High Courts Weekly Roundup

Allahabad High Court

1) Social Distancing Seems To Be An 'Empty Shibboleth'; Treatment System At Government Hospitals Has 'Collapsed': Allahabad HC Raps UP Govt [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres And For Providing Better Treatment To Corona Positive Respondent]

A Division bench comprised of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar rapped the UP Government for its failure to implement the social distancing norms in the state. "Neither the Government is looking interested in implementing the rule that two individuals should remain two yards away and wear masks nor the people of our State are interested in following the above rule," the Court said.

The bench also took note that the Government had failed to provide timely reports of Covid tests, and there were indications that treatment system at Government hospitals had "collapsed," as people were getting themselves treated in private hospitals rather than Government hospitals.

2) [Buses For Ferrying Migrants] Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Priyanka Gandhi's Personal Secretary Sandeep Singh [Sandeep Singh v. State of UP & Anr.]

A bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by Sandeep Singh, personal secretary of Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, in connection to alleged forging of a list of 1,000 buses that the Congress Party arranged for the UP Government, to bring back migrant workers, after looking at the "triviality" of the offences alleged.

3) Allahabad HC Seeks State's Response In Habeas Corpus Plea For Release Of Dr. Kafeel Khan [Nuzhat Perween v. State of UP & Anr.]

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Deepak Verma asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to "positively file" its reply in the habeas corpus plea filed against alleged illegal detention of Dr. Kafeel Khan, by the next date of hearing.

The present habeas corpus plea was moved by Khan's mother, Nuzhat Perween. Notably, Khan had been granted bail by the court of CJM, Aligarh on February 10. However, he has been languishing in jail under the NSA Act, which was slapped on him by the Aligarh District Magistrate on February 15.

4) How FIR U/s 66A IT Act Has Been Registered? Allahabad HC Pulls Up UP Police; Seeks Explanation From Mathura SSP [Mohan Singh v. State of UP & Ors.]

The Division Bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Raj Beer Singh directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura to file his personal affidavit explaining as to how the F.I.R. has been registered under section 66A of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The case is next posted on 26th August, 2020.

"As per the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India 2015 (5) SCC 1, F.I.R. under section 66A of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 cannot be registered, as the same has been declared to be ultravires," the bench remarked.

Also Read: UP Police Continues To Register FIR Under 'Unconstitutional' Section 66A IT Act ; Allahabad HC Refuses To Quash It

Andhra Pradesh High Court

1) Mitigating Circumstances In Favour Of Accused Dilute Gravity In Relation To Their Role: AP HC Grants Bail To LG Polymers' CEO, 11 Others In Vizag Gas Tragedy [PPC Mohan Rao v. State of AP]

Bench of Justice M. Venkataramana granted bail to as many as 12 from the management of LG Polymers, including the CEO, accused in connection with the Vizak Gas Leak tragedy in May. "Mitigating factors dent the gravity to certain extent", ruled the Court.

"It is clear from the material placed by the prosecution that at possibly the earliest point of time, the company had brought to the notice of the district administration, its difficulty in managing the bulk storage of Styrene in view of the lockdown directive", observed the court, adding that it is a prima facie inference to draw, in order to assess the gravity of the instance.

Bombay High Court

1) Merely Because DNA Report Does Not Establish Paternity, Is No Ground For Release On Bail; Bombay HC Rejects Plea Of Accused In Gangrape Of Minor [Vaibhav Bhanudas Ubale v. State of Maharashtra]

Single bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that merely because the DNA report of a child born after a gangrape does not establish paternity of the accused, it does not mean that the accused can be released on bail and rejected the bail application filed by one Vaibhav Ubale, who is accused of raping a minor girl along with two others.

"The charge-sheet contains sufficient material against the applicant. The case against the applicant is serious one of committing gang rape by three persons and taking advantage of a situation of a poor helpless victim girl. The applicant has indulged into an act of rape. The mere fact that the DNA report does not support the paternity is not ground to release the applicant at this stage," the bench observed.

