil in a hotel room.

Noting that there was no 'valid marriage' and that the petitioners had tried to mislead the Court, the Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill, however, directed the Commissioner of Police, Panchkula to look into the matter and their representation seeking protection.

10. P&H High Court Grants Protection To Muslim Man In Second Marriage, Directs To Pay 1 Lakh To First Wife [Ishrat Bano and another v. State of Punjab and others]

Dealing with a protection plea filed by a Muslim man seeking protection in his second marriage, a Single Judge imposed Rs. 1 lakh fine on the man to be paid to his wife noting that he had failed to maintain his first wife and minor Daughters.

The single judge dismissed the plea even without adjudicating on the issue of protection to life. However, in an appeal to this order, the Division bench of the High Court did grant him protection by issuing a direction to Malerkotla senior superintendent to take into consideration their representation for protection.

11. Mere Fact That Girl Is Below Marriageable Age Won't Deprive Her Of Right To Life & Liberty: P&H HC Grants Protection To Live-In Couple [Mamta & Anr v. State of Punjab & Ors.]

The Court has held that the mere fact that petitioner-girl is not of marriageable age would not deprive her of the fundamental right as envisaged in the Constitution, being a citizen of India. Directing to grant protection to the minor girl,

Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill observed that it is the bounden duty of the State as per the Constitutional obligations caste upon it to protect the life and liberty of every citizen.

12."Adultery No Offence- P&H HC Disagrees With Allahabad HC's 'Social Fabric' Ruling", Grants Protection To Live-In Couple Involving Married Man [Paramjit Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others]

The High Court held that no offence would be made out if being adults, two people are in a live-in relationship with each other, even though they are already married to someone else.

The Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh observed thus while underscoring that Section 497 of the IPC (providing punishment for adultery) has been declared unconstitutional by the Apex court in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India.

13. "Live-In Partners Living Lustful & Adulterous Life Sans Obtaining Divorce From Their Spouses": P&H HC Dismisses Protection Plea [Kavita and another v. State of Haryana and others]

The Court dismissed a protection plea filed by a live-in couple observing that they both are in living a lustful and adulterous life with each other without obtaining a divorce from their respective spouses.

The Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan was dealing with a plea filed by a live-in couple who submitted that they both are in love with each other for the last so many years and are in a live-in relationship for the last one month.

14. Affidavit On Marital Status Must In Protection Pleas Filed By Couples : P&H High Court [Harwinder Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab & Ors]

The Court has recently directed that the High Court Registry must ensure that before any protection plea is adjudicated upon, affidavits of both the petitioners disclosing their marital status must first be taken on record.

The Court was adjudicating upon a petition moved by a married couple seeking protection of their life on the ground that the couple had got married against the wishes of their parents and thus apprehended threat to their life and liberty.

15. "Entered Into An Unholy Alliance": P&H HC Dismisses Married Woman's Protection Plea Having Live In Relationship With Another Man [Simranjeet Kaur and another v. State of Haryana and others]

The High Court has dismissed a protection plea filed by a woman, married and having a child from the wedlock, living in a live in relationship with another man after observing that she entered into an unholy alliance with him.

The couple had approached the High Court seeking protection of their life and liberty at the hands of woman's husband and family members opposing their live in relationship.

16. 17 Yr Old Muslim Girl Competent To Enter Into A Contract Of Marriage With Person Of Her Choice: P&H High Court [Nargis and another v. State of Punjab and others]

The Court granted protection to a Muslim Girl (17 Year Old) who married a Hindu Man (33 Year Old) while noting that she is of Marriageable Age under Muslim Personal Law.

The Bench of Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill was hearing a protection plea filed by Hindu Husband-Muslim Wife (Petitioners) who solemnized their marriage as per Hindu Law and thereafter, sought the protection of their life and liberty.

17.50-Yr-Old Married Woman In Live-In Relation With 30-Yr-Old Man: P&H High Court Orders Threat Assessment For Couple [Amandeep Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others]

The High Court recently ordered protection to a 50-year-old married woman and her live-in partner, a 30-year-old man noting that every person, more so, a major, has the right to live his / her life with a person of his / her choice at any rate.

