Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

High Courts Weekly Roundup [Nov 1, 2021 To Nov 7, 2021]

Hannah M Varghese
8 Nov 2021 2:30 PM GMT
High Courts Weekly Roundup [Nov 1, 2021 To Nov 7, 2021]

Allahabad High Court 1. Re-evaluate Cases For Remission After 14 Yrs Of Incarceration Even If Appeals Are Pending In HC: Allahabad HC To UP Govt [Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra v. State of U.P] The High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to instruct the District Magistrates of all the districts to re-evaluate the cases for remission after 14 years of incarceration even...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
10% discount
(150 INR per month)
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Ad Free Content
  • Special And Exclusive Stories First Available To Subscribers only
  • Copy Of Judgments/ Orders With Every Reports
  • Copy Of Petitions (Subject to Consent From Concerned Lawyers)
  • Weekly Round Ups Of Supreme Court High Court Judgments/Orders
  • Monthly Digests Of Supreme Court And High Courts
  • Yearly Digests Of Supreme Court And High Courts
  • Live Updates Of Supreme Court And High Courts Hearings
  • WhatsApp Updates
  • News Letters
Already a subscriber?
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 1 Year)
Premium account gives you:
  • Ad Free Content
  • Special And Exclusive Stories First Available To Subscribers only
  • Copy Of Judgments/ Orders With Every Reports
  • Copy Of Petitions (Subject to Consent From Concerned Lawyers)
  • Weekly Round Ups Of Supreme Court High Court Judgments/Orders
  • Monthly Digests Of Supreme Court And High Courts
  • Yearly Digests Of Supreme Court And High Courts
  • Live Updates Of Supreme Court And High Courts Hearings
  • WhatsApp Updates
  • News Letters
Already a subscriber?

Allahabad High Court

1. Re-evaluate Cases For Remission After 14 Yrs Of Incarceration Even If Appeals Are Pending In HC: Allahabad HC To UP Govt [Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra v. State of U.P]

The High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to instruct the District Magistrates of all the districts to re-evaluate the cases for remission after 14 years of incarceration even if appeals in such cases are pending in the High Court. The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi ordered thus while hearing an appeal filed by a rape convict challenging his life imprisonment sentence awarded by Additional Session Judge, Special Court (Dakaity Affected Area), District Kanpur Dehat.

2. Its The Responsibility Of The Administration To Identify Safe Areas For Sale Of Firecrackers: Allahabad High Court [Manoj Mittal v. Union Of India And 4 Others]

The High Court observed that it is the responsibility of the administration to identify the safe areas where the sale of fire crackers shall be permissible. The Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot was hearing the plea of one Manoj Mittal, whose application for renewal of licence regarding the storage and sale of crakers was rejected by the Saharanpur District administration earlier this year.

3. State Not Expected To Take Land Of People & Not Pay Compensation- Allahabad HC Seeks State Chief Secretaries' Affidavits [Jeet Narayan Yadav & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.]

Stressing that the state is not expected to take the land of the people and not pay the compensation, the High Court sought the personal affidavits of Additional Chief Secretaries of the Uttar Pradesh state regarding the grievance of people who seek compensation for their land acquired by the state government. The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal was hearing the plea 3 petitioners submitting that their land had been taken, however, no compensation had been paid to them.

Other developments:

Bombay High Court

1. Bombay HC Berates State Over Its Probe Failure To Secure Man's Presence Despite Wife's 13-Yr Long Fight, Orders 50K Compensation [Kamalbai W/o Gangadhar (Patil) Biradar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors]

Dealing with a Habeas corpus plea filed by a woman seeking the presence of her husband for the last 13 years, the High Court recently granted 50,000/- compensation to her noting that the state machinery had failed to trace her husband. The Bench of Justice V. K. Jadhav and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni noted that it was very saddening that despite pursuing the litigation for the last 13 years, she couldn't get the fruits of her efforts.

2. Lack Of Aadhaar Linkage No Reason To Deny Benefits Under Food Security Act : Bombay High Court [Ganpat Dharma Mengal & others v. Tehsildar Office, Murbad and Others]

Noting that several tribals were denied supplies under the Public Distribution System due to the non-linking of their Aadhar Cards, even as the fortunates eagerly awaited Diwali, the Bombay High Court ordered the Tehsildar of Murbad to distribute supplies to nearly 90 tribals by November 4.

