High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Allahabad High CourtDismissing a plea challenging Uttar Pradesh Government’s ‘forcing’ students of Madarsas to sing the National Anthem, the Allahabad High Court observed that the singing of the national Anthem is not just a constitutional duty but also fosters the spread of the spirit of democracy, secularism and the integrity of the nation.Andhra Pradesh High courtEmphasizing the need of bringing in certain statutory changes in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and Rules 2003, and TS Allopathic Medical Care Establishments (Registration and Regulations) Act 2002 and Rules, 2007,, the Andhra High Court observed that, as per the relevant provisions of the Acts, while the establishment and running a medical facility without licence is made punishable, the punishment is only by way of a fine, which is monitory in nature, which is hardly a deterrent in the present world for unscrupulous elements to establish and run ill-equipped fake hospitals.Bombay High courtWhile examining a short question of whether the order of maintenance passed in the proceedings filed under Section 125 of CrPC is to be followed, or, whether the order of maintenance passed in the proceedings filed under Domestic Violence Act, is to be followed, the Bombay High Court held that both stand independently of each other.The High Court issued a writ of mandamus declaring one Philomena Lobo as the guardian for her husband Leo Lobo, who is in a comatose condition.The High Court recently held that the registration of FIR cannot be regarded as gospel truth and be a reason for expelling a student, as it is against principles of natural justice.The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court quashed and set aside an FIR against a registered dealer of hide and skin of dead animals. A bench of Justice Anoop Mohta and Justice MG Giratkar was hearing a criminal application filed by 62-year-old Nagpur resident Abdul Hafeez Shaikh Kareem.The Bombay High Court recalled the strike called by employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) holding it illegal.Delhi high courtThe Delhi High Court recently set aside an order passed by the District Advisory Committee (DAC), which had cancelled the registration of a private hospital on allegations of conducting a pre-natal test.The High Court appointed Mr. Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel for Delhi as amicus curiae in the Petitions seeking recruitment of women in the Territorial Army as well as Judge Advocate General, which is the legal arm of the Indian Army.The High Court, on Tuesday, refused to quash the charges framed against Congress leader Jagdish Tytler and businessman Abhishek Verma in a case alleging that the duo had forged a letter addressed to former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2009.The High Court, on Tuesday, held that it is imperative for the claiming party to submit proof of injury suffered in order to successfully claim damages for loss of profits in an arbitration proceeding.The High Court sought from the National Museum a status report elaborating on the steps taken by it for preservation of articles and manuscripts.The High Court declared as “illegal” the transfer of hospitals and medical colleges under the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to the State Government.A division bench of High Court held that it is legal to refer a criminal compoundable case as one under Section 138 of the NI Act to mediation.Himachal Pradesh High CourtThe Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed abortion of a 32-week-old foetus of a 19-year-old girl having mild to moderate mental retardation on the ground that it is risky for her to complete the normal period of pregnancy and deliver the child on the due date.Jharkhand High courtJharkhand High Court permitted the termination of a 23-week fetus of a minor girl who was raped in Jamshedpur in Jharkhand. The court directed the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS) Ranchi to take steps for termination of the pregnancy while adding that the procedure must be completed taking every precautionary steps.Karnataka High CourtReprimanding a Tax authority for not following the dictum laid down in the High Court Judgment, the Karnataka High Court observed that the judgments of Constitutional Courts have to be discussed in detail and if the Authorities below still have to take a different view in the facts of the case, they should record their own reasons in detail for doing so.The Full Bench of Karnataka High Court ruled that an order of detention under Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and SlumGrabbers Act, 1985 cannot be quashed per se for the reason that it does not mention the period of detention.The High Court observed that the dying declaration shall be recorded in the language expressed by the declarant.The division bench of Karnataka High Court differed in its views on a plea made by a Kolkata-based mining company against the...

High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Ashok K.M

Tags