High Courts Weekly Round Up

Allahabad High Court Upheld the constitutional validity of Uttar Pradesh Self Financed Independent Schools (Fee Regulation) Act, 2018 which provides for regulation of fees in self financed independent schools in the State.Held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right and the State has a constitutional duty to provide house sites to the poor. Bombay High Court Held that Right to Information Act 2005 does not confer the power of review upon the Information Commissioners and allowed a petition filed by a 60-year-old man from Nagpur.Refused to quash proceedings against a 45-year-old businessman from Goregaon, Mumbai and held that the only way to find out whether charges of fraud and sexual assault against him, were true is through a trial where all the material gathered during the investigation can be examined.The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) received sharp rebuke from the High Court on Friday while a petition seeking grant of universal (U) certificate to a children's film Chidiakhana was being heard.The world is so fiercely competitive may be regrettable, but we can do nothing to change it, observed the High Court while hearing writ petitions filed by students challenging the All India Council for Technical Education's (AICTE) decision to reduce the percentage of intake of lateral entry students in second year of engineering from 20% to 10%.Observed that the police should have informed the Medical Council of India and the Medical Council of Maharashtra about the arrest of doctors AnkitaKhandelwal, Hema Ahuja and Bhakti Mehare in relation to the suicide of 26-year-old PayalTadvi. Calcutta High Court While reinstating a judicial officer who was compulsorily retired from service, the High Court ordered itself to pay costs of Rupees one lakh to him.Held that mere inconvenience of wife to attend the court is not a ground to transfer a matrimonial suit to another court.In her application filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the wife had pleaded following grounds for transfer of matrimonial suit pending at Alipore Court to Mallarpur. Delhi High Court Recently observed that issuing process for an application filed under section 243 of the Cr.P.C by the Trial Court was obligatory unless for reasons recorded, it is held that such application is vexatious, delayed or defeats the ends of justice. The order came based on a petition filed against a judgment of a Trial Court which had dismissed an application seeking production of documents along with summoning the witnesses to prove said documents under section 91 read with Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.Held that at the stage of assessment of interim maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court has to only form a prima facie opinion. Hearing a Criminal Review Petition, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that both the trial court and the appellate court erred in placing the burden of proof on the petitioner and in asking her to furnish the details of the business contracts of the respondent.Held that the court can intervene when the competent authority takes its decision unreasonably, arbitrarily and without paying attention to all the reasonable factors. Moreover, in light of such circumstances, the court can also direct the said authority to exercise its power in a certain manner.In a significant judgment in arbitration law, the High Court held that an order of the arbitral tribunal refusing permission to produce additional documents will not constitute an 'interim award'.Observed that the husband cannot avoid undertaking the responsibility of maintaining his children merely because his wife is earning. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva of the High Court was hearing a revision petition challenging an order of the Sessions Court whereby an appeal of the petitioner against an order of the Trial Court was dismissed.Came to the rescue of an IAS Officer in Bihar who was systematically targeted by the state government for his honest crusade against the state's transport mafia. The Bench comprising of Justice Jyoti Singh and Justice Vipin Sanghi criticised the state government for withholding the inter-cadre transfer of the officer to Haryana on the basis of a poorly executed Intelligence Bureau report and for causing continuing victimisation despite there being a threat to his life and liberty.Dismissed the PIL filed by Praveen Kumar Singh seeking directions to be given to the Delhi University for ensuring hostel accommodation to students. The petitioner had invoked section 33 of the Delhi University Act, 1922, which states that every student of University shall reside in the College Hall or under such circumstances as prescribed by the Ordinances.Dismissed a writ petition which sought a declaration that the Delhi High Court Rules be declared ultra vires the Delhi Official Languages Act, 2003 to the extent...

High Courts Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags