High Courts Weekly Roundup [Dec 7 – Dec 13]

Allahabad High Court 1. "Instead Of Arguing Matter, Lawyer Misbehaved & Challenged Authority Of Court": Allahabad High Court Refers Matter To UP Bar Council [Pawan v. Union Of India & Ors.] A Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava referred the matter of an Advocate, who misbehaved in the Court and challenged the authority of the Court, to the UP Bar Council and to the Advocate On Roll Committee of this Court to institute appropriate proceeding against the misconduct of the counsel. Advocate Ajay Singh continuously insisted upon the Court to pass the order so that he could go to Supreme Court. "This conduct of the counsel is reprehensible as instead of arguing the matter on merit he misbehaved in the Court and challenged the authority of the Court", said the Bench. The Chairman, U.P. Bar Council has been requested to "apprise the Court about the outcome of proceedings". 2. Motor Accidents: Claimant Deprived Of Full Pension Of Her Husband Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Earnings, Holds Allahabad High Court [Subhadra Pandey v. Siddharth Agrawal & Ors.] A Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker held that a claimant widow, who is deprived of full pension of her husband because he died in a motor accident, is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of earnings. In effect, it has been held that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot say that since the claimant is receiving 'family pension', there is no loss of income. It has to be seen that if not for the fatal accident of her husband, the claimant would receive the full sum. In this case, the deceased was a retired railway employee and was getting pensions. After his demise, the pension was halved and the appellant was getting Rs. 14,000/-. The MACT had held that since the deceased was getting Rs. 28,000/- as pension, 50% of the same would be spent on the deceased himself and the remaining 50% would be the monthly datum figure available to the widow. The High Court however rejected this reasoning. 3. Allahabad High Court Seeks UP Government's Response On Steps Taken For Implementation Of Witness Protection Scheme 2018 [Rannsamar Foundation v. State of UP & Ors.] A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Saurabh Lavania issued notice to the UP Government on a PIL seeking effective implementation of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. The bench has also asked the Government to furnish on record all the letters and documents, which the AGA said were sent to all the District Authorities for immediate and effective implementation of the aforesaid Scheme. The Petitioner in this case submitted that even though the scheme was approved by the Supreme Court in 2018, it is 'seldom enforced' and the same is evident from the manner in which witnesses in the Hathras killings and Unnao rape case were 'intimidated and tortured'. 4. Allahabad High Court Seeks UP Govt's Reply On Plea For Establishment Of Special Human Trafficking Courts [Guria Swayam Sevi Sansthan v. State of UP & Anr.] A Division Bench of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Piyush Agrawal asked the UP Government about the steps taken to establish special Courts for trying cases relating to human trafficking in the State. In this case, the Petitioner had submitted that human trafficking in the State of Uttar Pradesh is on rise but due to lack of courts, no adequate steps have been taken to combat such trafficking. It submitted that even during the period of Covid-19 restrictions, such trafficking is rampant. The Petitioner had urged the Court to issue directions for establishment of more special courts in each and every districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh to adjudicate trials under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Section 22A of the Act provides for establishment of Special Courts by the State Governments. This provision is however not mandatory and is subject to 'satisfaction' of the Government that the situation in a particular region warrants establishment of special Courts. 5. 'Extraordinary Haste Shown': Allahabad High Court Cautions State To Use National Security Act With Extreme Care [Javed Siddiqui v. Superintendent District Jail, Jaunpur & Ors.] While setting free a person arrested under the stringent National Security Act, Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed, "Where the law confers extra-ordinary power on the executive to detain a person without recourse to the ordinary law of the land and to trial by courts, such a law has to be strictly construed and the executive must exercise the power with extreme care." In this case, the Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by detenu Javed Siddiqui. Quashing the detention order under the NSA, the Bench observed that the authorities did not present Siddiqui's petition report before the Advisory Board on time. "We are of the view that delay in taking a decision on representation ...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [Dec 7 – Dec 13]

Akshita Saxena

Summation of important High Court orders this week

Tags