Allahabad HC 2019 Highlights

1. Issued Notices On Plea Against Data Interception By State Authorities Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice CD Singh issued notice on a petition challenging the validity of Section 69 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000, which empowers authorities to intercept or monitor information through any computer resource. The petition alleges that Section 69 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, "for the reason being that it gives sweeping power to the executive and is irrational as there is no nexus as to justify having power of such wide magnitude which would result in impinging upon constitutional protected rights of person with impunity". (Case: Saurabh Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.) 2. Playground & School On A Single Land Mandatory Requirement For Affiliation The high court highlighted the importance of a playground in a school and asserted that the existence of such infrastructure "distinguishes an educational institution from an education shop". In doing so, Justice Ajay Bhanot also ruled that the playground and the school building should be a part of a single composite land. The court went on to lament the lack of playgrounds due to unplanned urban developments, observing, "The Court notices the fact that massive unplanned urban development has diminished open spaces and playgrounds for the coming generations. Similarly in the rush for profits school managements make the first compromises with play-fields. Sports and all that it offers by way of learning takes a back seat." (Case: Apple Grove School v. Union of India & Ors., WC No. 389/2019, decided on 10.01.2019) 3. Temporary Guidelines Against Vandalism For All State Aided Universities The division bench of Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Vikram Nath issued temporary guidelines to all state-aided universities in Uttar Pradesh to maintain law and order in the University campuses. The order was passed in a suo moto PIL after violent protests by a collection of individuals protesting against the rejection of their applications to the university. The guidelines were formulated by a Committee appointed by the court on July 6 and will remain in effect until the state government and all government-aided universities frame the necessary rules and regulations to ensure a congenial and conducive environment for academic pursuits in institutions of higher learning. (Case: Lucknow State University Vandalism v. State of UP, PIL (C) No. 19390/2018, decided on 20.02.2019) 4. Dismissed Plea Challenging Renaming Of Allahabad To Prayagraj The high court dismissed PILs challenging the renaming of Allahabad to Prayagraj observing that it is a policy decision of the State Government which cannot be said to be without basis. There is also nothing on record to demonstrate as to how the larger public interest would be affected by a mere change of name, Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Y.K. Srivastava said. The bench also observed that the PIL petitioners have not been able to place on record any material to demonstrate that the decision taken in this regard by the State Government is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and is based on irrelevant considerations, or that the same is violative of any constitutional or statutory provision, so as to bring the same within the parameters of the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. (Case: Allahabad Heritage Society & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors., PIL No. 4717/2018, decided on 26.02.2019) 5. Addl Chief Secretary Sentenced Till Rising Of Court & Slapped 25K Fine For Contempt The Lucknow Bench sentenced Additional Chief Secretary Mahesh Kumar Gupta till rising of the court, holding him guilty of contempt of court, for failing to comply with the court's orders passed in relation to the preparation of seniority list of Assistant Review Officers (AROs). By its September, 2017 order, the court had set aside an earlier seniority list and had directed the State to prepare a fresh one in six months. However, the State government did not complete the said exercise within the six month period and hence the contempt petition was filed. Justice Vivek Chaudhary also imposed a fine of Rs. 25, 000 on Gupta, clarifying that the cost of the fine shall not be borne by the State Government. (Case: Dr. Kishore Tandon & Ors. v. Rajiv Kumar Chief Secy. Gov. of UP & Anr., Contempt No. 786/2018, decided on 26.03.2019) 6. Dismissed Challenge Against Justice PC Ghose's Appointment As India's First Lokpal The high court dismissed the Petitioner challenging appointment of Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose as Lokpal, alleging that since he was former member of National Human Rights Commission, he was ineligible to be considered and appointed on the said post in view of the bar under Section 6(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Section 6(3) provides that on ceasing to hold office, a...

Allahabad HC 2019 Highlights

Akshita Saxena

Tags