Stressing that the protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India, the Bench of Justice Vikas Bahl made the above decision.

18. Person Involved In Live-In Relation Without Obtaining Divorce From Spouse May Face Bigamy Charge: P&H High Court [Harpreet Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others]

The Court recently observed that if a married person is in a live-in-relationship, without obtaining a divorce from his/her spouse, then that may amount to an offence under 494 of the Indian Penal Code (Bigamy).

The Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Verma observed thus while dealing with a plea filed by a woman, along with her partner, who was in a live-in relationship without obtaining a divorce from her husband.

19. Protection Plea: Income, Property, Minor Children Details Made Mandatory By P&H High Court In Case Of Subsisting Marriage Of Petitioner(s) [Saddam and another v. State of Haryana and Others]

In a significant order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made the filing of the declaration (by petitioners filing protection pleas) regarding the status of minor children from the first marriage, if any, details of the moveable, and immoveable property as well as income, as mandatory. Significantly, this declaration has been made mandatory for all protection pleas where the party alleges that they are in a live-in relationship despite subsisting marriage or where it is alleged that the petitioners have performed the second marriage.

Police Brutality/Atrocity related cases

1. Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Inquiry Into Allegations Of Illegal Detention & Custodial Torture Of Labour Activist Shiv Kumar [Rajbir v. State Of Haryana & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan directed the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad to hold an inquiry with regard to the allegations of Illegal Detention and Custodial Torture of Shiv Kumar. "Part-III of Constitution of India, deals with Fundamental Rights. Article 21 guarantees protection to life and personal liberty. Life and liberty of no person can be deprived except as per the procedure established by law. In a democratic set up, there cannot be even a thought for compromising the life and liberty of the citizen," the Court observed.

The Court was hearing a plea, which was filed by the father of the Labour Activist Shiv Kumar under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to transfer the investigation of cases in three different FIRs registered under various serious sections of the Indian Penal Code against Kumar, to an independent agency.

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. Why Shouldn't Interrogation Of Accused In Appropriate Cases Be Videographed?: P&H High Court Asks Punjab, Haryana DGPs [Kaushal vs State of Haryana and others]

The High Court asked the Director-General of Police (DGPs) of Punjab and Haryana State as to why the court should, not in appropriate cases, direct that interrogation of the accused be conducted under videography so as to eradicate the chances of the accused being tortured by the police.

Cases related to Lawyers/Bar

1."A Day Dreamer's Fantasy": Punjab And Haryana High Court Dismisses Lawyer's Plea Seeking Action Against Prince Harry For Breach Of Promise To Marry Her [Palwinder Kaur v. Prince Harry Middleton & Ors.]

A Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan dismissed a petition filed by a Lawyer seeking action against Prince Harry of the British royal family for allegedly breaking a promise for marriage. The petitioner also prayed that arrest warrants be issued against him so that no further delay occur in their marriage.

On a Court query from the Court, whether the petitioner has ever travelled to United Kingdom, reply was in negative and the petitioner only stated that she had conversation through social media, where she has even sent messages to Prince Charles that his son Prince Harry is engaged with her.

2. 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.

3. DRAT Requests Punjab & Haryana HC To Initiate Contempt Action Against Lawyer Who Filed Multiple 'Contemptuous Complaints' Against Presiding Officers [Mr. Harinder Pal Singh, Advocate v. Ld. DRT-I, Chandigarh]

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has directed its Registrar to request the Court, to take appropriate action under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against Advocate Harinder Pal Singh with regard to the "contemptuous" allegations made by him against the Presiding Officers of DRTs.

Advocate Singh had filed a complaint dated May 11, 2021 addressing the President of India, Prime Minister of India, Minister of Finance etc. against the Presiding Officer of DRTs 1 and 2, who was the Presiding Officer of DRT at Jaipur and had an additional charge of these two DRTs at Chandigarh, and one of the staff members posted in DRT–I, Chandigarh.

