High Courts Weekly Roundup [Jan 4 – Jan 10]

Allahabad High Court 1. Election Commission's Power To Allot Symbols Challenged Before Allahabad High Court: EC Directed To Respond Within 6 Weeks The High Court sought response of the Election Commission in a PIL challenging its power to allot election symbols, within a period of six weeks. The Bench of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Ramesh Sinha was hearing a plea challenging the validity of Paras-10, 10A and 10-B of the Symbol Order 1968 on several counts, inter alia, that these paras are in conflict with the provisions of Rule-10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. 2. Anticipatory Bail Matters Concern Liberty Of Citizens and Required to be Given Priority: Allahabad High Court Directs State To Ensure 'Proper Assistance' [Pawan Kumar Yadav And Anr. v. State Of U.P. And Anr] While noting that the Anticipatory Bail matters are 'serious' in nature and are required to be taken up on priority, as they concern the liberty of citizens of the country, the Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary observed, "It is found in large number of cases, that the Investigating Officer/Circle Officer do not take them with the seriousness required, repeatedly time is sought for instructions/counter affidavit or placing the relevant record before the Court." The Court noted that that despite repeated reminders being sent, no one had come for filing the counter affidavit. The Bench expressed its displeasure and said, "The present matter is one such glaring example, where FIR lodged for an offence of rape, the Medical report is necessarily required to be looked into, but is not being placed before this Court and thus the Court is not able to proceed." 3. Public Land In Uttar Pradesh Most Vulnerable To Encroachment, Authorities Not Discharging Their Functions In Timely Manner: Allahabad HC [Yash Pal Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors.] In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court said that Public land in the State of U.P. is most vulnerable to encroachment and such encroachment "over such public land is not countenanced by the legislature." Noting that the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, is the response of the legislature to deal with the endemic problem of encroachment over public lands, the Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot further observed, "The purpose of legislative intent will be defeated in case the statutory authorities do not discharge their statutory functions in a timely manner." In this case, the counsel for the petitioner (Yash Pal Singh) contended that the petitioner had intimated the competent authority about the encroachment of public land; however, the competent authority failed to discharge the statutory obligations under Section 67(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. 4. Nobody Can Interfere In Peaceful Life Of Two Adults Residing Together: Allahabad HC Provides Protection To Another Inter-Faith Couple [Shaista Parveen @ Sangeeta & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors.] The Court came to rescue of another inter-faith couple, facing harassment at the hands of their families. A Single Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava reiterated that no one is entitled to disrupt the lives of two adults, who reside together willingly. "The Court has repeatedly held that where the two individuals having attained the age of majority, are living together, nobody is entitled to interfere in their peaceful life," observed the Bench. In this case, a Hindu woman claimed that she decided to follow Muslim religion and as such, she willingly converted her religion. After conversion, the couple submitted, she solemnized marriage with her Muslim husband. They further claimed to be adults, living together out of their own freewill. Also Read: Protection Plea-Woman Converts To Islam To Marry Muslim Man :Allahabad High Court Directs Man To Deposit Rs. 3 Lakh In Her Name 5. 'Individual Convict Can Seek Jail Transfer': Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Transfer Of Women Convicts To Jails With Women Barracks [Marry Puncha (Sheeb Jose) v. State of UP & Ors.] A Bench of Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal dismissed a plea seeking transfer of women convicts from Central Jail Naini, Prayagraj to District Jail Sonbhadra and District Jail Mirzapur as these Jails are now equipped with women barracks. At the outset, the Court, in its order, noted that the prayer made in the writ petition couldn't be said to be in public interest "because transfer of convict from one jail to another always remains on the request of the convict." Noting that, a direction to transfer all women convicts from one jail to another cannot be given without their request to this effect, the Court said, "(Whenever) a convict has difficulty to remain in a particular jail, (he/she could) seek transfer to other jail after giving cogent reasons and in those circumstances, the State is competent to transfer a convict from one jail ...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [Jan 4 – Jan 10]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Summation of important High Court orders this week

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

High Courts Weekly Roundup [Jan 4 – Jan 10]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Summation of important High Court orders this week

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers