High Courts Weekly Roundup [Jan 11 – Jan 17]

Allahabad High Court 1. Mandatory Publication Of Notice Of Intended Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Violates Right To Privacy: Allahabad High Court [Safiya Sultana v. State Of UP] A Single Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary held that requirement of publication of notice of intended marriage under Section 6 and inviting/entertaining objections under Section 7 of the Special Marriage Act is not mandatory. It observed that making such publication mandatory would invade in the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy, including within its sphere freedom to choose for marriage without interference from state and non-state actors, of the persons concerned. While giving notice under Section 5 of the Act of 1954 it shall be optional for the parties to the intended marriage to make a request in writing to the Marriage Officer to publish or not to publish a notice under Section 6 and follow the procedure of objections as prescribed under the Act of 1954, the court observed. The court added that, in case they do not make such a request for publication of notice in writing, while giving notice under Section 5 of the Act, the Marriage Officer shall not publish any such notice or entertain objections to the intended marriage and proceed with the solemnization of the marriage. "However, it shall be open for the Marriage Officer, while solemnizing any marriage under the Act of 1954, to verify the identification, age and valid consent of the parties or otherwise their competence to marry under the said Act. In case he has any doubt, it shall be open for him to ask for appropriate details/proof as per the facts of the case.", the judge observed. Also Read: Allahabad HC Verdict Comes As Saviour For Inter-Religious Couples Caught Between Special Marriage Act & UP Anti-Conversion Ordinance Also Read: UP Ordinance On Conversion Is Nothing But Criminalization Of Inter-Faith Marriages : Petitioner's Rejoinder In Allahabad High Court 2. SC/ST Act: Allahabad HC Issues Directions Regarding Timely Service Of Notice Of Bail Pleas To Victim & Placing Of Same Before Court [Ajeet Chaudhary v. State of UP & Anr.] While hearing the concerns of parties that certain anomalies in the practices of hearing of bail applications/bail appeals under the SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, a Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot issued certain directions regarding placing of bail application/bail appeal under the Act before the Court and timely delivery of notice to victim. The Court noted that Bail applications should be processed expeditiously and placed before the court for hearing in a reasonable and definite time frame. Access full report to read directions 3. 'Home-Buyers Facing Hostile Actions From Builders': Allahabad High Court Issues Directions For Expedient Disposal By Development Authorities [Shipra Sristhi Apartment v. State of UP & Ors.] A Division Bench of Justices Pankaj Naqvi and Piyush Agrawal expressed concern over increasing number of cases being filed by home-buyers, facing hostile and arbitrary actions at the hands of builders, who often violate buyer agreement. It observed that home-buyers spend their hard-earned life savings to buy an apartment and instead of resolving their disputes, the concerned Development Authorities often become mute spectators. It further observed that the issue at hand is of huge public interest and it shall be appropriate to issue a general mandamus to the Competent Authorities to dispose of the grievance of the home-buyers within a stipulated period, so as to obviate an individual home-buyer or a registered association, as the case may be, from approaching this Court time and again. Access full report to read directions 4. Allahabad High Court Grants Protection To Inter-Faith Couple, Who Married 3 Years Ago, From Police Harassment Under UP Ordinance [Chandni & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors.] A Division Bench of Justices Ritu Raj Awasthi and Saroj Yadav restrained the UP Police from taking action against a married inter-faith couple, alleging harassment ever since invocation of the controversial Love-Jihad Ordinance. It ordered that till the next date of listing, the petitioners shall not be harassed by the police on the basis of the impugned F.I.R. The couple claimed that they married out of their own sweet will three years back and they are living peacefully and enjoying their matrimonial life. They also have one child aged one and a half year. They alleged that they were compelled to approach this court at present due to harassment by the police under the garb of the said ordinance. 5. Plea Seeking Implementation Of Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act: Allahabad HC Seeks State's Response, Orders Govt. Buildings Inspection [Shabih Fatima & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.] In a petition for writ filed by 16 students seeking complete implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, ...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [Jan 11 – Jan 17]

Akshita Saxena

Summation of important High Court orders this week

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Akshita Saxena

High Courts Weekly Roundup [Jan 11 – Jan 17]

Akshita Saxena

Summation of important High Court orders this week

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Akshita Saxena

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers