High Courts Weekly Roundup [May 24, 2021 – May 30, 2021]

Allahabad High Court 1. Devise Policy For Vaccination Of Physically Disabled: Allahabad High Court To Govt. In Suo Moto COVID19 Case [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…] Days after the Supreme Court asked the Allahabad High Court to pass realistic orders and stayed its directions for upgrading medical facilities in the state, a Division Bench comprising of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar expressed satisfaction with the steps taken by Uttar Pradesh Government for enhancing the medical infrastructure in the smaller districts of Bahraich, Shravasti, Bijnor, Barabanki and Jaunpur. Further, the Court has directed the Central Government to come up with a stand with regard to vaccination to physically challenged persons, who find it difficult to approach the vaccination centres, in compliance with its order dated May 11. 2. 'Let No One Die Of Hunger': Allahabad HC Quashes UP Govt Order Providing Preference To Self-Help Groups In Allotment Of Fair Price Shops [Haripal v. State of UP & Ors.] A Single Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi quashed an order dated July 7, 2020, issued by the UP Government to give preference to self-help groups in allotment of fair price shops, to the exclusion of all other categories of persons. It held that the impugned GO seeks to create a "monopoly" in favour of the Self-help Groups that generally have a "weak legal identity" for the purposes of fixing accountability and thus, any such body is susceptible to "worsen" the objects of Public Distribution System instead of bringing about any reform. It observed that the rural population has already suffered much on account of non-supply of food grains leading to food scams. It thus opined that preference of a self-help groups, which it dubbed as "loosely packed" institutions, in allotment of fair price shops, would be "counterproductive" and shall not serve the real purpose. Also Read: COVID- Allahabad High Court Requests Supreme Court To Deal With The Issue Of Distribution Of Food Grains To Vulnerable Section Of People 3. Accused Has Right To Have His Bail Plea Heard In Reasonable Time: Allahabad HC Seeks Time Bound Procedure For Supplying Instructions To Govt Advocates [Sahil v. State of UP] "Failure of the police authorities to provide timely instructions to the Govt Advocate/ Additional Govt Advocate in bail applications causes delay in the hearing of the bail applications, and often leads to unjustified incarceration of an accused in jail," a Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed. It therefore directed the Director General of Police, UP, to ensure that a fair, transparent and clear procedure is created for supplying instructions to the GA/AGA in bail applications before the High Court. It has ordered that the procedure shall be framed within a period of 8 weeks and it shall include the designation of the officials, the tasks or duties which they have to discharge, and a definite time frame for such purpose. 4. Sexual Offence Against Woman- Any Form Of Compromise/Marriage With Accused Shouldn't Form Part Of Bail Condition: Allahabad High Court [Imran v. State Of UP] A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held that while granting bail in sexual offences against a woman, bail conditions which is/are against the mandate of "fair justice" to the victim shouldn't be imposed such as to make any form of compromise or marriage with the accused. It also ruled that the Court, while granting bail in such cases, shall take into consideration the directions passed by Supreme Court in Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, LL 2021 SC 168, viz.: "Imposing (Bail) conditions that implicitly tend to condone or diminish the harm caused by the accused and have the effect of potentially exposing the survivor to secondary trauma, such as mandating mediation processes in non-compoundable offences, mandating as part of bail conditions, community service (in a manner of speaking with the so-called reformative approach towards the perpetrator of sexual offence) or requiring tendering of apology once or repeatedly, or in any manner getting or being in touch with the survivor, is especially forbidden." 5. Allahabad High Court Reprimands UP Government For Not Accepting E-Notices [Mohd. Ahmad & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.] A Division Bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Gupta and Gautam Chowdhary pulled up the UP Government for forcing the litigants to move out of their houses amid the Covid-19 pandemic merely for serving copies of petitions/ applications filed by them. It observed, "At the moment, on account of pandemic, the Court proceedings are being held by virtual mode. To avoid physical contact between individuals, various relaxations have been made by this Court in relation to the filing of the writ petitions by virtual mode so that no one is forced to travel long distance or...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [May 24, 2021 – May 30, 2021]

Akshita Saxena

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

High Courts Weekly Roundup [May 24, 2021 – May 30, 2021]

Akshita Saxena

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers