Top
News Updates

Allahabad HC 2019 Highlights

Akshita Saxena
28 Dec 2019 7:04 AM GMT
Allahabad HC 2019 Highlights
x

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...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

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 Chairperson or a Member of NHRC shall be ineligible for further employment under the Government of India or under the Government of any State.

The Division bench comprising Justice Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Justice Rajnish Kumar observed that the Chairperson and Members of Lokpal are not an employment under the Government therefore the prohibition for employment under the Government of India or under the Government of any State is not applicable in this case.

(Case: Rajneesh Kumar v. Pinaki Chandra Ghose & Anr., Misc. Bench No. 8824/2019, decided on 30.03.2019)

7. Held Withdrawal of Petition With Liberty To File Fresh One Cannot Be Allowed When It May Lead To 'Bench Hunting'

Bench of Justices B. Amit Sthalekar and Piyush Agrawal held that a petitioner cannot be allowed to file a writ petition seeking certain reliefs and then withdrawing the same with liberty to file fresh writ petition and again to file same relief before another Bench. Bench noted that same would lead to a case of "Bench hunting".

Court found that relief claimed by petitioner in the writ petition before it was no different than the one earlier filed in which same petitioner was the party and that no new fact or relief have been claimed in the subsequent petition.

(Case: Dheer Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors., WC No. 12468/2019, decided on 22.04.2019)

8. Explained Why Duty Free Shops Are Exempted From GST

In a PIL challenging the exemption given to Duty Free Shops from GST, Justices Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Rajnish Kumar explained the reasons for exempting Duty Free Shops in airports from GST.

It noticed that the supply of imported goods to and from the DFS did not cross the customs frontier of India. Therefore, supply of goods to and from the DFS is to be regarded as supply of goods in course of inter-state trade or commerce as per Section 7(2) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act 2017. This means that such supply is not regarded as inter-state supply which is leviable under the CGST and SGST Acts, and will be governed by IGST Act.

(Case: Atin Krishna v. Union of India & Ors., PIL (C) No. 12929/2019, decided on 03.05.2019)

9. Govt Servant Not Entitled To Full Pension/Gratuity During Pending Disciplinary/Judicial Proceedings

The full bench comprising of Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that the entitlement to full pension /death-cum-retirement gratuity to the government servant is subject to the outcome of the disciplinary/judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon by the competent authority. The bench was considering a reference to it on the issue of entitlement of the government servant to receive death cum-retirement gratuity on superannuation or otherwise pending judicial proceedings.

(Case: Shivagopal v. State of UP & Ors., SA 40/2017, decided on 08.05.2019)

10. Forcible Sex Amounts To Cruelty On Wife

Justice Shashi Kant Gupta and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava upheld a district court order allowing the divorce plea filed by a wife while holding that forcible sex, unnatural or natural, is an illegal intrusion in the privacy of the wife and amounts to cruelty against her.

(Case: Sanjeev Gupta v. Ritu Gupta, FA No. 296/2018, decided on 24.05.2019)

11. Dismissed Petition Challenging Azam Khan's Election From Rampur

The Lucknow bench of the high court dismissed a writ petition of BJP leader Jayaprada challenging the election of Azam Khan from the Rampur parliamentary constituency in the 2019 Lok Sabha election, on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Justice Rajan Roy and Justice N K Jauhari said Rampur falls under the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court and hence, a petition in the Lucknow bench is not maintainable. They also said that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and only an election petition can be moved in such circumstances.

(Read Summary Here)

12. Upheld Vires Of UP Self Financed Independent Schools (Fee Regulation) Act Applicable To Minority Institutions

The high court upheld the constitutional validity of Uttar Pradesh Self Financed Independent Schools (Fee Regulation) Act, 2018 which provides for regulation of fees in self financed independent schools in the State. its validity had been challenged on the ground that as per article 30(1) of the Constitution of India no interference in administration of minority institutions can be made by the State authorities statutorily or otherwise.

Referring to TMA Pai case, the bench comprising of the Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice observed that laws made by the State to regulate the administration of educational institutions and grant of aid will apply to minority educational institutions also. But if any such regulations interfere with the overall administrative control of the management over the staff or abridges/duties, in any other manner, the right to establish and administer educational institutions, such regulations, to that extent, will be inapplicable to minority institutions, the court noted.

