High Courts Weekly Roundup [Dec 21 – Dec 27]

Allahabad High Court 1. 'Give Complete Details Of Criminal Antecedents Of Applicants In Bail Orders': Allahabad High Court Directs Trial Courts [Uday Pratap @ Dau v. State of U.P] A Bench of Justice Samit Gopal directed the Courts to "give a complete details of the criminal antecedent(s), if any, of the applicant(s)/accused before them or record the fact that there are no criminal antecedent(s) of the said person(s) if there are none." It observed, "Although the criminal antecedents of the accused are not the sole and decisive factor for decision of bail applications but the same needs to be considered while deciding an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.as per the legislative mandate of Section 437 Cr.P.C." The direction was passed while hearing a regular bail application filed by one Uday Pratap, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with a criminal case registered under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B and 34 of IPC. 2. GST Rate & HSN Code Requisite In Notice Inviting Tenders To Ensure Level Playing Field: Allahabad High Court [Bharat Forge Limited v. Principal Chief Materials Manager Diesel Locomotive Works & Ors.] A bench of Justices Sunita Agarwal and Jayant Banerji held that bidders are required to mention the GST Rate and the HSN Code in the Notice Inviting Tender to ensure uniform bidding from all participants. The Court also held that the same is necessary in order to ensure that all tenderers and bidders are provided a "level playing field". The bench also stated, "The mentioning of the HSN Code in the tender document itself shall resolve all disputes relating to fairness and transparency in the process of selection of bidder, by providing 'level playing field' to all bidders/tenderers in the true spirit of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India," The petitioner, in this case, contended that a circular issued by the Railway Board indicated that bidders were required to specify the percentage of local content in the material being offered in accordance with the Make in India policy and as the value of GST was not mentioned in the bidding documents, those bidders which had quoted a lower GST rate could have outbid the petitioner. 3. Husband's Appointment On Compassionate Ground Won't Take Away His Fundamental Right Of Remarriage: Allahabad High Court [Mohammad Haidar v. State Of UP & Anr.] A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal ruled, "Merely because petitioner has been appointed on compassionate basis, he cannot be forced to sacrifice his/her fundamental right of remarriage, after the death of the earlier spouse." Further, the Court said, "A person would not earn any disqualification on this score and warrant any disciplinary proceedings." In this case, the petitioner (husband) was appointed on compassionate basis on the death of his wife. The petitioner intended to marry the younger sister of his wife; therefore, he sought permission to re-marry from Basic Shiksha Adhikari where he was employed. The Court stated, "There is no provision under law which requires any person to seek permission from the employer for re-marriage." 4. 'Expressing Dissent Hallmark Of Democracy': Allahabad High Court Quashes FIR For Tweets Against UP CM [Yashwant Singh v. State of UP & Ors.] A division bench of Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek Agarwal held that merely expressing dissent against the affairs of the State is not a criminal offence. It stated, "Expressing dissent on law and order situation in the State, is a hallmark of a constitutional liberal democracy like ours, constitutionally protected under Article 19 of the Constitution." The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by one Yashwant Singh. The petitioner had sought directions from the Court to quash an FIR that was lodged against him by the UP Police for his tweets which made critical remakes about the UP government. The Petitioner had tweeted that the Chief Minister of UP, Yogi Adityanath, has turned UP into a 'jungleraj', where law and order have no prevalence. The Petitioner also cited various incidents of abduction, demand of ransom and murders that rampantly taken place in the state. 5. FIR Can't Be Quashed Merely Because Man Accused Of Posting Woman's Nude Snaps On Whatsapp Is Her Husband: Allahabad HC [Dhananjay v. State Of UP & Ors.] A Bench of Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek Agarwal refused to quash an FIR against a man who is accused of posting nude snaps of her wife (Informant) on WhatsApp. While dismissing the petition, the Court remarked, "Allegations of commission of offence as are mentioned under Section 67 of the I.T. Act are also prima facie made out inasmuch as there is specific allegation of putting nude pictures of the informant on WhatsApp. Therefore, merely because petitioner is husband of the informant, does not constitute a valid ground to quash the FIR." The petitioner (Husband)...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [Dec 21 – Dec 27]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Summation of important High Court orders this week

Tags