In an interim order, Justices Prasanna Varale and Madhav Jamdar observed no logic, reason or rationale for denying the benefits of distribution of food grains under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA) to the tribals on raising certain technical grounds.

Also Read: Bombay High Court Restrains Sale Of Raymond's Former Chairman - Vijaypat Singhania's Autobiography On Raymond's Plea

3. Companies Act 2013 - Proposed Shareholder Resolution Must Be Legal For EGM To Be Called : Bombay High Court [Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Invesco Developing Markets Fund & Others]

The High Court has recently ruled that a shareholder resolution requisitioned under Section 100 of the Companies Act, 2013 must be legal so as to demand the Board of Directors hold an Extraordinary General Meeting (hereinafter EGM).

Justice G.S. Patel was hearing a suit filed by Zee Enterprises Limited, a public limited and listed company seeking an injunction against Invesco (investors and shareholders that holds 17.88% equity in ZEE) from acting in furtherance of a requisition notice on the grounds that it's illegal, ultra vires, invalid, bad in law and incapable of implementation.

4. Aryan Khan Case : Bombay High Court Dismisses Sam D'souza's Pre-Arrest Bail Plea

The High Court refused to entertain the application seeking pre-arrest bail filed by Sanville (Sam) D'Souza, the consultant linked to extortion and payoff allegations against NCB officials and others in the Aryan Khan case. A vacation bench led by Justice S Tavade dismissed the application saying that D'Souza ought to have approached the Sessions Court first.

D'Souza's lawyer Advocate Arun Rajput, submitted that his case is similar to that of NCB Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede, with respect to whom the Mumbai Police had assured the Bombay High Court that he won't be arrested without a 3-day prior notice. It was argued that he is not arraigned as an accused and there is no FIR against him. But allegations are made by one Prabhakar Sail in an affidavit to the effect that Sameer Wankhede had taken money in Aryan Khan's case.

5. Faceless Assessment Scheme : Bombay High Court Warns Assessing Officers Of Costs If Orders Are Passed Without Hearing Assessees [Mantra Industries Limited v. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC or NeAC) & Ors.]

The High Court has made clear that it won't entertain the orders of Income Tax Department under National Faceless Assessment Scheme, if the assessing officer has failed to comply with the limits proscribed by Section 144 r/w 144B of the Income Tax Act. The bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and Amit Borkar set aside the assessment order dated 8th June, 2021 on the ground that it's non-est under subsection 9 of Section 144B for denying the personal hearing sought by the assessee.

Also Read: 23-Yr-Old Trans Student Booked On Sedition Charges Granted Anticipatory Bail By Bombay High Court

Calcutta High Court

1. West Bengal Post Poll Violence: Calcutta High Court Directs CBI, SIT To File Additional Status Reports By December 23 [Anindya Sundar Das v. Union of India]

The High Court took on record the latest status report filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Court to investigate cases other than murder, rape and crimes against women that had allegedly taken place post the declaration of the West Bengal assembly elections in May 2021. The Court vide order dated August 19 had also directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct investigation of cases related to murder, rape and crime against women that had allegedly taken place in the aftermath of the declaration of election results.

2. Kali Puja : Calcutta High Court Permits Restricted Entry Into Pandals For Fully Vaccinated People; Rituals Such As Anjali, Arati Allowed [Ajay Kumar De v. The State of West Bengal and others]

Modifying the directions issued last year vide order dated November 5, 2020, the Court observed that all puja pandals will continue to be No-Entry Zones, including an area of five-metre beyond the pandals on all the open sides. It was further directed that based on the size of the pandals, only limited people can be allowed entry within the permissible entry points as long as they are double vaccinated and are wearing a mask.

A Bench comprising Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Kesang Doma Bhutia lamented about how enormous crowds had been seen outside puja pandals during Durga Puja last month and accordingly directed the State authorities to ensure that there is no overcrowding during the upcoming festivals.

3. Calcutta HC Directs State To Ensure Only Green Crackers Are Used [Roshni Ali v. State of West Bengal]

The Court disposed of a petition seeking directions for the proper implementation of prior Supreme Court orders on the regulation of firecrackers during the upcoming festivals. This comes in the wake of the Supreme Court setting aside the order of the Calcutta High Court which imposed a complete ban of use of firecrackers in the State of West Bengal.