The bench added that the Act was a statutory effort to stop commercialization of education and exploitation of the students joining educational institutions including minority institutions.

(Case: Diocese of Varanasi Education Society & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors., WC 709/2019, decided on 02.07.2019)

13. Court Explained Ingredients For Applying Exception IV To Section 300 IPC In A Murder Trial

The division bench of Justices Pankaj Naqvi and Umesh Kumar converted the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder by applying Exception IV to Section 300 IPC.

To attract Exception (IV) to Sec 300 IPC the following 4 essential ingredients are must, i.e. the overt act must be:-

  1. without premeditation;
  2. in a sudden fight;
  3. in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and
  4. the offender not having taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

(Case: Vijay Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. State of UP, CA No. 3150/2004, decided on 05.07.2019)

14. Appointment Of Commissioner Not Permissible Where Parties Have Closed Evidence

The high court dismissed a writ petition holding that once evidence was closed and the court proceedings entered the stage of arguments, any application filed for appointment of a commissioner would amount to permitting the party to fill up lacunae in its evidence.

Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava reiterated that the object of the provision for issuance of commission cannot be to assist a party to collect evidence or to initiate a roving enquiry.

(Case: Sanjay alias Mathura v. Onkar Arora, WA No. 10463/2019, decided on 15.07.2019)

15. Engineering Degree Holders Are Ineligible For The Post Of Junior Engineer

The three-judge bench comprising Justice B. K. Narayana, Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Pankaj Bhatia ruled that persons holding a degree in engineering are not eligible to be appointed as junior engineers for vacancies recently advertised by the State Government wherein, the essential eligibility criteria specified was 'Diploma Holders in Engineering Discipline'.

Relying on the Apex Court ruling in State of Uttarakhand & Ors. v. Deep Chandra Tewari & Anr., (2013) 15 SCC 557, the bench clarified that while the focus in diploma course was on practical knowledge, the degree course focused on theoretical knowledge. Thus, Diploma in Engineering and Graduate in Engineering cannot be held to be in the same channel.

(Case: Deepak Singh & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors., WA No. 24273/2018, decided on 23.07.2019)

16. Held CVC Is Not An Investigating Agency In Disciplinary Proceeding Against Bank Employees

Dismissing the Writ Petition filed by a bank employee, the high court held that the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is not an investigating agency in disciplinary proceeding leveled against employees of the bank.

The Petitioner had contended that the charge-sheet issued against him was in violation of Rule 19 of the Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. According to the said Rule, the advice of CVC was mandatory in matters involving vigilance angle, the Petitioner submitted.

Interpreting the language of Rule 19, Justice Sunita Agarwal held that the words used in the rules were "Consultation" with Central Vigilance Commission. The role of CVC is thus advisory in the matter.

(Case: AM Kulshrestha v. Union Bank of India & Ors., WA No. 10800/2019, decided on 26.07.2019)

17. Referred Question Of Period Of Limitation For Filling Complaint U/S 12 & 18 Of DV Act To Larger Bench

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh referred a matter under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to be adjudicated by a larger bench of the Court. The issue involved therein was that what should be the period of limitation for filling a complaint under Sections 12 and 18 of the Act.

Section 12 of the Act prescribes that an application may be filed before the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs provided under the Act. Section 18 of the Act provides that the Magistrate may, after hearing both the parties, pass protection orders in favor of the aggrieved person.

(Case: Trilochan Singh v. Manpreet Kaur & Anr., Misc. Single No. 4177/2012, referred on 02.08.2019)

18. Prosecution For Offence Of "Waging War Against India" Will Not Stand Without Sanction U/S 196 CRPC

The high court held that prior government sanction under Section 196 of CrPC is mandatory to take cognizance of offences like Section 121-123 IPC and it thereby set aside the order of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on a Pakistani Jaish-E-Mohommad Terrorist group member and another Indian citizen, for want of such sanction.

Section 196 Cr.P.C. contemplates a prior sanction of the government before taking cognizance, if an offence is punishable under Chapter- VI or Chapter- VI of IPC which run from Sections 121 through Section 130 IPC.

Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV condemned the Prosecution for its laid back attitude whereby specific requirement of statute has been given a go bye and completely ignored.