COVID Related Cases

1. [Covid-19] Wearing Mask Casually Leaving Mouth/Nose Exposed To Be Treated On Same Footing As Not Wearing Mask, Liable To Same Punitive Action: Punjab & Haryana HC [Rishi v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

While disposing of the petition highlighting the grim situation of covid 19 pandemic, a division bench comprising of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh ordered that the States of Punjab, Haryana and UT of Chandigarh shall depute officials of the municipal bodies or health authorities for ensuring that mask etiquettes are followed by the general public and that the States shall promptly redress grievances on the designated helpline numbers.

It went ahead to order that the persons wearing their masks casually leaving their mouth or nose exposed will be treated on "equal footing as those not wearing the mask at all."

Also Read: Punjab & Haryana HC Seeks Response Of Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh In Plea Seeking Implementation Of Covid Guidelines, Oxygen Supply, Availability Of Beds

Also Read: Punjab and Haryana High Court Directs DLSA Secretaries To Be Part Of Nodal Agencies For Speedy Action On COVID Related Grievances

2. "Situation Is Indeed Grave; Initiate Action Against Hoarders": P&H High Court Revives Plea Concerning Covid Facilities In Punjab, Haryana & UT Chandigarh [Rishi v. State of Haryana]

Reviving the disposed of petition concerning COVID-related facilities in States of Punjab, Haryana and UT of Chandigarh, a Bench of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh observed that the situation was "indeed grave".

It was hearing amicus curiae Senior Advocate Rupinder Singh Khosla's application filed before High Court seeking revival of the said petition highlighting the critical situation of covid patients and shortage of oxygen supply faced by Hospitals.

It was contended that a grave situation had arisen in all the three states in view of the non-availability of essential drugs such as Remdesivir and Tocilizumab. Oxygen, ICU Beds, ventilators, and oxygen concentrators are in short supply due to which a number of deaths are being reported.

Also Read: COVID Surge: Punjab & Haryana High Court Extends The Life Of Interim Orders, Directions Till June 30

Also Read: "Social Media Doing A 'Great Job' In Reaching Out To Citizens Who Need Urgent Help": P&H High Court Observes A Section Of Media Airs Sensational News

3. Oxygen Shortage : Ensure Allocated Quantity Reaches States Before Already Allotted Quota Is Exhausted, P&H High Court Directs Centre [Rishi v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

Taking note of the present situation of oxygen deficit in the States of Haryana, Punjab and UT of Chandigarh, a division bench comprising of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh directed the Government of India to consider reorientation of oxygen supply from various plants in a manner that the allocated quantity reaches States before the already allocated quota is exhausted.

"People in trauma cannot be made to run here and there in hospitals to get oxygen cylinders. The Governments need to be over sensitive and in a overdrive to reach out to patients in need of medical care and assistance. It is for this reason, we feel that a common strategy needs to be drawn up particularly as regards availability of oxygen," the order stated.

Also Read: COVID-"Consider Home Delivery Of Oxygen Cylinders By Municipal Authorities, Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Guidelines

4. P&H High Court Reviews COVID Situation In Haryana, Punjab & Chandigarh UT [Rishi v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

A division bench comprising of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh asked the States of Punjab, Haryana and UT of Chandigarh alongwith representative of Central Govt. regarding various issues arising due to Covid 19 pandemic.

Beside other things relevant health issues like shortage of ventilators in Govt Hospital Chandigarh, wastage of vials of vaccine, over-burdened ambulance facilities shortage of medical staff, allocation of oxygen were also taken up by the Court.

Also Read: P&H HC Seeks State's Response On Participation Of Corporate Houses For Providing Ambulances, Oxygen Beds, Ventilators To Govt Hospitals Under CSR

5. Uniform RTPCR, RAT Rates; ICU Control Rooms; Guidelines On Mucormycosis: Punjab and Haryana High Court Issues Directions [Rishi v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

A division bench comprising of Justices Rajan Gupta and Karamjit Singh issued slew of directions on the aspects concerning uniformity in rates of RAT and RTPCR in States including Punjab, Haryana and UT of Chandigarh, ICU Control Rooms, over charging of private hospitals and the need for States to examine Centre's guidelines for screening and diagnosis of Mucormycosis or black fungus.

The development came after the Court was apprised about variety of issues by amicus curiae Senior Advocate Rupinder Khosla including overcharging for CT scan, HRCT (chest), regulatory mechanism for rates to be charged by various laboratories, spread of black fungus and the corporate response sought by the Court under CSR on previous occasion.