A Bench comprising Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Kesang Doma Bhutia observed, "This Court is conscious of the fact that it is not possible to inspect and ensure that green crackers are being used at every nook and corner of the State. However, all necessary efforts must be made by the State to ensure that only green crackers are used and the sincerity of the State would be reflected in enforcement mechanism."

4. Calcutta High Court Refuses To Allow Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Of 31 Weeks Old Foetus Suffering From Rare Congenital Heart Defect

The Court refused to allow the plea of a woman seeking medical termination of her 31 weeks old foetus on account of a rare and complex congenital heart defect. The petitioner on October 23, 2021 during her 31 weeks gestation period had discovered through a fetal echocardiography that the the foetus has prognosis of 'hypoplastic left heart syndrome'- a congenital defect that affects normal blood flow through the heart.

Advocate Saswata Sarkar appearing for the petitioner informed Justice Md. Nizamuddin on Wednesday that a Medical Board comprising 9 specialists had been constituted pursuant to a prior order of the High Court dated October 26, 2021.

Delhi High Court

1. Juvenile Justice Act- Delhi High Court Issues TimeLine For Completing 'Age Determination' Of 'Juveniles In Conflict With Law' [Court On Its Own Motion v. State]

The Court has issued directions for streamlining the process of inquiries relating to juveniles in conflict with law and scrupulous compliance by all authorities.

The Court was dealing with a criminal reference wherein questions of law were placed by a Principal Magistrate of a Juvenile Justice Board concerning the circumstances when a child in conflict with law also happens to be a child in need of care and protection.

2. "Husband Viewed Wife As Cash Cow On Getting Job With Delhi Police": Delhi HC Dissolves Marriage On Ground Of Cruelty [Sanno Kumari v. Krishan Kumar]

The Court has dissolved marriage between a couple by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty observing that the husband had viewed his wife as a cash cow on getting a job with Delhi Police without any emotional ties.

Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh was dealing with an appeal filed by a wife challenging the Family Court order after observing neither of the grounds of cruelty or desertion was established by her.

Also Read: Kalkaji Temple : Delhi High Court Seeks Delhi Govt's Status Report On Removal Of Encroachments, Management Of Devotees

3. Google Cannot Absolve Itself From Liability Of Ensuring That Keyword Is Not An Infringement Of Trademark: Delhi High Court [M/S DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Google India Pvt Ltd & Ors]

The Court has observed that Google cannot absolve itself from the liability of ensuring that a keyword is not an infringement of trademark.

Justice V Kameswar Rao also observed that allowing individuals who are not owners of a trademark to choose a keyword which is a trademarked term or use parts of the trademark interspersed with generic words in the Ad-title or Ad-text may constitute an infringement of a trademark or it's passing off.

4. Delhi High Court Issues Directives To Central Govt Hospitals To Curb Corrupt Practices By Contractors While Engaging Workmen [All India General Kamgar Union v. Union of India & Ors.]

The Court has issued detailed directives to Central Government Hospitals to ensure that no improper and corrupt practices are indulged in by the contractors, in respect of engagement of contractual workmen.

Stating that the hospital administration shall ensure that steps are taken and are monitored on a regular basis, Justice Pratibha M Singh stated that it will be the responsibility of the Medical Superintendent of every such hospital to ensure that the contractual workers are not abused or misused in any manner and proper payment of their salaries, in accordance with the amount being released by the hospitals are made by the Contractors.

5. JNU VC Could Not Have Exercised Powers To Appoint Chairpersons Of 9 Centres : Delhi High Court Restrains Them From Taking Major Decisions [Atul Sood v. Jawaharlal Nehru University Through Registrar & Anr]

The Court has prima facie observed that the Vice Chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University could not have exercised the power to appoint chairpersons to 9 special centres and restrained them from taking major decisions during the pendency of the petitions challenging their appointments.

A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh was hearing an appeal against an interlocutory order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the single judge wherein it had declined to stay the appointment of nine professors who were appointed as Chairpersons of various Special Centres by the VC.

