High Courts Weekly Roundup [September 20, 2021 To September 26, 2021]

Allahabad High Court 1. "No Concrete Action Taken By Govt Officials To Control Noise Pollution Through Modified Silencers": Allahabad High Court [Noise Pollution Thru Modified Silencers (Suo Moto)(P.I.L.)] Dealing with the suo moto matter regarding Noise pollution through the modified silencers, the High Court remarked that the Government officials miserably failed in their duty to control noise pollution and to crack down on such vehicles causing noise pollution through the modified silencer, hooters, and pressure horns. 2. Hathras Gang Rape Case: Allahabad HC Seeks Details Of Scheme For Relief & Rehabilitation Of Atrocity Victims Under SC/ST Act [Suo-Moto Inre: Right To Decent & Dignified Last Rites/Cremation] The High Court asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to specify details of the Scheme as envisaged under Sub Section 11 of Section 15-A of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Rule 14 of The SC/ST Rules, 1995. This particular subsection makes it the duty of the concerned State to specify an appropriate scheme to ensure the implementation of certain rights and entitlements of victims and witnesses in accessing justice. 3. Who Will Police The Police?' Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To 2 UP Cops In Bikru Encounter Conspiracy Case [Vinay Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh] The High Court denied bail to two UP Police officials, SO Vinay Kumar Tiwari & Beat Officer Krishna Kumar Sharma, who are facing conspiring charges in connection with the ambush in Bikru village on July 3, 2020, in which eight policemen were gunned down by Gangster Vikas Dubey. The Court started with the famous statement made by Justice VR Krishna Iyer "Who will police the police" 40 years ago in a judgment. 4. No Abetment To Suicide Case Made Out If Man Separates Wife From His Life Due To Which She Dies By Suicide: Allahabad HC [Jagveer Singh Alias Bantu v. State of U.P.] Setting aside the conviction order passed against a Husband for abetting the suicide of his wife, the High Court last week held that separating wife from his own life could not be a reason which could come under the category of the abetment. The Bench of Justice Ajai Tyagi was hearing an appeal filed by one Jagveer Singh Alias Bantu who had been convicted under Sections 498-A & 306 IPC by Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit. 5. Gareeb Nawaz Masjid Demolition- Allahabad HC Seeks UP Govt Response On Plea For Quashing Of FIR Over 'The Wire' Report The High Court sought the reply of the Uttar Pradesh Government on a plea filed by 2 Journalists [Seraj Ali and Mukul Singh Chauhan] and the news portal 'The Wire' seeking quashing of FIR registered against them for their report on Gareeb Nawaz Masjid Demolition. The FIR in question was registered against them for their report on the alleged Gareeb Nawaz Mosque illegal demolition (Ramsanehighat, Barabanki) issue in Uttar Pradesh under Sections 153, 153-A, 505(1)(b), 120-B, 34 IPC. 6. Trend Of Political Parties Welcoming Gangsters, Giving Them Election Tickets Needs To Be Stopped: Allahabad High Court [Vinay Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh] Expressing concerns over the trend of welcoming, giving election tickets to the Gangsters/Criminal by the Political parties, the High Court observed that if this practice isn't stopped, such criminals and gangsters would become "Bhasmasur" and will give a serious dent to the country and democratic setup. The Bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava made these observations as it denied bail to two UP Police officials, SO Vinay Kumar Tiwari & Beat Officer Krishna Kumar Sharma, who are facing conspiring charges in connection with the ambush in Bikru village on July 3, 2020, in which eight policemen were gunned down by Gangster Vikas Dubey. Andhra Pradesh 1. Minimum Wages Act Does Not Apply To Temples & Mutts: Andhra Pradesh High Court [Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. State of Andhra Pradesh] The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that Minimum Wages Act does not apply to temples or mutts. In the context of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, the court observed that there is a distinction between a temple and a mutt. "A Math is an institution headed by a person whose primary job is to engage himself in teaching, propagation of religious philosophy etc., and impart religious training etc. On the other hand, a temple is a place, which is dedicated to and keep used as a place of public religious worship.", Justice DVSS Somayajulu observed while allowing a writ petition filed by Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt challenging the memos issued to it directing payment of minimum wages. 2. Are Tobacco Products 'Food' Under Food Safety Act? Andhra Pradesh High Court Refers Issue To Division Bench [Dasa Shekar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and connected cases] The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [September 20, 2021 To September 26, 2021]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags