High Courts Weekly Round Up

High Courts Weekly Round Up

Allahabad High Court

  • Dismissed public interest litigations filed challenging the renaming of Allahabad to Prayagraj observing that it is a policy decision of the State Government which cannot be said to be without basis.
  • Directed the Aligarh Muslim University to hold a post decisional hearing in a case where a student was expelled from the rolls for a period of 10 years, after finding that the expulsion order was made without complying with the principles of natural justice.
  • Disposed of a suo moto PIL that it had instituted after violent protests caused injuries to many staff members of Lucknow University on July 4, 2018, by issuing temporary guidelines to all state-aided universities. The guidelines were formulated by a committee appointed by the court on July 6 and will remain in effect until the state government and all government-aided universities frame the necessary rules and regulations to ensure a congenial and conducive environment for academic pursuits in institutions of higher learning.

Bombay High Court

  • In a judgment, the High Court quoted Oscar Wilde in order to exemplify "the shift in manner of treating prisoners" with the passage of time. The court said that there was a focus on circumstances that compel such persons to contravene the law. Justice SB Shukre and Justice SM Modak of the Nagpur bench were hearing a criminal writ petition filed by Akash Deshpande and NikunjSadhwani aged 21 and 23, respectively.
  • Issued a notice to the Union of India through the Finance Minister, while hearing a petition claiming that an excess of one trillion sixty-five billion and five hundred million came into the economy after demonetisation.
  • Denied relief to a man convicted under Sections 377 and 387 of the IPC and sentenced to seven years in prison for committing unnatural sexual intercourse on a 32-year-old mentally ill man.
  • The High Court of Bombay at Goa issued some important directives to deal with the issue of foreign nationals who are found to be overstaying or who are found without proper valid travel documents like passport/visa.

Calcutta High Court

  • Granted anticipatory bail to a journalist who was charged under section 3(1) (r) (u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Delhi High Court

  • Providing protection to a runaway couple, the High Court recently also directed the husband to take a joint mediclaim policy of Rs. 5 lakh for the couple.
  • Upheld the eviction order passed against National Herald publisher Associated Journals Limited to vacate ITO premises where Herald house is situated.
  • Dismissed a petition moved by Congress MP Jairam Ramesh challenging the amendments made to the anti-money laundering law since 2015 enacted via Finance Acts as 'Money Bills.
  • While holding that in situations where parties to an agreement do not insist on an exclusive jurisdiction clause or by their conduct waive such condition, it cannot be said that the court other than the one in which exclusive jurisdiction has been vested would be without jurisdiction, the High Court appointed former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra as the sole arbitrator for adjudicating disputes between Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited and the Uttar Pradesh Rajya VidhyutUtpadan Nigam Limited (UPRVUNL) arising out of contract for work on Harduaghanj thermal power plant.

Gauhati High Court

  • Granted interim anticipatory bail to Papri Banerjee, Assistant Professor at Icon College, accused of posting a controversial comment about Pulwama Terror Attack in her Facebook page.

Kerala High Court

  • Held that playing rummy for stakes is an offence under the Kerala Gaming Act 1960. The Court also added that rummy is a game of skill and that playing it for innocent pastime is not an offence. This ruling was made by a Division Bench of Justices P R Ramachandra Menon and N Anilkumar in a petition filed by a Secretary of a club against alleged harassment by police by visiting the club and booking cases against its members for playing rummy.
  • Held that the presence of the complainant is not necessary to take cognizance of a cheque bouncing case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,if the complaint is accompanied by an affidavit and all necessary documents are in order.
  • A division bench of High Court answered a reference to hold that disciplinary action against a teacher in a school affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education(CBSE) cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
  • Allowed the prayer of the Malayalam actor, who was allegedly abducted and subjected to sexual assault in February 2017, for trial of her case in a court presided by a woman judge.
  • Stayed a Government order which accorded to grant eligible leave/casual leave to the Government employees and teachers who had not attended their offices during the nationwide general strike called on 8th and 9th January 2019.

Madras High Court

  • Asserting the role of the Chief Justice as Master of Roster, the High Court has made it clear that it has barred the practice of "treating the matter as part heard". The Bench comprising Justice KK Sasidharan and Justice PD Audikesavalu dealt with a contention taken in a writ appeal that there is no provision to keep the Writ Petition part heard after the change of roster and that hearing the matter earlier and passing series of orders cannot be a reason to keep the matter with the learned Judge, even after the change of roster.

Meghalaya High Court

  • Observed that it is the sacred duty of the government to maintain law and order and to secure safety to each and every citizen of this country. Justice SR Sen was considering a petition filed by a man whose father was burnt with petrol by a mob while a movement for implementation of Inner Line permit (ILP) was going on, in the year 2013.

Sikkim High Court

  • A division bench of the High Court, in an interim order, barred the state's opposition party, Sikkim KrantikariMorcha (SKM), from going ahead with its proposed bandh on Thursday (February 28). The court was hearing a public interest litigation petition against the proposed bandh that argued that it would have a debilitating effect on students as well as cause disturbances to public order. The court also barred the ruling party, Sikkim Democratic Front (SDF), from conducting a peaceful rally on the same day.