High Courts Weekly Roundup [Feb 15 – Feb 21]

Allahabad High Court 1. 'Life & Its Consumption Includes Necessary Hygiene & Sanitation': Allahabad High Court In Plea For Construction Of Ladies' Toilets In Police Stations [Anjali Pandey & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.] "Life and its consumption includes necessary hygiene and sanitation. In absence of adequate facilities to meet essential human requirements, life cannot be led with dignity", observed a Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery while hearing a PIL filed by certain law students, seeking direction to the Uttar Pradesh Government to ensure construction of ladies' toilets in each Police Stations in the state. It has granted 5 days' time to the State to apprise the Court about the immediate steps being taken to meet the urgent requirement of having toilets at different police stations, with complete hygiene. The matter is listed for hearing on February 22, 2021. 2. Unfortunate That The Properties Of Religious And Charitable Institutions Are Being Usurped By Criminals: Allahabad High Court [Bharat Das @ Ram Newaz Singh v. State of UP] "It is unfortunate that the properties of religious and charitable institutions are being usurped by criminals," a Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said while dismissing a bail application filed by a man accused of selling properties of a Math (Akhil Bhartiya Udasin Sangat Thakurji Virajman Thakurdwara Jhaaulal) on the basis of forged and fabricated documents in favour of the land mafias. 3. Detention Of A Person Despite Furnishing Of Personal Bond Violative Of Article 21: Allahabad High Court [Shiv Kumar Verma & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors.] A Division Bench comprising of Justices Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Shamim Ahmed held that keeping a person in custody, despite his furnishing personal bonds as required by the magistrate, is violative of his right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It therefore up an Executive Magistrate for failing to release two persons, arrested on apprehensions of breach of public peace, despite their furnishing personal bond and other papers. 4. Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Upper Age Limit For UP Higher Judicial Services [Munendra Singh v. Allahabad High Court & Anr.] A Division Bench comprising of Justices Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Rohit Ranjan Agarwal dismissed a petition challenging the age criteria stipulated in an advertisement calling for applications to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services. It refused to interfere with the advertisement on noting that the same is in consonance to Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975. Rule 12 states: "A candidate for direct recruitment must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years on the first day of January next following the year in which the notice inviting applications is published; Provided that the upper age limit shall be higher by three years in case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and such other categories as may be notified by the Government from time to time." Other developments: 'Within What Period The Existing Vacancies In Revenue Courts Would Be Filled Up': Allahabad High Court Asks UP GovtMirzapur Series: Allahabad High Court Stays Arrest Of Directors & Writers Of The Series Bombay High Court 1. Prosecutor Cites Sec 164 Statement Of Witness To Allege That Partho Dasgupta Was Aware Of TRP Manipulation During hearing of bail application moved by then BARC CEO Partho Dasgupta in connection with the TRP Scam case, the Public Prosecutor cited the statement of a witness, Perkham Basu (former employee with BARC) that the organisation received several complaints against Republic TV alleging that the channel used dubious methods to get number 1 viewership, but Dasgupta did not pay any heed. The employee further said that during her time as Deputy General Manager of BARC she noticed that Dasgupta was actually involved in TRP manipulation "so that a channel can make profits through advertisements." 2. FIR Against Sushant Singh Rajput's Sisters : Prima Facie Case Against Priyanka Singh; No Case Against Meetu Singh, Says Bombay High Court [Priyanka Singh & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.] A bench comprising Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik observed that there was a prima facie case found against Priyanka Singh, the sister of late Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput, in the FIR lodged against her at the instance of Rhea Chakraborty alleging criminal conspiracy and abetment to suicide of Sushant Singh. The Court has however quashed the proceedings against another sister of Sushant, Meetu Singh, who was also named as an accused in the FIR. The Court said that the FIR will survive as regards Priyanka Singh and Dr Tarun Kumar of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital Delhi, on ...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [Feb 15 – Feb 21]

Akshita Saxena

Summation of important Judgments/orders this week

Tags