6. "Concern Is Regarding Preventive Steps": P& H HC Seeks Assistance Of States Of Punjab, Haryana, UT Of Chandigarh On Preventing Spread Of Black Fungus [Rishi v. State of Haryana & Ors.]

A division bench comprising of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh sought assistance of States of Punjab, Haryana and UT of Chandigarh on the steps to curb the spread of black fungus after expressing concern regarding preventive steps. It also directed that the U.T. of Chandigarh may impress upon the private diagnostic centers to reduced price of HRCT test to Rs. 1800.

"It is evident that States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh have placed orders for the supply of drug known as Amphotericin B for the treatment of patient stricken by black fungus. As per the stand of Government of India, five more companies have been licensed to manufacture the drug. At present eleven pharmaceutical companies have been licensed to manufacture the said drug. However, concern of this court is as regards preventive steps, if any, possible. State of Punjab, State of Haryana, U.T. Chandigarh and the Union of India would assist this court on the issue," it observed.

Cases that made News

1. 'Blemished Investigation With Political Maneuvering': Punjab & Haryana High Orders Re-Investigation In Kotkapura Firing Case [Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.]

Tearing into the "blemished" and "impartial" investigation conducted by former IGP of Punjab Police, Kunwar Vijay Pratap Singh, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has given a clean chit to former CM Parkash Singh Badal in the Kotkapura Firing Case.

A Single Bench of Justice Rajbir Sehrawat noted that the Police firing was neither unprovoked nor intended against peaceful protestors, as otherwise claimed by Singh in his challan report. It further noted that the firing order was passed by the magistrate present on the spot, only after assessing the situation that had arisen on the spot.

2. Casteist Remarks Case- Release Yuvraj Singh On Interim Bail If He Is Arrested On Joining Probe: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Yuvraj Singh vs. State of Haryana and another]

Noting that the Haryana Police is presently seeking only "formal arrest" of Cricketer Yuvraj Singh in an alleged casteist remark case, the High Court directed that in case he is arrested on joining the probe, he should be released on interim bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds.

The Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh was hearing Singh's plea seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him for his alleged casteist remarks against another cricketer during an Instagram chat last year.

3. Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Transfer Of Murder Case Against Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh [Jagseer Singh Petitioner v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others]

The Court dismissed a plea seeking transfer of the murder trial against Dera Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh pending before special CBI judge, Panchkula.

The Court was hearing the plea filed by the son of the deceased Ranjeet Singh (allegedly murdered by Ram Rahim Singh), who sought transfer of the case to another CBI court in Punjab, Haryana, or Chandigarh

4. Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To Ex-Punjab DGP Sumedh Singh Saini In Corruption Case [Sumedh Singh Saini v. State of Punjab]

The High Court granted interim Anticipatory Bail to former Punjab Director-General of Police Sumedh Singh Saini in a corruption case.

Justice Avneesh Jhingan noted that since he is having Z-plus protection and remains in a security cover, there is no chance of his absconding and thus, granted him interim pre-arrest bail subject to his joining investigation within one week.

5. Kathua Rape-Murder Case: P&H High Court Suspends Sentence, Grants Bail To Cop Convicted For Destroying Evidence [Anand Dutta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr]

The Court suspended the sentence of SI Anand Dutta who had been convicted for destroying evidence in the Kathua Rape Case of 2018 wherein an 8-year-old girl from the Bakarwal community was gang-raped by a temple priest and others in Jammu & Kashmir's Kathua area. Importantly, Sub Inspector Anand Dutta is one of the six accused who were convicted in the Kathua rape case of 2018 for allegedly taking Rs 4 lakh as bribe from Sanji Ram (prime accused) for sabotaging the case.

6. Rabia Saifi Murder: Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice To Haryana State, CBI On Parents Plea[Sameed Ahmad and Anr v. State Of Haryana]

The Court issued notice to Haryana State and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on a plea moved before it seeking a court-monitored CBI probe into the murder of Rabia Saifi, a 21-year-old Civil Defense volunteer with the Delhi government.

The Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan issued notice on the plea filed by Sameed Ahmad and Praveen Jahan, parents of Rabia Saifi, through Advocates Mehmood Pracha and Ajay Kalra.

7. Ludhiana Court Blast: High Court Seeks Details Of Security Arrangments In District Courts Across Punjab, Haryana & Chandigarh

The Court has sought details of Court Complex Security Measures in place across the States of Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh. In this regard, the Registrar General of the High Court, Sanjiv Berry has written a letter to all the district and sessions Judges in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh on the following four counts. This letter was sent within hours of the blast in the Ludhiana courts complex

Education/Students related cases

1.'Institutions Can't Be Permitted To Indulge In Profiteering': Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds GO Directing Private Schools In Chandigarh To Publish Balance Sheets On Their Websites [Independent Schools' Association Chandigarh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.]

A Division Bench comprising of Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash upheld an April 2018 notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs, requiring private unaided educational institutions in Chandigarh to inter alia publish their balance sheets/ income and expenditure account on their websites. It held, "if the financial statement of the private institutions is uploaded on the website of the institutes, the same will ensure in maintaining transparency and will be an aid in achieving the goal of ensuring that no Institute is indulging in profiteering and charging of capitation fee."

It also rejected the arguments set forth by the Independent Schools Association, Chandigarh and the Kabir Education Society— which had challenged the notification vide two separate writ petitions— that disclosing of the financial details on the website will amount to unwarranted invasion of privacy of schools.

2. Recruitments To Posts Of Over 2300 Elementary Trained Teachers In Punjab Set Aside By Punjab & Haryana High Court [Daljit Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court last week set aside the entire selection process for recruitment to the posts of 2,364 Elementary Trained Teachers (ETT) 18 months after advertisement to that effect was issued by the State Government. The Court held that there remains no doubt that the impugned selection criteria while granting additional marks for higher qualification (Graduation) is not in accordance with law; rather the same is totally illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory being contrary to the imperatives contained under rule 6(4) of Service Rules.

Directions to State Government/Strictures passed

1. "Privatization Move Is In Direct Conflict With 'Sab Ka Saath Sab Ka Vikas' Agenda": P&H High Court Raps Chandigarh Admin [UT Powermen Union, Chandigarh (regd.) v. Union of India & Ors.]

A Bench of Justice Jitendra Chauhan and Justice Vivek Puri ruled that the proposed action of UT Administration, Chandigarh of electricity privatization was in direct conflict with the nation's agenda of 'Sab Ka Saath Sab Ka Vikas'. In the instant application, prayer had been made for stopping further proceedings with regard to privatization of electricity in UT, Chandigarh including the opening and finalization of the tender bids till the final adjudication of the writ petition.

Observing that the administration should safeguard such institutions, the Court remarked: "They provide a security net for the society to fall back upon, for the poorest of the poor to dream of a better future, for the person at the end of the line to be aspirational so that he too can be part of the Indian dream. All this indicates a social motive and not a profit motive."

2.Plot Allotment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Stays Trial Against Bhupinder Singh Hooda & AJL; Notice Issued To CBI

The Court stayed the ongoing trial against ex-Haryana CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda and Associated Journal Limited (AJL), which publishes the newspaper, National Herald, for alleged illegal allotment of a plot in Panchkula to AJL.

The order was issued by a single bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan staying the ongoing criminal proceedings against Hooda in a special CBI court at Panchkula.

It may be noted that in April 2021, the special court had framed charges against under Sections 120-B (party to criminal conspiracy) and 420 (cheating) of the IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w S. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3."Punjab State Functionaries Intentionally Protecting Drug Offenders": P&H High Court Transfers NDPS Case To CBI [Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab]

Coming down heavily on Punjab Police and State Authorities on account of their failure to deal with the drug offenders in the State, the Court transferred probe in an NDPS case involving recovery of 12.00 lacs 'Tramadol' tablets to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan transferred the probe to CBI calling it an exceptional case while noting thus: "Punjab State functionaries for the reason best known to them are intentionally protecting the drug offenders."