(Case: Mohd. Waris @ Raza v. State, Jail Appl. No. 8326/2007 & Ashphaq @ Nanhey v. State of UP, Crl. Appl. No. 3779/2007, decided on 05.08.2019)

19. Amicable Settlement In Matrimonial Cases By Mutual Agreement

Taking note of the bleak chances of conviction if parties in a matrimonial dispute arrive at a settlement, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh said the offender and victim in such cases should be allowed to compound the offence in terms of the settlement.

The court referred to observations of the Apex Court in G. V. Rao v. LHV Prasad & Ors., wherein the court had set out the approach to be adopted in matrimonial cases as it had held, "Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully…There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different Courts".

(Case: Alok Jaiswal & Anr. v. State of UP & Anr., Application U/S 482 No. 27720/2019, decided on 08.08.2019)

20. Prohibited Use Of DJs, Loudspeakers

Stating that the noise generated by DJ is unpleasant and obnoxious level, the division bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel and Justice Pankaj Bhatia imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state and asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. "Even if they are operated at the minimum level of the sound it is beyond permissible limits…." the bench remarked.

The court also issued a series of directions to curb indiscriminate use of Loudspeakers in the State and to give effect to the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Noise Pollution (V), In Re, 2005 (5) SCC 733.

In a recent order however, the Supreme Court stayed the blanket ban on the use of DJs in the State and asked the concerned authorities to decide on the applications seeking permission to play DJ. The Court said that permission should be granted for DJ services, if the applications are otherwise in accordance with.

(Case: Sushil Chandra Srivastava & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors., WC No. 1216/2019, decided on 20.08.2019)

21. UP HJS Rules Do Not Provide Re-Evaluation Of Mains Answer Books

Refusing to accept the Petitioner's request to order re-evaluation of her UP HJS answer sheets, the division bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Saral Srivastava held that since the Rules pertaining to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services did not provide for re-evaluation, it could not direct the authorities to do the same.

However, the court advised the Petitioner that she could opt to file an RTI to see her answer books.

(Case: Reet Rani v. Registrar General High Court, Allahabad & Anr., WA No. 12802, decided on 26.08.2019)

22. Pendency Of Criminal Case Against A Passport Holder Will Not Automatically Result In Impounding Of The Passport

The division bench of Justice Shashi Kant Gupta and Justice Umesh Kumar held that mere pendency of a criminal case is not a valid reason for impounding a person's passport.

Reliance was placed on Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978(1) SCC 248, to assert that if the reasons given for impounding the passport were extraneous or did not have a nexus with the ground on which the passport was impounded, the order of impoundment could be struck down by the court.

(Case: Neera Chandra v. Union of India & Ors., WC No. 27307/2019, decided on 26.08.2019)

23. Held Employer May Invoke Civil Remedy To Recover Loss From Employee In Absence Of Specific Remedy In Employees Service Regulations

The full bench of the high court held that in absence of a specific remedy in Employees' Service Regulations, an employer may invoke civil liability to recover the loss incurred by him due to the actions of an employee.

The order was passed while adjudicating upon inconsistencies in Regulation 84 of U.P. Co-Operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (Regulations 1975) and Rule 83 of U.P. Co-operative Federation Limited Karmchari Seva Niyamawali, 1980 (Rules 1980).

(Case: Pancham Ram Yadav v. UP Cooperative Federation Lt. & Anr., SA No. 435/2008, decided on 02.09.2019)

24. Bar On Appeal Against Compromise Decree Not Applicable Where Court Declines To Record Some Part Of Compromise

Relying on the Supreme Court's verdict in Kishun alias Ram Kishun v. Behari, (2005) 6 SCC 300, Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta held that the bar under Section 96(3) CPC against appeal from a compromise decree shall not apply in cases where the court records some part of the compromise while declines to record the remaining part.

(Case: Sri Ram Krishna Vivekanand Shishu Niketan v. Sri Onkarnath & Ors., Matters U/A 227 No. 3147/2019, decided on 03.09.2019)

25. Stayed Financial Bids In Public Tender

In a petition filed by NCC Ltd., the division bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Ajit Kumar stayed opening of financial bids in tender for procurement of plant - design, supply and installation, floated by Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam.

The Petitioner was aggrieved by an order of rejection passed by the Nigam as the same was passed without affording any opportunity to clarify/ rectify the technical bid.

This interim order is quite exceptional as public tenders, being in the realm of contract, are not as such open to judicial interference.