2) Any Grievances Regarding Lack Of Supply Of Essentials, Treatment In Hospitals, Approach Us Directly; Bombay HC Tells Public At Large [Registrar (Judicial) v. Union of India & Ors.]

In a significant move, the Division bench of Division bench of Justice TV Nalawade and Justice MG Sewlikar while hearing a suo motu PIL regarding newspaper reports criticizing the work done for controlling and preventing the spread of Covid-19 in Aurangabad district, observed that if any members of the general public may have grievances regarding lack of supply of essential goods especially in containment zones, denial of admission in a hospital or grievances regarding the treatment received should approach the Court directly.

3) Bombay HC Refuses To Quash High Power Committee's Decision Classifying Categories Of Prisoners For Temporary Release Due To Covid-19 [National Alliance For People's Movement & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

Division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar refused to quash the decision of the High Power Committee constituted by the State for decongestion of prisons due to the threat of Covid-19, to classify categories of prisoners who will be released on emergency parole.

However, the Court reiterated that the amended parole rule which states that convicts whose maximum sentence is above 7 years shall be considered for release on emergency parole if the convict has returned to prison on time on last 2 releases, is applicable only if the convict has been released on parole or furlough two times.

4) Approach Grievance Redressal Officer If Needed; Bombay HC Disposes Of BJP MLA's PIL Against Electricity Inflated Bills [Mangal Prabhat Lodha v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company & Ors.]

Division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AS Gadkari disposed of a PIL filed by President of the BJP Mumbai Unit against the allegedly inflated electricity bills being generated by power distribution companies all over the city. He had sought relief for the consumers as they are being threatened with disconnection by such companies in case they are unable to pay the bills.

The Court reminded the Petitioner of its previous decision disposing of two similar PILs on the issue of inflated bills is applicable to the said case as well, with a direction to approach the Grievance Redressal Officer.

5) Barring Only 65-Yr-Old Actors/Film Crew On Movie/TV Set Is Discriminatory; Bombay HC Quashes State Govt's GR [Pramod Pandey v. State of Maharashtra]

Division bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla and Justice RI Chagla quashed and set aside a condition in two government resolutions issued by the State of Maharashtra barring actors above the age of 65 years from remaining present on Film/TV sets calling it discriminatory. The GRs were issued after a nationwide lockdown was imposed to combat the threat of Covdi-19.

"The learned Advocate for the State had to be reminded that the actors performing small roles are required to go to the studios and request for work to enable them to have their two meals, and no Producer/Director is going to shoot their role via Facetime, Zoom, Skype etc.," the Court had previously observed.

Calcutta High Court

1) Press Expected To Make Public Aware Of Illegal Activity, Assist Administration To Take Action Against Offender: Calcutta HC [Avishek Dutta Roy v. State]

A press reporter is expected to make the public aware of any illegal activities in an honest way", observed the bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Soumen Sen while hearing a plea for anticipatory bail of a reporter, in connection with a complaint for publishing alleged false news of illegal sand mining.

In granting anticipatory bail, the Court remarked that "at this stage, we are not concerned with the falsity or truth of what has been published", but considering the report published and the nature of the offence disclosed in the complaint, "we feel that there is hardly any necessity of the petitioner to be taken in custody for interrogation".

Also Read: It Is The Fundamental Right Of Press To Publish News Not Palatable To Administration: Calcutta HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Journalist

Also Read: Why Hasty Registration Of Belated FIR, Immediate Arrest Of Journalist Without Preliminary Inquiry: Calcutta HC Demands From State DGP

Delhi High Court

1) Delhi HC Rejects Scriptwriters Plea For Injunction On Release Of Film Lootcase On Hotstar [Vinay Vats v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.]

The High Court reaffirmed that there can be no Copyright in an idea/ theme. Holding thus, it refused to pass an injunction order, restraining the release of Film 'Lootcase' on Hotstar, hours before its scheduled release on July 31, 2020.

