High Courts Weekly Roundup [June 14, 2020 – June 20, 2020]

Allahabad High Court 1. 'Incomplete & Defective Gang Charts In UP Resulting In Easy Bail For Accused, Giving Ample Room For Miscarriage Of Justice': Allahabad High Court [Nishant@Nishu v. State of UP] A Single Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi has taken serious note of "half backed" gang-charts being filed under the UP Gangster Act 1986, that ultimately helps alleged gangsters in "easily obtaining bail", thereby threatening the order of the civil society. It observed that in the age of internet, where information of entire world is on one's finger tips, the concerned authorities are expected to prepare extensive gang-charts that will help the Court to effectively adjudicate bail pleas. The Bench therefore directed the Principal Secretary (Homes), Lucknow and the Director General of Police, Lucknow to Start an exercise to frame proper Rules under the 1986 Act, latest by 31st December, 2021. Meanwhile, they shall issue proper circular to all the SSP/SPs of the District to appoint any officer at least CO Rank, to become authority concern and author of gang chart and act as Nodal Officer of all the police stations within the district. 2. 'Virus Is Going To Stay For Long. What Is Your Plan For Future?' : Allahabad High Court Asks UP Govt [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…] A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Yadav and Justice Prakash Padia asked the UP Government to come up with a road map for tackling the Covid-19 pandemic, which it anticipated is going to "stay for a long time". "We want to know the status regarding action you have taken up till now to meet the challenge of this pandemic. It appears that this virus is going to stay with us for long. What is your plan for the future, unseen challenges?" it asked AAG Manish Goyal, appearing for the State. The Bench made it clear that it will not take adversarial view in a public interest matter and is inclined to grant more time to the State to come with an action plan. "State is doing its duty. We cannot interfere in policy matters. There is no timeline which can be fixed for the state. Is there any timeline for the virus?" the Chief Justice remarked when intervenors in the matter sought time bound directions. 3. Can't Give Custody Of Minor 'Husband' To 'Wife' As It Would Be Sanctioning Cohabitation Between Adult & A Child: Allahabad High Court [Manish Kumar & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors.] Noting that if a minor boy would be placed under the custody of his wife, it would be permitting an offence under the POCSO Act, a Bench of Justice JJ Munir refused to give custody of a minor 'husband' to his 'wife'. It held that their marriage was voidable and if the minor boy is placed under the custody of his wife, it would amount to sanctioning cohabitation between a major and a minor. The Court noted that just as there cannot be the case of a minor Hindu wife being married to a major and the husband regarded as her natural guardian under Section 6(c) of the Act of 1956, the POCSO Act, similarly works to prohibit sex between a man, who is a minor and a woman, who is a major. 4. 'If Death Occurs, Is It State's Responsibility?': Allahabad HC Refuses To Entertain Plea For Disposal Of Dead Bodies Buried Near Ganga A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Yadav and Justice Prakash Padia refused to entertain a petition seeking disposal of the dead bodies buried near Ganga River at different ghats in Prayagraj, questioning the petitioner as to whether it is the State's responsibility if there is a death in a family. It asked the Counsel Pranvesh as to what had been his personal contribution to the cause and as to whether he himself dug out and cremated the bodies. Further, when Advocate Pranvesh argued that it was the responsibility of the state to perform cremation according to religious rites, and dispose of the dead bodies buried alongside the Ganga River, the Chief Justice asked: "Why should the state do that? If there is a death in a family, is it the state's responsibility?" Also Read: COVID Death Allegedly Due To Hospital's Inaction: "Case Involves Disputed Facts, Article 226 Not Appropriate Remedy For Compensation": Allahabad HC 5. "We Are Not Against Live-In Relation But Can't Give Protection When One Of The Live-In Partners Is Married": Allahabad High Court [Chhaya & Anr. v. State of UP] In what could be termed as a clarification, a Division Bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Dinesh Pathak said that it is not against the live in relationships, but rejected a protection plea by a couple who wanted to live in relation as the plea was filed during the subsistence of marriage of one of the petitioners. "We are not against the live in relation. Yesterday we have rejected a matter seeking protection by a couple who wanted to live in relation. The reasons were that the protection to live in relation was sought for by the...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [June 14, 2020 – June 20, 2020]

Akshita Saxena

Tags