Also Read: Are Orders U/S 12 Of Guardians & Wards Act Appealable U/S 19 Of Family Courts Act? Delhi HC Refers Question To Larger Bench

6. Delhi HC Issues Notice On Students' Plea For Directing GGSIP University To Provide Certified Copies Of Answer Scripts As Per Prescribed Fee Under RTI Rules [Akriti Agarwal & Anr v. GGSIPU]

The Court has issued notice on a public interest litigation filed by two final year law students seeking directions on Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University for providing certified copies of answer-scripts to students as per the fee prescribed under the RTI Rules, 2012 at candidate's request.

Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh sought response of the University and directed it to file a counter affidavit while posting the matter for further hearing on December 23.

7. Rights Of Persons With Disability Act Not An Embargo On Exercise Of Parens Patriae Jurisdiction By HC Under Article 226: Delhi High Court [SD v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.]

The Court has held that the Rights of Persons With Disability Act, 2016 Act or the Rules framed thereunder do not create any embargo on the exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction by it under Article 226 of the Constitution.

"So long as the "wills and preferences" of the mentally ill person and the other factors set out in the rules are borne in mind by the Court exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, it cannot be held that the High Court exercising power under Article 226 is denuded of power in view of the provisions of the RPWD-2016 Act or the Rules thereunder," observed Justice Pratibha M Singh.

8. Firecracker Traders Withdraw Plea In Delhi High Court Challenging Cancellation Of Licenses

The Court dismissed as withdrawn the plea filed by over 50 firecracker traders challenging the cancellation of their licenses to sell firecrackers in Delhi-NCR.

The High Court observed that the orders passed by the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal were "coming in the way" of petitioners, and added that the petitioners may have chosen in the wrong forum. In July, the Supreme Court had upheld an NGT ban on sale of firecrackers in Delhi-NCR region where air quality was poor.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

1. 20-Yr-Old Allegedly Found In Conscious Possession of 19 Grams 'Chitta' Granted Bail By HP High Court Noting His 'Tender Age' [Gaurav Thakur v. The State Of Himachal Pradesh]

Taking into account his 'tender age', the Court recently granted bail to a 20-year-old boy who was allegedly found by the state police in the conscious possession of 19.5 grams of 'Chitta' (synthetically produced drugs).

The Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel also observed that it was not in dispute that the contraband recovered from the conscious possession of him was of intermediate quantity and that he is a 20 years old boy having no previous criminal history of a case under the NDPS Act.

Karnataka High Court

1. Unauthorised Flagposts And Statues: Karnataka High Court Directs Authorities To Conduct Enquiry On Related Complaints [K S Suresh v. State Of Karnataka]

The Court has directed the Chief Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to enquire into complaints made to it about unauthorised statutes and flag posts which are causing any inconvenience to the public or creating any traffic hazard.

A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum gave the direction while disposing of a public interest litigation filed by one K S Suresh. The petitioner had sought directions be issued to the state government to issue necessary directions to all the Municipal and police authorities in the State with regard to removal of unauthorized statues and flag posts, in the cities and towns.

Also Read: Karnataka High Court Issues New SOP ; Cases To Be Heard In Hybrid Mode From November 8

2. State To Make Corrections In Website To Enable Uploading Of Sale Deeds Without Insisting On 11E Sketch: Karnataka High Court [Vaishali W/O Keshav Kadakol v. The State Of Karnataka]

The Court has directed the State government to make necessary changes/ corrections in the website to enable uploading of registered sale deeds by the registering authorities even in the absence of '11E' sketch (Survey Sketch of land issued by the Survey Department) without insisting for production of the same.

A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar, passed the directions while hearing a petition filed by Vaishali Keshav Kadakol.

3. Covid 19 Not A Valid Ground For Seeking Further Extension Of Parole Leave: Karnataka HC [Rashi Kumara v. The Director General Of Police Prisons & Correctional Services.]

The Court has refused to extend the parole leave of a life convict on the grounds that he is suffering from COVID-19 disease.

Justice Krishna S Dixit while dismissing the petition filed by Rashi Kumara who has been on parole leave since March 18. The court said, "The vehement submission of counsel for the petitioner that he has been suffering from COVID-19 disease and that he needs another extension of parole for his complete recovery cannot be sustained. AGA is more than justified in submitting that adequate facilities are available in the jails and other Govt hospitals, for the diseased convicts who have been serving the sentence."

4. If Motive For Crime Is Not Casteist Attack, Provisions Of SC/ST Act Can't Be Invoked: Karnataka High Court Reiterates [Lokanath v. State Of Karnataka]

The Court has reiterated that provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act) cannot be invoked in every crime where the victim happens to be a member of the SC/ST community.

Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar observed, "It is not as though in every crime, if the victim happens to be a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, an offence under Section 3 of the Act has been committed. If motive for crime is not casteist attack, the accused can only be chargesheeted for any of the offences under Indian Penal Code that can be appropriately invoked in the background of the incident of crime or under other law which can be applied as the facts and circumstances indicate."

Also Read: Petition Has Become Infructuous: Karnataka High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Ban On Online Betting And Gambling

5. 'Extraordinary Situation Warrants Extraordinary Measures': Karnataka HC Relaxes Advocates' Association Bye Laws For Conducting Elections Expeditiously [The Advocates Association Bengaluru v. The State Of Karnataka]

The Court has relaxed the rigor of certain Bye Laws of the Advocates Association of Bengaluru, for ensuring the elections to the Association are completed expeditiously and latest by December 22, as earlier ordered by the Court.

Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "the rigor of the Bye Laws needs to be relaxed for the very same reason so that the elections can be conducted within the period prescribed by this Court and affirmed by the Division Bench; an extraordinary situation warrants an extraordinary measure, as of necessity; therefore, relaxation sought for by the HPC to the relevant provisions of the Bye Laws needs to be and is accorded."

Kerala High Court

1. Judiciary Has No Power Of The Purse Or Sword, Survives Only By Public Confidence: Kerala High Court [ Mathew Z. Pulikunnel v. Chief Justice of India & Ors.]

While dismissing a couple of petitions alleging judicial misconduct, the Court recently pondered over the significance of judicial independence in a democratic set-up.

Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar was adjudicating upon pleas that sought directions to the Chief Justice of India and Chief Justice of Kerala High Court respectively to institute an In-House Committee to probe into alleged judicial misconduct against its two judges, when he commented: "The judiciary has no power of the purse or sword. It survives only by public confidence and it is important to the stability of the society that the confidence of the public is not shaken."

Also Read: 'Will Have A Deleterious Effect On The Institution' : Kerala HC Dismisses Pleas Seeking Institution Of In House Committee To Probe Into Judicial Misconduct

2. Public Interest Litigation In Service Matters Not Maintainable : Kerala High Court Reiterates [R. Ajayakumar v. State of Kerala & Ors.]

While dismissing a writ petition, the Court recently reiterated that Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in service matters are not maintainable.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed so while adjudicating upon a plea seeking a direction to the Director of Health Services to take appropriate disciplinary action against C. Jayachandran, a Junior Health Inspector on the basis of certain reports submitted by the District Medical Officer (Health).

3. 'Will Have A Deleterious Effect On The Institution' : Kerala HC Dismisses Pleas Seeking Institution Of In House Committee To Probe Into Judicial Misconduct [Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Chief Justice of India]

The Kerala High Court on Monday dismissed a couple of petitions seeking the constitution of an In-House Committee to probe into the alleged judicial misconduct against two judges.

Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar while dismissing the petitions emphasised that entertaining such matters would be detrimental to the judicial system in its entirety.

4. Padmanabha Swamy Temple: Kerala High Court Seeks State's Response On Plea Seeking Payment Of Annuity Dues [Shilpa Nair v State of Kerala & Ors.]

The Court recently sought the State's response in a plea seeking directions to pay the annuity dues for Padmanabha Swamy Temple properties vested with the government pending since 2017.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar issued notice to the State and issued a direction to file a counter affidavit within three weeks.

5. Dredger Scam: Kerala High Court Quashes FIR Against Former DGP Jacob Thomas [Dr Jacob Thomas IPS v. State of Kerala & Ors.]

The Court quashed the FIR registered against former Director General of Police Dr. Jacob Thomas in the dredger scam case where he was accused of engaging in tender rigging.

Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi noted that although its power under Section 482 of the CrPC shall be exercised sparingly and with circumspection in rare cases to quash the F.I.R, it should not feel inhibited when the circumstances warrant the exercise of such power to do substantial justice to the parties.