(Case: NCC Ltd. v. State of UP & Ors., WC No. 29072/2019, stayed on 16.09.2019)

26. Section 362 CrPC Does Not Bar Recall Of Orders

Justice Rajeev Misra held that the bar contained in section 362 of CrPC applies for review, and not recall. Section 362 CrPC provides that no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Vishnu Agarwal Vs.State of U.P. whereby it was observed: "There is a distinction between ...... a review petition and a recall petition. While in a review petition, the Court considers on merits whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record, in a recall petition the Court does not go into the merits but simply recalls an order which was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected party."

(Case: Jaspreet Singh Garewal v. State of UP & Anr., Application U/S 482 No. 38644/2016, decided on 19.09.2019)

27. ITAT Can Pass Orders Directing CIT To Register A Trust Under S. 12AA Of IT Act

The Full bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can, on satisfaction of genuineness of activities of a Trust, pass an order directing the Commissioner of Income Tax to grant registration to such Trust under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and it need not remand the case back to the Commissioner. It added that remand in case of Tribunal's personal satisfaction world be "an empty formality".

Section 12AA prescribes the procedure for registration of a trust or institution and empowers the Commissioner to do so.

The bench however clarified that if the Appellate Tribunal had recorded its satisfaction on the basis of material which was not available before the Commissioner, the matter would require remand. Further, remand to the Commissioner could also be directed in case where the application had been rejected on a technical ground, without recording opinion on facts.

(Case: Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption UP State Cons. & Infra. v. M/S Reham Foundation Kandhari Lane Lal Bagh Lucknow, ITA No. 37/2017, decided on 26.09.2019)

28. Held That It Is Not Necessary To Mete Out Punishment In Every Criminal Offence

Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh allowed compromise of a non-compoundable offence and held that it may not be necessary in every criminal offence to mete out punishment. The accused had been charged under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 316 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Concurring with the party's counsel, the high court held that after settlement of the matrimonial dispute between the husbands and wives and particularly when they were living together and leading their life happily along with their children, the court ought to accept their compromise application.

Reliance was placed on BS Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2003) 1 SCC (Cri) 848, wherein the Apex Court had approved the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings on compromise in suitable matrimonial cases.

The court also made observations with respect to the difficulties that may arise in procuring evidence, once the parties had decided to settle the matter.

(Case: Md. Kafeel & Ors. v. Satte of UP & Anr., Application U/S 482 No. 36199/2019, decided on 01.10.2019)

29. Directed Inquiry Against University For Allegedly Granting Admissions To Unauthorized Course

Justice Ashok Kumar directed the Bar Council of India to depute an inspection team and submit a report in connection to the Petitioner's complaint that he had been granted admission to an unauthorized course by the Noida International University.

Allegedly, the Petitioner was granted addition in the batch of 2013-14 for BBA+LLB (Hons.) course by the School of Legal Studies and Research, Noida International University. However, on completion of the said course, the Petitioner was awarded a provisional degree of BBA-LLB and not BBA-LLB (Hons). On enquiry from various sources including the Bar Council of India, he discovered that the said University was not authorized for teaching and for issuance of Hons degree.

(Case: Prateek Shukla v. State of UP & Ors., WC No. 31456/2019, ordered on 04.11.2019)

30. Govt. Sanction Not Required To Prosecute A Retired Public Servant

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh-I held that no sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is necessary after the retirement of Public Servant.

"As per the provisions of Section 19 for taking cognizance of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act it is necessary for the public servant to remain in service and in the present matter on the date of taking cognizance the revisionist was not in service as he had retired, hence there was no need to seek prosecution sanction for the revisionist under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act," he said while allowing prosecution without sanction of retired Principal of a government inter college.

(Case: Shyam Bihari Tiwari v. State of UP & Ors., Crl. Rev. No. 3155/2019, decided on 11.11.2019)

31.  Asks National Political Parties To File Reply In Plea Challenging Use Of Election Symbols Post Elections

The Lucknow bench of the high court issued notices on petition challenging the use of "reserved election symbols" by political parties as their party logos. A reserved election symbol is a symbol that is reserved for a recognized political party for "exclusive allotment to contesting candidates", under para 5 of the Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.