"There is no copyright in any idea, subject matter, theme or plot, and violation of copyright is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and the expression of the idea by the author of the copyright at work," reiterated single-Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar while dismissing the plea of Indian writer and director, Vinay Vats, claiming that the film had "substantial similarities" with his script titled 'Tukkaa Fitt'.

"In the present case, there is no earlier film, based on the script of the plaintiff, which could for the basis of a claim to copyright," the Court observed.

2) Delhi HC Issues Notice On Challenge To Centre's Notification Of IBC Part III Only As Regards Personal Guarantors To Corporate Debtors [Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India & Ors.]

Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rajnish Bhatnagarn issued notice on a plea challenging the November 15, 2019 gazette notification bringing into effect certain provisions of Part III of the IBC, i.e., which pertains to fresh start of insolvency and bankruptcy of individuals and partnership firms where the amount of default is not less than one thousand rupees .

The list of grounds taken by the Petitioner may be accessed in the original report.

3) Delhi HC Constitutes A Committee To Finalise The Process of Issuing Digital Degree Certificate To Students [Akshita Khosla v. University of Delhi]

After criticising the Delhi University for its lackadaisical approach, the Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh constituted a committee to finalise the process of issuing digital degree certificates to students.

The said committee will have senior officials from the Delhi High Court's IT Team, a member from National e-Governance Division (NeGD) of the Ministry of Electronics & IT, Joint Director of DU's Computer Centre, and two members from Digilocker.

4) Delhi HC Seeks Centre, NLU Consortium Stand On Plea For Taking CLAT 2020 From Home [V Govinda Ramanan v. Consortium Of NLUs & Anr.]

The single-Judge bench of Justice Jayant Nath issued notices to the Centre and the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLU) on a law graduate's plea impugning the CLAT-2020 notification, in so far as it mandates physical presence of the students at the examination center.

The Court has asked the Respondents to file their replies in the matter by August 10, 2020.

5) No Interference With Govt Conclusion That Use Of Social Media By Army Personnel Enables Enemies To Gain Edge: Delhi HC [Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors.]

While dismissing a petition challenging the ban on army officers using social media, the bench comprising Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon observed that scope of judicial review over matters concerning defence and security is limited.

The Court noted that modern-day warfare is not just limited to accession of territory, but also extend to influencing economy and political stability of the enemy country by inciting civil unrest and influencing the political will of citizens.

6) Jail Authorities Must Be Apprised Of Their Duties & Prisoners' Rights: Delhi HC Directs DSLSA To Conduct Training Workshop For Jail Superintendents [Sanjay Singh v. GNCTD]

The Division Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Subramonium Prasad directed the Member Secretary of the Delhi State Legal Services Authority to conduct a training workshop for the Superintendents, Deputy Superintendents, and Assistant Superintendents, of all the jails in Delhi. The Court asked the DSLSA to create a specialised module for the Superintendents, focusing on their duties and obligations, and the rights of prisoners.

The order has come in a criminal writ moved by a prisoner who was illegally detained in the prison despite being granted bail by the competent court.

Also Read: Unlawful Detention Of Prisoners: Delhi HC Directs DSLSA To Apprise Jail Authorities Of Relevant Laws, Case-Laws, Prisoner Rights

7) Delhi HC Directs Action Against Unregistered Online Health Service Aggregators Taking COVID-19 Samples

The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan asked the Delhi Government to take action against unregistered online health services aggregators, if any, collecting samples of COVID-19 illegally.

The order has come in a PIL filed by Dr. Rohit Jain seeking a direction to be issued to the Delhi Government to ban the online health services aggregators which are not registered as per the Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010.