6. Kerala High Court Expresses Dissatisfaction Over Reinstatement Of Excise Officials Accused In A Custodial Death Case [Nessi P v. State of Kerala]

The Court expressed dissatisfaction over the reinstatement of seven Excise officials who were accused in a custodial death case.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan after hearing the parties involved observed: "I'm not satisfied with the stand of the respondent. File an affidavit regarding the reinstatement of the party respondents when they are accused in a murder case, that also based on a recommendation from the Excise Department itself."

7. 'A Citizen Suffering Due To State-Sponsored Vaccination Scheme': Kerala HC Orders Expeditious Redressal Of Plea Seeking Booster Shot For Intl Travel [Girikumar Thekan Kuunumpurath v. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors]

The Court directed the Centre to expeditiously redress the grievance of a petitioner seeking administration of the third dose of an internationally recognized Covid-19 vaccine for NRIs, who had already received two doses of Covaxin, which is not globally recognized for international travel.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan while clarifying that he was not endorsing administration of the third dose of vaccine, observed that the State was responsible in the matter: "This is a constitutional violation; a clear case of infringement of Fundamental Rights of a citizen. His very right to movement is restricted! A citizen is suffering due to a State-sponsored vaccination scheme."

8. Agreement Clauses That Prohibit Keeping A Pet In Residential Units Illegal, Unenforceable In Law: Kerala High Court [People For Animals v. State of Kerala & Ors.]

The Court established that clauses in a bye-law or an agreement that prohibit a person from keeping a pet in their residential premises shall be void and unenforceable in law.

A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P. was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation filed by a person aggrieved by the stand of the office bearers of the resident association of the apartment complex in which he resides.

9. 'A Very Dangerous Proposition': Kerala High Court On Plea Seeking Removal Of Prime Minister's Photograph From Vaccination Certificate [Peter Myaliparampil v. Union of India & Anr.]

The Court discouraged a plea challenging the photograph of Prime Minister Narendra Modi being affixed on the vaccination certificates issued to the citizens upon being vaccinated against Covid-19.

The petitioner's main allegation was that a vaccination certificate was his private space and he has certain rights over it.

Also Read: Kerala High Court To Resume Physical Hearing And Filing Within Two Weeks

11. Bigamy : Kerala High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Constitutionality Of S.494 IPC [Rajan v. State of Kerala & Ors]

A plea has reached the Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides punishment for bigamy. When the matter came up before the Court on Tuesday, Justice K Haripal issued notice to the respondents.

The petitioner, who is facing a criminal prosecution in a case related to bigamy, stated that the Indian Penal Code is a secular piece of legislation enacted with the sole purpose of uniform application to the whole of India and that it is applicable to every person, irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion, race and even nationality.

12. Money Laundering: Kerala High Court Stays Single Judge Order Directing ED Probe Against Ebrahim Kunju For 2 Weeks

The Court issued an interim stay on the single bench decision that had directed the Enforcement Directorate to probe into the allegations that a cash deposit of Rs 10 crores was made during demonetisation into the current account of a newspaper daily called Chandrika, where he was the Chairman of the governing body.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly admitted the appeal and issued the stay to be operative for a period of two weeks.

13. Gold Smuggling: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Prime Accused Swapna Suresh And Others [Mohammed Shafi P. v. National Investigation Agency & connected matters.]

The Court granted bail to the accused, including prime accused Swapna Suresh and Sarith P.S. in the infamous gold smuggling case which had snowballed into a political controversy in the State with a condition to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 25 lakhs and 2 solvent sureties.

A Division Bench comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and C. Jayachandran pronounced the judgment today after having extensively heard the submissions of all parties involved before reserving its judgment on the last hearing day.

14. 'Points To A Complete Breakdown Of Law': Kerala High Court Cautions Against Installation Of Unauthorized Flag Posts In State [Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendant of Police]

The Court once again pulled up the government for inaction over illegal flag posts being installed throughout the State and directed that a survey be conducted to detect the number of illegal flag posts erected in the State without obtaining the requisite permission.

Justice Devan Ramachandran expressed his shock at the 'lawlessness' continuing in the State despite several warnings issued by the Court in the matter:

15. 'What Kind Of Officers Are They? Further Victimizing The Victim': Kerala High Court On Bribery Allegations Against Police

The Court issued a set of interim directions in a case where the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (ASI) is accused of demanding bribe for the release of two girls from a children's home to their parents. The case was registered suo motu on the basis of a news report.

