High Courts Weekly Round-Up
Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the ‘character’ of a rape victim was still not an ‘absolutely irrelevant’ circumstance in a rape trial.
Much to the cheer of Delhi-Noida commuters, the High Court scrapped the Delhi-Noida Direct (DND) flyway toll on Wednesday and ruled that the concessionaire, Noida Toll Bridge Company, shall not impose any user fee/toll from the commuters.
The High Court advised the Centre to consider the appointment of a retired high court judge as chairman of the Taj Trapezium Zone Authority (TTZA). At present, the authority is headed by the divisional commissioner of Agra zone.
The Lucknow Bench of the court in Rama Shanker and Ors v State of UP, allowed Ram Shanker’s appeal, who was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment by the sessions court as it found him guilty of offences under section 304-B, 498-A of IPC.
The High Court dismissed a petition filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and AAP leader Kumar Vishwas challenging an order of a lower court and summons issued in a criminal case instituted against them under Sections 143, 186, 188, 341, 353 and 171-G I.P.C., Police Station-Gauriganj, District-Sultanpur.
Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court toughened its stance on the death of malnourished children in the Tribal areas by seeking to know the funds allocated for the said purpose, but also the grant given to the State as for the total yearly budget allocation for these schemes/programmes and the total budget allocated by the Central Government to the State.
The High Court in Seamec Limited v. Swiber Offshore (India) Pvt Ltd and Anr, directed the ONGC to release $21 million to Swiber Offshore (India) Pvt Ltd (Swiber).
In Sunil VitthalRaut v. The State of Maharashtra, the High Court upheld a sessions court verdict to sentence accused Sunil Vitthal to life imprisonment for charge of murdering his wife. The decision was taken by division bench comprising Justice SS Shinde and Justice Sangitrao S Patil.
The High Court has refused to strike down provisions of the Motor Transport Workers’ Act, 1961, as unconstitutional.
The division bench of Justice Naresh Patil and Justice PD Naik on Wednesday directed the state to consult experts for furthering the investigation into an FIR filed at the Koregaon Park Police Station in connection with forging of the will of spiritual guru Osho.
The division bench of Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice M S Sonak refused to entertain a PIL filed by an NGO, Narmada Kidney Foundation. This PIL sought directions to the state for implementation of the scheme framed under Section 9(3-A) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 for Swap Transplants. It also sought further directions to the State Government to frame separate rules for Swap Transplant, if necessary.
In Indian Medical Association vs. State of Maharashtra, the High Court made the rule absolute that private practices set up by medical practitioners are not be considered as ‘commercial establishments’.
The High Court set aside a ban order issued by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (ONGC) against JK Surface coatings, a company that specialises in corrosion resistant coating application in India.
A division bench of the High Court agreed to quash an FIR against five college students who were accused under various Sections under Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (sexual assault) in exchange for a fine and some cleaning work in the Badlapur Municipal Council. The alleged victim is a 17 year old who is studying in 12th standard at a college in Thane.
A few days before Diwali celebrations begin all over the country, the Bombay High Court directed all municipal corporations in Maharashtra to inspect/re-verify licences that have been issued for selling firecrackers in every ward.
Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition against an order of dissolution of marriage and ruled that allegations of sexual perversity against a spouse amount to mental cruelty, justifying a decree of divorce.
In Girish Pandey & Ors v. State & Anr, the High Court quashed an FIR proceedings emanating from a matrimonial dispute, which had been amicably settled by the parties.
The High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition challenging a Special Court order framing charges against Director of Gagan Sponge Iron Private Ltd (GSIPL) Mr. Girish Kumar Suneja in a Coal block allocation case.
The High Court’s division bench comprising Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Pratibha Rani in Indian Hotels Company Ltd (IHCL) vs. New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) dismissed the plea of IHCL for a permanent injunction against public auction of TajMansingh Hotel.
The Delhi High Court in Sandhya Kumari vs. Manish Kumar, dissolved their marriage as it could ‘clearly see that their marriage had broken down and they were inflicting mental torture, resulting in cruelty, on each other by raising false allegations against each other’.
A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Deepa Sharma on Thursday highlighted deficiencies in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation), Act 1995, and suggested reforms to the same.
Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has acquitted 14 of the 31 convicted by a lower court in post Godhra Sardarpura massacre of 2002. The conviction of the remaining 17 accused has, however, been upheld and are sentenced to life imprisonment.
Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court in Sri ShreeshailMudakappavs The Chief Secretary, dismissed a husband’s plea seeking that his wife be given prority in a government transfer list, so that the couple could live close together.
Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently held that where allegations are leveled against a senior superior police officer, the complainant, who is an ordinary citizen, being a member of the public cannot be compelled to file the complaint before the police themselves.
Upholding the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution and the duties of a welfare state towards its citizenry, the Kerala High Court in a recent judgment ruled that a welfare State cannot permit anybody to die for the reason that he/she has no means to afford his treatment expenses.
In a reprieve to hundreds of LL.B. aspirants in Kerala who have crossed the ‘age limit’ prescribed by revived Clause-28 in Legal Education Rules by Bar Council of India, the High Court, in an interim order issued in a batch of petitions challenging the age limit, directed the authorities to permit candidates to participate in the selection process, irrespective of upper age limit.
Madras High Court
The Madras High Court in Advocates’ Forum for Social Justice v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, struck down an enactment of the Tamil Nadu state government that banned the setting up of private law colleges in the estate.
Dismissing a petition, the High Court refused to pass orders mandating the government to provide reservation for legal heirs of freedom fighters and held that the court cannot interfere with the wisdom of government or give directions for framing recruitment rules in a particular manner.
The Madurai Bench of the Court in Nisha v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, made it clear that the petitioner’s brother, being the convict here whose death sentence was commuted by the President under Article 72 of the Constitution, was to spend the rest of his life in prison, as expressly stated by the Presidential Order.
In a bid to commiserate with an aggrieved widow of a temporary municipality worker, who expired before regularization of his service, the Madras High Court directed the authorities to consider her appeal for compassionate appointment to a temporary post as early as possible.
Patna High Court
The Patna High Court quashed the Bihar government order that prohibited issuance of licence to manufacturers of ayurvedic, homeopathic and other indigenous system of medicines containing alcohol. The notification was issued owing to prohibition in the state.
A Division Bench of the High Court declared Section 60(1) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, and the proviso to Para 1 of the statute No. 32 of the University framed under the above Act as unconstitutional, to the extent it applies to a minority educational institution, being violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.