8) Delhi HC Frames Formats Of Assets And Income For Disclosure Of Judgment Debtor's Financial Capacity, Asks Centre To Consider Incorporating In Statute [M/S Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt Ltd v. M/S Maharia Raj Joint Venture & Ors]

Bench of Justice JR Midha laid down guidelines for expeditious hearing and disposal of execution cases stating that the delays and difficulties in execution of decree/awards erode public confidence and trust in the justice delivery system and also frustrate the decree holder(s) who are unable to reap the benefits of the decree/award awarded in their favor after a successful litigation.

The Court also formulated detailed formats of affidavit of assets, income, expenditure and liabilities to be filed by the judgment-debtor in execution cases on direction of the Executing Court. The same may be accessed in the original report.

Moreover, the Court suggested the Central Government to mandate the filing of such affidavit(s) by the judgment debtor at the very threshold of the execution litigation, as is the practice in developed countries.

9) Delhi HC Modifies Format Of Assets, Income And Expenditure To Be Filed By Parties To A Matrimonial Litigation [Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma]

Single bench of Justice JR Midha modified the format of assets, income and expenditure that has to be filed by both the parties, at the very threshold of matrimonial litigation. Filing of comprehensive format of assets, income and expenditure in matrimonial cases is essential to determine the maintenance, the Court observed. The detailed format may be accessed in the original report.

Moreover, the Court suggested the Central Government to mandate the filing of such affidavit(s), as is done in the developed countries.

10) [DU Open Book Examinations] Read All The Directions Issued By HC To Be Complied By DU While Conducting Exams [Anupam & Ors. v. DU & Ors.]

The Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh allowed the Delhi University to go ahead with the online Open Book Examination (OBE) method for conducting the exams for the final year students of all the under-graduate programmes.

The Court has issued a slew of directions to ensure that the exams through the online OBE method are carried out in a proper manner. The same may be accessed in the original report.

11) Delhi HC Protects 300 Years Old Banyan Tree From Builder, Asks Municipal Corporation To Prepare A Census Of Trees In Chandni Chowk [Nitin Gupta v. NDMC & Ors.]

Single bench of Justice Najmi Wajiri ordered removal of construction and concrete around a 300 year old tree in Chandni Chowk, as a step to protect the majestic Banyan tree. The Court also ordered the Tree Officer, Government of Delhi to immediately suggest requisite measures to restore the health of the tree.

The Court noted that the grand old Banyan tree has witnessed the unfolding of history in the city of Delhi for the past three centuries and has now been mercilessly cut and mutilated by the builder who would build up real estate than appreciate this invaluable heritage.

12) Delhi Riots: Delhi HC Says 'Hindu Resentment' Order Of Delhi Police Caused No Prejudice; Asks Media To Verify Facts [Sahil Parvex & Anr. v. GNCTD & Ors.]

A single bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait refused to quash the order of the Special Commissioner of Police, dated July 8, which cited 'resentment among Hindu community' in the wake of arrests in Delhi riots cases to advise police officers to exercise due care while making arrests. The Court observed that "no prejudiced has been caused" by the said direction as it was issued after accused persons have been chargesheeted.

The Court noted that the cases related to the Delhi riots were registered before the issuance of the impugned letter on July 8. It also noted that charge sheets have been filed in many cases and that till date 535 Hindus and 513 Muslims have been charge-sheeted in all the cases.

Gujarat High Court

1) Gujarat HC Quashes Govt. Order Restraining Fee Collection By Pvt. Schools Until Reopening [Nareshbhai Kanubhai Shah v. State Of Gujarat & Ors.]

The bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice JB Pardiwala quashed a government order restraining private unaided schools from collecting tuition fees until they reopened, stating that such an injunction will force smaller institutions to shut down.

The court set aside three clauses of a government resolution (GR) issued on July 16: one, that no fees shall be charged by any unaided schools either towards the tuition fees or in relation to any optional activity so long as the schools are being conducted online; two, that the expenditure incurred in the salary of teaching and non teaching staff of the Schools shall be considered while determining the fees for the next year; and three, that the fees, if already paid, shall be adjusted against the fees which would become payable upon the physical opening of the schools.