When the matter was taken up, Justice Devan Ramachandran reprimanded the Police for victimizing the family and making them finance the to and fro air tickets and accommodation for the investigating officers who went to Delhi in search of the missing girls.

16. 'Any Attempt To Demand Gawking Charges To Be Treated As Extortion & Penalised Under Most Stringent Provisions': Kerala High Court [T.K Sundareshan v. District Police Chief]

The Court made it clear that any attempt made in the State to demand gawking charges (popularly known as nokkukooli) will be penalised under the most stringent provisions of law under the offence of extortion.

Justice Devan Ramachandran was, however, pleased to be informed that the State government had taken a keen interest in the matter and had initiated positive steps towards the eradication of the practice.

17. Sabarimala Virtual Queue: Kerala High Court Reserves Judgment [Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board]

The Court reserved its judgment in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the legality of the Pilgrim Management System, implemented by the Kerala Police. It is alleged that it restricts Darshan in Sabarimala to only those who avail the Virtual Queue Services.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar concluded hearing the matter today and announced that it would notify its decision next Monday.

18. Parents Illegally Detain & Abandon Daughter's Newborn; She Moves Kerala High Court With Habeas Corpus Plea

A 22-year-old woman Anupama S. Chandran has moved the Kerala High Court with a habeas corpus plea alleging that her newborn was illegally detained by her parents and denied all basic human rights for more than one year.

The incident had recently received wide media coverage in the State after she sought the help of media, having run pillar to post searching for her child, the whereabouts of whom are not known to her.

19. Knanaya Church Case: Kerala High Court Grants Interim Relief To Members Marrying Outside Diocese [Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithi v. Metropolitan Archbishop, Archeparchy of Kottayam]

The Kerala High Court on Monday ruled that any member of the Kottayam Archeparchy marrying outside the diocese shall be issued a marriage certificate without insisting on a letter of relinquishment of their membership until the first appellate court decides on the matter.

Justice VG Arun issued the order on a petition filed by a reformist group within the church, Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy, challenging the stay order of the Additional District Court, Kottayam.

20. Immediately Provide Computers In Court Halls To Effectively Record Witness Evidence: Kerala High Court Directs Registry [Balu v. State of Kerala & Ors.]

The Kerala High Court recently directed its Registry to provide computers in all Court Halls to enable recording of the dictation, particularly to take down the evidence of witnesses in a proceeding.

A division bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. while hearing a criminal appeal noted that readable copies had transcribed the original deposition fully. The Court stated that it cannot find fault with the persons who copied it, since the originals are undecipherable.

Madras High Court

1. Madras High Court Recommends Constitution Of Quasi-Judicial Appellate Tribunal For Cancellation Of Registrations Arising Out Of Fraudulent Transactions [S Kanniammal @ Mangai v. State of Tamil Nadu]

The Madras High Court observed that fraudulent registration of sale deeds in the State have only reduced and not stopped completely despite several measures undertaken by the Registration Department over the years.

Justice R. Suresh Kumar also recommended the constitution of a quasi-judicial appellate tribunal headed by a retired High Court judge and comprising two members one from the Registration Department and another from the Revenue Department which would have the final say in such matters concerning the cancellation of registered documents.

2. 'Reservation Based On Caste Alone': Madras High Court Quashes 10.5% Internal Reservation To Vanniyar Community Under Most Backward Class Category [V.V.Saminathan vs Government of Tamil Nadu]

The Madras High Court quashed the Tamil Nadu law providing internal reservation of 10.5 % to the Vanniyar Community under the category Most Backward Classes.

The court observed that Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of seats in educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and appointments or posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021, is ultra vires the constitution.

3. Long Cohabitation Will Not Confer Any Legal Right To Raise A Matrimonial Dispute: Madras High Court [R. Kalaiselvi v. Joseph Baby]

The Madras High Court observed that long cohabitation or living together will not confer upon the parties any legal right to raise a matrimonial dispute unless their marriage has been solemnized in accordance with law.

A Bench comprising Justices S. Vaidyanathan and R. Vijayakumar was adjudicating upon an appeal moved by a woman seeking for the restitution of conjugal rights with a man who she was not legally married to. Accordingly, the Court upheld the order of a Family Court in Coimbatore.