The bench of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Pankaj Bhatia asked all the national parties to file their replies after the Petitioner contended that reserved election symbols were to be used only for elections and not after the elections were over. In light of Rule 5 of Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, she had argued that allotment of symbol to "contesting candidates" was only for participation in elections; such a symbol could not be permanently used by political parties as their party logo.

(Case: Shraddha Tripathi v. Election Commission of India & Ors., Misc. Bench No. 12092/2016, notices issued on 13.11.2019)

32. Directs Centre, UP Govt. To Decide Upon Establishment Of Single Wakf Board In The State

Without going into the merits of the case, the the bench of Justices Alok Mathur and Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal directed the Centre and the UP State government to decide whether or not the existing Shia and Sunni Wakf Boards in UP should be set aside to establish a Single Wakf Board instead.

The order was passed in a PIL asserting implementation of Section 13(2) of the Wakf Act which stipulates that the State Government is empowered to establish separate Wakf Boards for Shia and Sunni sects respectively, only upon the satisfaction of either of two contingencies i.e.

  • either the number of Shia Wakf in the State are more than 15% of all Wakfs in the State; or
  • the income of the properties of the Shia Wakf in the State constitutes more than 15% of the total income of properties of all Wakfs in the State.
  • (Case: Masarrat Husain v. Union of India & Ors., PIL (C) No. 31358/2019, decided on 15.11.2019)

    33. Evidence Not Collected By IO Nor Part Of Case Diary Can't Form Basis For Taking Cognizance

    While quashing the summoning order passed by a Judicial Magistrate, the Justice Om Prakash-VII clarified that material which does not form part of the case diary, cannot be considered for taking cognizance.

    "It is evident that evidence which was not part of the case diary was taken into consideration by the concerned Magistrate while passing the impugned order whereby final report has been rejected and straightaway cognizance has been taken in the matter on the protest petition without following the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. If original "Ravannas" were not part of the case diary then concerned Magistrate ought not to have taken into consideration the same at the time of passing of the impugned order," he said.

    (Case: NK Janoo v. State of UP & Anr., Application U/S 482 No. 31673/2016, decided on 22.11.2019)

    34. Issued Guidelines To Universities For Creation Of Rehabilitation Programme For Delinquent Students

    The high court observed that absence of any reform and rehabilitative measures, in the administrative and legal frameworks of the universities, has serious legal and constitutional implications as it takes a toll on the right to live with human dignity, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

    Accordingly, it directed the Banaras Hindu University to admit a delinquent student to the MA course offered by the University, while issuing detailed guidelines to ensure rehabilitation and reform of delinquent students.

    (Case: Satyam Rai v. BHU & Ors., WC No. 25122/2019, decided on 02.12.2019)

    35. Granted Bail To Law Student In Extortion Case Filed By Chinmayanand

    Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh granted bail to the law student accused of extorting money from former Union Minister and BJP leader Swami Chinmayanand, whom she accused of rape. The SIT had booked her and her three friends on a complaint made by Chinmayanand that they had demanded Rs. 5 crore from him and threatened him with the release of objectionable videos.

    The court noted that a detailed charge-sheet had already been submitted by the SIT and there did not appear any requirement or justification to continue with the further detention, pending the trial.

    "To allow for such continued detention, in such circumstances, would be to allow for heavy arm twisting and practically to enable the prosecuting agency an opportunity to force the applicant to self-incriminate, even if, the submissions advanced by learned senior counsel for the informant are accepted on face value. Such course is clearly impermissible," the court held.

    (Case: Kajol Sharma v. State of UP, Crl. Misc. BA No. 43814/2019, decided on 04.12.2019)

    36. Dismissed Petition Challenging Election Of PM Modi From Varanasi

    Reiterating that an election petition can be filed only by an elector or a duly nominated candidate, the high court dismissed the petition filed by ex-BSF jawan Tej Bahadur Yadav challenging Prime Minister Narendra Modi's election from Varanasi constituency.

    Yadav was declared the Samajwadi Party candidate from Varanasi in 2019 polls but could not contest the election as his nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer for want of a certificate issued by the Election Commission to the effect that he had not been dismissed from the service of Government of India, on ground of corruption or disloyalty to the State. He had moved court saying Modi's election be declared void while also demanding action against the Returning Officer for misusing his official position.

    (Case: Tej Bahadur v. Narendra Modi, EP No. 17/2019, decided on 06.12.2019)

    Next Story
    Share it