High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Allahabad High CourtAllahabad High Court recently held that Criminal proceedings are not a short cut for other remedies. Justice Bharat Bhushan quashed the Criminal proceedings under Sections 420 and 406 IPC against the Accused holding that even if all the allegations in the complaint are taken at the face value, the basic essential ingredients of dishonest misappropriation and cheating are missing.The High Court, on a contempt petition filed by Magsaysay-awardee Professor Sandeep Pandey, issued notice to Banaras Hindu University and IIT-BHU directing them to comply with its earlier order and reinstate him.The High Court on Friday upheld life term awarded to a lady who killed a three year old girl, in order to conceive a male child.The High Court held that the wrong exercise of jurisdiction or mistake of law or wrong interpretation of law by a quasi-judicial authority cannot be a basis for initiating criminal cases unless there is material to demonstrate deliberate misconduct and malafide or consideration in discharge of his official duties or that such officer had acted in a manner to unduly favour a party or has passed a wrong order actuated by corrupt practice.Taking serious note of the strike adopted by junior doctors in State Medical Colleges in the state which resulted in death of a number of people, the Allahabad High Court held that Doctors have no legal or otherwise right to proceed on strike having effect of denying medical treatment/ administration of medicines, care to ailing people.Bombay High CourtThe Bombay High Court held that a change of surname by a person does not change his caste and does not disentitle him from claiming reservation. The vacation Bench allowed the writ petition which challenged the denial of benefit of reservation in post graduate admission on the ground that the petitioner has changed his surname.The High Court recently issued directions for proper functioning of the State Commission, to be constituted under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005.Delhi High CourtA Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi on Monday rapped Delhi University for the delay in completion of its new building for law students. The bench granted time till June 28 to the University to ensure that all infrastructure, including furniture in the new building, was ready so that students could shift in the coming academic session.The High Court on Friday refused to grant parole to INLD leader, Ajay Singh Chautala, who is serving a 10-year jail term in a teachers’ recruitment scam case.The Court held that provisions of Indian Penal Code are not ancillary to the provisions of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. Justice Mukta Gupta observed that same set of facts may constitute offences both under the IPC and the special enactment.In a relief to an MBBS aspirant, who was declared not eligible for admission to MBBS due to her 80% disability, the Delhi High Court directed the University not to deny admission to her on the ground of disability, if she is successful in a future NEET examination.Terming the action by Child Welfare Committee, in forcibly taking a child from the custody of adoptive mother, as “extremely unusual and dangerous”, the Delhi High Court said that an adoptive mother cannot be deprived of the custody of her child without following due process of law.Refusing to entertain a writ petition by a Hotel fined with an amount of 41 Lakhs for non-compliance of statutory provisions of Environment Law for a period of more than twenty years,the High Court held that a writ petition solely praying for refund of money against the State is not maintainable.A Division Bench of the Court directed to incorporate the one-bar, one vote principle forthwith in relation to every Bar Associations in Delhi (including the Delhi High Court Bar Association, the Delhi Bar Association, the New Delhi Bar Association, the Rohini, Shahdara, Saket and Dwarka Courts Bar Association and all other Court/Tribunals attached Bar Associations).The Court while delivering the Judgment in ‘One Vote One Bar’ repelled the contention that Article 226 cannot be invoked against Bar Associations are not statutory bodies, but merely represent the interests of their members, i.e., lawyers and they do not possess any regulatory control or power over the functioning of enrolled lawyers, nor can discipline them for misconduct.The High Court held that even in the absence of medical evidence, an Accused is liable to be convicted for Rape if the evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable. It is also re-iterated that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix without any corroboration.The High Court asked the State Government to consider the demand for an online RTI mechanism within three months.The High Court slammed the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for the errors and technical faults/glitches/errors/fallacies in the V2R2 system launched by Ministry .Considering the PIL filed before itseeking to quash the...

High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Ashok KM

Tags