2) Accused Persons Are 'Veterans Of Investigation': Gujarat HC Transfers Custodial Death Probe From Local Police [Sheikh Salim Shekhbabu v. State Of Gujarat & Ors.]

"The Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that it is dealing with those persons who themselves are the veterans of the field of investigation and may also have mastered the art of overreacting the process", observed the bench of Justices Sonia Gokani and NV Anjaria while transferring the investigation in the Vadodara custodial death case to CID Crime.

The Division Bench noticed that a month has passed since the FIR had come to be lodged upon several orders passed by the court, and that after the inquiry conducted at the ends of some officers, there appears to be no possibility of tracing the corpus, the whereabouts of the corpus not revealed till date.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

1) Begging Before Someone To Stand As Surety Comes At Cost Of Pride, Accused Shall Be Allowed To Furnish Cash Deposits For Getting Bail: HP HC [Abhishek Kumar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh]

Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara observed that while granting bail, the Courts should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or give a cash deposit.

Choosing between sureties and deposits, accused is the Queen and let her be, the bench said while granting bail to an accused. The judge also observed that the lawyers have duty to apprise the accused of the existence of the provision of a cash deposit in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 445 CrPC).

The Court also summarized the principles of law relating to the choice of the accused to furnish surety bonds or secure recognizance by cash deposit. The same may be read in the original report.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

1) Jammu & Kashmir HC Issues Notice To Center In Plea Against 100% Domicile Reservation In Public Employment In The UT [Nishant Khatri & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.]

The single-bench of Justice Tashi Rabstan issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the UT Administration on a petition challenging 100% domicile reservation in public employment, prevalent in the UT.

"100% reservation on the basis of domicile or residence is unambiguous violation of the law as it would render the guarantee of equal opportunity contained in Articles 16(1) and 16(2) wholly meaningless and illusory. Supreme Court has time and again made it clear that the reservations contemplated in Article 16 should not exceed 50%. Hence, 100% reservation for domicile of Union territory of J&K is clear cut violation of law laid down by Supreme court," the plea states.

Karnataka High Court

1) Financial Distress Of Advocates Amid COVID-19: Karnataka HC Asks State To Decide On Bar Association's Plea For Loans

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ashok S Kinagi directed the state government to consider and take a decision by August 19, on a representation made by the Belgavi Bar Association, seeking that a loan of upto Rs 5 lakh be extended to members of the bar who are in financial distress, due to limited functioning of courts. The petition will be heard on August 20.

2) Why N-95 Masks & Hand Sanitizers Removed From List Of Essential Commodities? Karnataka HC Asks Centre

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Aravind Kumar directed the Central Government to clear its stand on whether face mask including N95 masks and Hand sanitizers should be included in the list of Essential Commodities, for effective price control and availability of the items, as the number of COVID-19 cases are multiplying across the country.

The court also directed a competent officer of the Government to file a statement giving reasons which compelled the Central Government to take a stand to remove the items from the list of Essential commodities post-June 30 and leave the price control of these items to be decided by market forces. Matter listed for August 18.

3) Karnataka HC Issues Notice To UGC and Others In Plea Filed By Engineering College Students Seeking Cancellation Of Final Year Exams

Bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav issued notice to the respondents in the matter filed by students of the Bangalore Institute of Technology, challenging UGC Guidelines to conduct final year exams. Significantly, the said UGC guideline has been a subject of much controversy and is also under challenge before the Supreme Court.

4) Tablighi Jamaat: Karnataka HC Quashes Cases Against 9 Foreigners; Imposes Condition That They Should Not Visit India In Next 10 Years [Farhan Hussain v. State & Anr.]

A bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit quashed and set aside criminal prosecution initiated against nine foreign nationals belonging to the Tablighi Jamaat, on the condition that they will immediately leave the country and undertake not to visit India for the next ten years.

The Court allowed the petitions filed by the foreign nationals who were arrested under the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 for the violation of the conditions of visas. They have been directed to pay a fine that may be levied by the competent authority. The court has refused to quash the case registered against seven Indian nationals, who are members of the Jamat, stating their case stands on a different footing.