4. 'Date Of Repudiation Of Claim The Cordial Knot To Determine Limitation, Mere Requests For Reconsideration Won't Grant A Fresh Lease Of Limitation': Madras High Court [M/s. Bharti AXA General Insurance Co.Ltd v. M/s. Shriram EPC Ltd. & Ors.]

Once a claim has been expressly rejected by the opposite party, further requests to reconsider the same by the other party will not stop the running of limitation, the Madras High Court has held while passing a summary judgement dismissing the money suit filed by Shriram EPC Ltd.

While dismissing the suit on Tuesday, a single-judge Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran underlined that, when even after repeated correspondence, the defendant has not reconsidered the stand regarding repudiation of claim, the said correspondence won't grant a fresh lease of limitation for filing the suit.

5. 'Reinstatement' Of Workman Can Be Done Only To Original Place Of Employment, Transfer Not Legally Sustainable: Madras High Court [The Management, Micro Labs Limited v. Patil Veershetty & Anr.]

The Madras High Court has reiterated the principle that a reinstatement order won't be valid if the employee is not reinstated back to his original place of employment.

"Reinstating the workman by transferring him to some other place, other than his original place of employment, is an illegal action," said Justice M.S. Ramesh.

Odisha High Court

1. Auction Of Milch Cows With Calves Won't Amount To Abandoning/Cruelty Against Animals: Orissa High Court [Dhyaan Foundation v. State of Odisha and others]

The Orissa High Court recently observed that the auction of milch cows with calves does not amount to cruelty or abandoning the animals.

The Bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice S K Panigrahi was hearing a plea filed by Dhyaan Foundation, a registered trust engaged in the activity of rescue, care, treatment, and rehabilitation of animals under the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

2. Orissa High Court Permits Sale & Use Of Only 'Green Crackers' During Diwali, As Per SC Directions [All Odisha Fireworks Dealers Association and Others v. Union of India]

The Orissa High Court allowed the use and sale of only 'green crackers' during the upcoming festivities pursuant to the prior directions of the Supreme Court.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice BP Routray was adjudicating upon a plea moved by an association of firecracker manufactures called All Odisha Fireworks Dealers Association and Others.

Also Read: "What Is A Virtual Court? How It Is Different From Normal Court? What Are The Advantages?", Explains Orissa HC CJ Dr.Justice S Muralidhar

Punjab & Haryana High Court

1. Capturing & Posting Injured Turbanless Man's Image Online Would Amount To Hurting Religious Sentiments: P&H High Court [Gurpreet Singh and Others v. State of Punjab]

Stressing that turban is an essential religious symbol, the High Court has recently observed that photographing an elderly person in an injured condition without the turban and uploading it for public viewing on a social platform would prima facie amount to hurting the religious feelings.

This assertion came from the bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal while dealing with the anticipatory bail plea of Gurpreet Singh and others who allegedly took off the turban of a 65 year old elderly and repeatedly beat him up.

2. 50-Yr-Old Married Woman In Live-In Relation With 30-Yr-Old Man: P&H High Court Orders Threat Assessment For Couple [Amandeep Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others]

The High Court recently ordered protection to a 50-year-old married woman and her live-in partner, a 30-year-old man noting that every person, more so, a major, has the right to live his / her life with a person of his / her choice at any rate.

Stressing that the protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India, the Bench of Justice Vikas Bahl made the above decision.

3. Person Involved In Live-In Relation Without Obtaining Divorce From Spouse May Face Bigamy Charge: P&H High Court [Harpreet Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others]

The Court recently observed that if a married person is in live-in-relationship, without obtaining a divorce from his/her spouse, then that may amount to an offence under 494 of the Indian Penal Code (Bigamy).

The Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Verma observed thus while dealing with a plea filed by a woman, along with her partner, who was in a live-in relationship without obtaining a divorce from her husband.

Tripura High Court

1. Tripura Violence : NHRC Seeks Report From State Govt On TMC Spokesperson Saket Gokhale's Complaint

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has sought a detailed action taken report from the Chief Secretary & Director General of Police, Tripura regarding the recent communal violence in the State of Tripura.

This order has been passed on a complaint filed by the National Spokesperson of All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) and Social Activist, Sake Gokhale who highlighted the issue regarding rising incidents of political violence and violence against persons from the religious minority community in Tripura.

Next Story
Share it