High Courts Weekly Round Up [Nov 30 - Dec 06]

Allahabad High Court 1. Private Financial Institutions May Be Performing Public Duties But Can't Be Considered 'State' Under Article 12 Of Constitution: Allahabad High Court [Kailashi Devi v. Branch Manager & Anr.] A Bench of Justices Naheed Ara Moonis and Vivek Varma reiterated that private financial institutions (in this case HDFC), carrying business or commercial activity, may be performing public duties, but cannot be considered to be covered under the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution. Reliance in this regard was placed on Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and others, (2003) 10 SCC 733, whereby the Supreme Court had held that, "Any business or commercial activity, may be banking, manufacturing units or related to any other kind of business generating resources, employment, production and resulting in circulation of money are no doubt, such which do have impact on the economy of the country in general. But such activities cannot be classified as one falling in the category of discharging duties or functions of a public nature." 2. Live-in Relationship Between Consenting Adults Not An Offence : Allahabad High Court [Kamini Devi & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors.] Observing that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults is not an offence, a division bench comprising Justices Anjani Kumar Mishra and Prakash Padia granted police protection to a couple who wanted to live together. It observed that it is "settled the law that where a boy and a girl are major and they are living with their free will, then, nobody including their parents, has authority to interfere with their living together". Recently, a division bench of the High Court declared that the right to live with a person of his/her choice irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty." Also Read: Upholding Love : In Last One Month, Allahabad High Court Grants Protection To Over 125 Inter-Faith/Caste Couples 3. Is Non-Availability Of Designated Senior Advocate A Ground For Adjournment? Allahabad High Court To Examine [Pramendra Yadav v. State of UP & Ors.] A Single Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal expressed its doubts over the right of a counsel to seek adjournment due to non-availability of a designated Senior Advocate. It was of the opinion that Senior Advocates appears on instructions of the instructing counsel, therefore, there cannot be any ground for adjournment to accommodate non-appearance of the designated Senior Counsel. To examine this position in detail, the Court appointed Senior Advocate Shashi Prakash Singh assisted by Chandra Prakash Yadav as Amicus Curiae alongwith Senior Advocate Vijay Gautam. The issue will be considered on January 15, 2021. 4. Whether Writ Of Habeas Corpus Maintainable Against Judicial Order Sending A Juvenile To A Juvenile Home? Allahabad High Court FB To Decide [Rachna & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors.] A Division Bench comprising Justices Pritinker Diwaker and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava made a reference to a Full Bench (FB), seeking to decide the issue whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable against an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate/ Child Welfare Committee, sending a corpus to the Juvenile Home/ Nari Niketan/ Child Care Home. The Full Bench will also decide whether even a minor can be kept in the Juvenile Home/ Nari Niketan/ Child Care Home against his/ her wishes? In this case, a writ of habeas corpus filed by an alleged minor girl, lodged at the Children Home (Girl) at Saharanpur on the directions of the Child Welfare Committee, allegedly against her wish. Disputing the maintainability of this petition, the Standing Counsel submitted that writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable as the order impugned has been passed by the Child Welfare Committee and the judicial order, right or wrong, cannot be assailed in a petition seeking writ of habeas corpus. The Court noted that there are two sets of judgments covering the field, first— that support the Petitioner's case that that writ of habeas corpus is maintainable even if the same has been filed against a judicial order of the Magistrate; and second— that support the State's view. 5. COVID19-After Gujarat, Allahabad High Court Suggests Community Service For Mask Violators [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…] A Bench comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar directed the UP Government to consider the feasibility of having community service at Covid care centers by such persons who violate the law of wearing masks- in terms of the direction passed by the Gujarat High Court in Vishal S Awtani v. State of Gujarat. Taking note of the rise in active Covid-19 cases in UP, especially in the districts of Lucknow, Ghaziabad, Meerut, Kanpur Nagar and Gautam Budh Nagar, a said, "The Chief Secretary, State of U.P. may see to the feasibility of having...

High Courts Weekly Round Up [Nov 30 - Dec 06]

Akshita Saxena

Summation of important High Court orders this week

Tags