Delhi High Court
The Court also suspended a disciplinary action against a student, which had debarred him from entering the college premises, attending classes, from participation or representing the college in any of its activities, and to appear in the university/ college examinations, for one year. The Court, taking note of the young age, suspended the punishment imposed by the Principal for the remaining tenure of the petitioner upon executing an undertaking of good behaviour with certain condition
The High Court dismissed a challenge against the Rules, both the state made rules and the model rules, which prescribe the procedure to be followed for determination of age of a juvenile in conflict with law.
The High Court turned down the challenge against Section 129 of the Railways Act which confers power on the Central Government to make Rules to carry out the purposes of Chapter XIII of the Act, including fixing of upper limit of the compensation under Section 124/124A of the Act. Disposing of the Public Interest Litigation, the first bench of the High Court comprising of the Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice Rajiv SahaiEndlaw directed the Government to consider the issue of updating the upper limit of compensation which is presently fixed as 4 Lakhs.
Delhi High Court admitted a petition filed by four law students, praying to harmonize the Delhi High Court RTI Rules, 2006 with Right to Information Act, 2005 and its rules.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court directed the Government to strictly enforce the liquor policy to restrict and regulate the trade of liquor, adopted by it. The court also asked the State Government to ensure that no liquor shop is allowed to operate on the State/National Highways beyond December, 2015. A Division bench comprising Chief Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice HasnainMassodi, however declined to impose strict ban on liquor as prayed for in the Public Interest Litigation is filed by KarwaniIslami Society, saying that the question whether total prohibition has to be strictly enforced or not is a policy decision to be taken by the State.
Madras High Court
Madras HC cleared the hurdles in way of PrithikaYashni by holding that the she is entitled to be recruited to the post of Sub Inspector Police. The first bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Sanjay KishanKaul and Justice PushpaSathyanarayana also directed the recruiting agency to include third gender as a separate category.
The High Court upheld a 50 year old State amendment of Hindu Marriage Act, which validated the marriages conducted without the presence of a Priest. The First bench of the High Court comprising of Chief Justice Sanjay KishanKaul and Justice T.S.Sivagnanam, dismissed the PIL filed by an Advocate challenging Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court closed the Suo motu contempt petition initiated against four Advocates for disrupting the Court proceedings in a District Court, after they submitted their unconditional apology as affidavits.The court also directed the Advocates to appear before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram, in open Court and tender their unconditional apology.
Orissa High Court
Orissa High Court upheld the divorce granted to a husband whose wife had left home in pursuit of her political ambition. A division bench of Justices Vinod Prasad and K. Sahoo held that wife living separately from her husband and children, for pursuing her political ambition constitute desertion.