5) Draft EIA Notification 2020: Karnataka HC Restrains Centre From Publishing Final Notification Till Sep 7

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ashok S Kinagi restrained the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change from publishing the Final Notification based on the Draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification 2020, till September 7.

The Court took into account the fact that the draft the notification has been published on March 23, two days before the national lockdown was announced by the Central government and that during the lockdown and pandemic there were several constraints on individuals for filing objections to draft notification.

Also Read: Delhi HC Extends Time For Filing Objections To Draft EIA Notification 2020 Till August 11

Kerala High Court

1) Presumption U/s 29 POCSO Act Does Not Affect Obligation Of Prosecution To Produce Admissible Evidence To Prove Essential & Foundational Facts: Kerala HC [David vs. State of Kerala]

The High Court observed that the presumption under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Act [POCSO] does not , in any way, affect the obligation of the prosecution to produce admissible evidence to prove the essential and foundational facts.

When the prosecution produces admissible evidence to prove the foundational facts constituting the offence, the accused must, at the pain of losing, prove that he did not commit the offence on the principle of preponderance of probability, Justice PB Suresh Kumar observed while dismissing an appeal filed by an accused in a POCSO case.

2) [NDPS] Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Granted Merely Because 'Nothing Was Recovered' From Accused: Kerala HC [State of Kerala vs. Mohammed Riyas]

Single bench of Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in an NDPS case merely because 'nothing was recovered' from the accused.

The Court noted that as per Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, two conditions have to be satisfied for enlarging the accused on bail— "The first one is that the Court shall be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged against him. The second one is that the Court shall be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Only on satisfaction of these twin conditions, the Court has the power to enlarge the accused on bail."

3) No Bar On Filing Anticipatory Bail Applications In Triple Talaq Cases; But Should Plead Reasons For Not Approaching Magistrate: Kerala HC [Nahas v. State of Kerala]

Bench of Justice PV Kunhikrishnan held that Anticipatory Bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not barred in a case in which an offence under the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 is alleged.

But, if an accused wants to avail the right under Section 438 Cr.P.C., he should specifically plead in an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. about the reasons for not approaching the Magistrate under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, the Court said while directing the accused (who filed an anticipatory bail application before the High Court) to first approach the concerned Magistrate by filing Bail Application is filed under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

1) Stop Using Social Media For 2 Months, Report Digital Detoxification To Police: MP HC's Bail Conditions For A Student [Harendra Tyagi v. State of MP]

The bench of Justice Anand Pathak while granting bail to a 'student' accused, directed him to perform digital detoxification of himself by not using Whatsapp, Facebook or other Social Media for two months.

The Court also asked him to report about his digital detoxification at the concerned police station and to complete his study of Pre Agriculture Test

Madras High Court

1) Withdrawing From Case Merely On Party's Request Allows Cherry-Picking Of Bench Of Choice: Madras HC [Anshul Mishra v. District Collector, Madurai]

"Withdrawing from a case merely on a party's request allows the parties to cherry-pick a bench of their choice", observed Justice B. Pugalendhi.

In turning down the request for recusal, the Single bench placed heavy reliance on the recent instances where Supreme Court judges have come down heavily on similar attempts by parties before them: the then-Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi in a PIL regarding the plight of inmates in Assam's detention centres (2019); in the Judge Loya case, when the petitioners sought the recusal of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud from the Bench, stating that they both hailed from the Bombay High Court; and, in the Land Acquisition case, where Justice Arun Mishra was asked to recuse for having dealt with the matter earlier (2019).

2) Madras HC Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Notification Of Time Table & Procedure For Admission Under RTE Act [Popular Front of India v. Govt of TN & Ors.]

A Division bench of Justices MM Sundresh and R Hemalatha issued notices on a petition seeking a direction upon the State Government to release the time table and procedure for admission under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, (RTE Act) for the academic year 2020-2021.

The Petitioner had submitted that the admission process under the RTE scheme usually commences by the first week of April every year and is wound up before end of May. However, on the pretext of Covid-19, there has been an "undue delay" in initiating the admission process for the academic year 2020-2021 by the State Government, which has put the eligible children and their parents into a dilemma and severe hardship.

3) 'Virtual Court Is Boon For Legal Fraternity; Even Moffusil Advocate Can Comfortably Present Case Anywhere': Madras HC On Objection To Hearing Via VC

"This Virtual Court is a boon to the entire Legal Fraternity", observed the bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi while hearing an advocate's objection regarding the listing of cases for final hearing via video conferencing.

"Fortunately in Tamil Nadu, we are having good internet connectivity facility in almost all places, including some remote villages", asserted the Single Judge.

3) 'Patanjali Ayurved Exploiting Public Fear By Projecting They Could Cure COVID-19': Madras HC Restrains Usage Of Word 'Coronil' [M/s.Arudra Engineering Private Limited v. M/s.Pathanjali Ayurved Limited]

In a huge set back to Baba Ramdev's Patanjali Ayurved, the single-Bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan passed an absolute injunction order, restraining it from using the trademark 'Coronil'. The stern view was taken by the Court after it noted that the Petitioner company (Aruda Engg (P) Ltd) had already registered the mark.

The Court noted that the Company had not shown due cause in naming their product as 'Coronil', since there is no direct material produced to show that it is a treatment for Coronavirus. Further, it remarked that the Company was "exploiting the fear among the people" by projecting that they could cure Coronavirus.

Punjab & Haryana High Court

1) [Small Or Commercial Quantity] P&H HC Reminds Special Judge Of SC Order For Inclusion of 'Neutral Substances' In Drug Weight [Mandeep Singh alias Cheenu v. State of Punjab]

Single bench of the High Court comprised of Justice Rekha Mittal recently cautioned a Special Judge for not keeping abreast with the latest developments in the law. The Court was hearing the bail plea of one Mandeep Singh, booked under the NDPS Act for possession of more than permitted quantity of contraband. One of the issues involved in the matter was whether recovery of contraband was to be taken as a commercial or non-commercial quantity.

The Special Judge had allowed the bail plea holding that due to different salts in the contrband, the material falls within non commercial range. However, the High Court reminded her of a recent verdict passed by the Supreme Court holding that that in case of seizure of mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances with one or more neutral substance(s), quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with actual content by weight of offending drug, while determining small or commercial quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.

2) 'Question Of Saving Lives Of Critical Patients': P & H HC Asks Centre To Reconsider Ban On Import Of Used Ventilators [M/s SB Medical Systems v. Union Of India & Ors.]

Amidst the COVID pandemic, the bench of Justices Rajan Gupta and Karamjit Singh asked the Centre to examine whether the use of imported refurbished ventilators can be permitted, suggesting a reconsideration of the ban on import of used ventilators.

"We prima facie feel that in case, the aforesaid ventilators are put to use, it may be of help to some serious patients", opined the Court.

Rajasthan High Court

1) Challenge Against BSP-Congress Merger : Rajasthan HC Asks District Judge, Jaisalmer To Ensure Service Of Notice To BSP MLAs

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Prakash Gupta directed the District Judge, Jaisalmer to give necessary assistance to ensure service of notice before August 8 on 6 BSP MLAs in the petitions challenging the merger of the state unit of BSP with Congress party.

The division bench was considering the appeals filed by Dilwar and BSP against the single bench refusing to stay the Speaker's order passed in September 2019 allowing the merger of BSP with Congress. It disposed of the appeals, with the above directions, and remitted the matter to the Single Bench without expressing anything on the merits. The single bench is slated to consider the matter on August 11.

Also Read: Rajasthan Politics: BSP MLAs Seek Transfer Of Plea Challenging BSP-Congress Merger From HC To SC