4.Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Haryana State's Law On 75% Job Quota For Locals In Pvt Sector

A petition challenging the vires of the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act 2020 has been moved by the Faridabad Industries Association (FIA) before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

It may be noted that the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act 2020, which was notified on November 6, 2021, seeks to provide 75 percent reservation for local candidates in private sector jobs that offer a salary of less than Rs 30,000 a month. The Act is scheduled to come into effect on January 15, 2022.

Decisions made in the interest of the entire society

1.Sympathy Shown To Drug Peddlers In Granting Bail May Prove Counter Productive, Resulting In Increased Trafficking: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Jasbir Singh v. State Of Punjab]

A Single Bench of Justice HS Madaan observed that showing sympathy towards alleged drug peddlers at the time of granting bail often proves counterproductive as they indulge in further trafficking, one enlarged.

Holding thus, it denied bail to an accused under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, found in conscious possession of contraband in the form of 2300 intoxicant tablets, without any permit or licence or medical prescription.

"The drug peddlers have successfully destroyed the social fabric of our society and led youth to the wrongful path. Such type of persons need to be dealt with firmly and sternly and no sympathy can be shown to them lest that should prove to be counter productive and result in increased drug trafficking," the Bench said.

2.Hooch Tragedy: "If Released Society Would Be Full Of Widowed Women, Orphaned Children": P&H High Court Denies Bail To A Bootlegger

Observing that an iron hand approach is needed to deal with people who are involved in supplying/selling the illicit spurious country-made liquor and alcohol, the Court denied bail to a bootlegger.

Denying him bail, the Bench of Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill observed: "If such kind of persons are released on bail, they would further decay the very system of the Society and their such acts would render the Society full with widowed women; orphaned children and old and infirm parents with full of woes and sorrow tales."

Also Read: After Receiving Property The Children Often Abandon Parents": P&H High Court Dismisses Illegal Transfer Of Property of Aged Widow

3.Bust Drug Cartels, Catch Hold Of Fake Medical Stores: Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Police (Tarsem Singh v. State Of Punjab)

The Court ordered the Director-General of Police (Punjab) to take practical steps to curb the spread of drug supply and consumption in the State. It has further directed the DGP to 'catch hold' of such persons who are running fake companies/ fake medical stores without valid licenses, for illegal drug trade.

The direction was made by a bench of Justice HS Madaan while allowing the anticipatory bail plea of one Tarsem Singh, booked for alleged commission of offences under the NDPS Act. Though the plea was allowed due to lack of sufficient material to connect Singh with recovery of drugs, the Court issued directions to the DGP to thoroughly probe the matter to bust the drug cartel.

4. Age Relaxation Can't Be Claimed On The Basis Of Chief Minister's Tweet : Punjab & Haryana High Court [Samandeep Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others]

The High Court has held that candidates for public employment cannot claim relaxation in upper age limit as their right merely because the Chief Minister has tweeted in this regard

A division bench of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh held so while dismissing an appeal filed by petitioners seeking appointment to the post of Police Sub-Inspectors. On August 11, a single bench had dismissed their writ petition.

Also Read: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Who Allegedly Raped Farm Law Protestor At Tikri Border

5. Difficult For Doctors To Work If They Always Face The Threat Of Being Beaten Up/Harassed By Patients' Relatives: P&H High Court [Naresh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and another]

The Court observed that if doctors face the threat of being beaten up or being harassed by the relatives of patients every single day, then it would be difficult for them to function.

Justice Vikas Bahl observed thus while dismissing a 482 CrPC plea for quashing of an FIR registered against Naresh Kumar and others (applicants before the Court) for allegedly creating turmoil and disturbance in the Hospital, beating up doctors and threatening to murder the Doctor.

6. Punjab & Haryana High Court Takes Cognizance Of Criminal Cases Pending Against MPs/MLAs

In compliance of the order passed by the Supreme Court, a Suo Moto Case with the title "In Re: Special Courts for MPs/MLAs" has been registered to monitor the progress of the cases pending in the States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territoriy Chandigarh against sitting and former legislators.

The Court has issued notice to State of Punjab through its Chief Secretary, State of Haryana through its Chief Secretary and Union of India through Secretary of Department of Home, New Delhi & UT Chandigarh through its Home Secretary.