High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Allahabad High Court Section 438 CrPC Doesn't Mandate That Sessions Court Must Be Moved First; But Special Circumstances Must Be Shown To Directly Approach HC [Ankit Bharti v. State of UP & Anr.] In a significant ruling, a 5-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court clarified that under special circumstances, a person apprehending arrest may approach the High Court directly seeking anticipatory bail, without approaching the Sessions court first. The decision has been rendered by a five-Judges bench comprising Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justices Ramesh Sinha, Sunita Agarwal, Yashwant Verma and Rahul Chaturvedi, while answering a reference made by a single-Judge of the high court. [Anti-CAA Protests] Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea To Quash FIR Against 4 Journalists Booked For Inciting Violent Mob [Afzal Quraishi & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.] The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against four news journalists allegedly for inciting a violent mob protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. Stating that the correctness of the allegation had to be tested on the basis of a proper trial, a division comprised by Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Deepak Verma observed, "As correctness of the allegation is to be tested on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation and the evidence led in trial, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report cannot be accepted." Delhi High Court Delhi HC Directs For A Reformation And Rehabilitation Plan Of A POCSO Convict [Manoj Tyagi v. The State] Delhi High Court has directed the jail authorities to prepare a proper rehabilitation programme for a person convicted under the POCSO Act. The Single Bench of Justice Anu Malhotra has directed the Superintendent of Tihar to prepare an appropriate rehabilitation programme for the convict, by noting that 'the sentence acts as a deterrent and is simultaneously reformative with a prospect of rehabilitation.' ● Proceedings U/S 138 Of NI Act Not Maintainable Against Independent Non-Executive Directors Of A Company, Reiterates Delhi HC [Sunita Palta & Ors. v. M/s Kit Marketing Pvt Ltd.] The Delhi High Court reiterated that criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for dishonor of cheque are not maintainable against non-executive independent directors of a company. The order passed by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri relied on a Supreme Court judgment in Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2014(14) SCALE to highlight that for arraigning a director as an accused in criminal proceedings for dishonor of cheque, it must be shown that the director concerned was in charge of and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business. Gauhati High Court Citizenship - Proof Beyond All Reasonable Doubt Not Needed In Foreigners Tribunal [Idrish Ali v. The Union of India] The Gauhati High Court has observed that proof beyond all reasonable doubt is not needed in the Foreigners Tribunal for establishing citizenship. The division bench comprising Justice Manojit Bhuyan and Justice Pathivjyoti Saikia held so while allowing a writ petition filed by 65-year old Idrish Ali to set aside an order passed by Foreigners Tribunal Jorhat which declared him to be a foreigner. Oral Testimony Alone In The Absence Of Documentary Evidence Is No Proof Of Citizenship [Nurul Amin v. UoI] The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that in the absence of documentary evidence in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946, oral testimony alone is no proof of citizenship. The division bench comprising Justice Manojit Bhuyan and Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia thereby upheld the decision of the Foreigners Tribunal Morigaon dated October 25, 2018, declaring one Nurul Amin to be a foreigner in the post-1971 stream as per the Assam Accord. ● Kerala High Court Judicial Officer Aged Above 58.5 Years Not Eligible For Elevation As HC Judge [John K Illikkadan v. UoI] The Kerala High Court has held that for elevation to the higher judiciary, a Judicial Officer should not be more than 581/2 years of age, as on the date of occurrence of a vacancy. The observation was made by a division bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice VG Arun in a writ appeal moved by John K. Illikkadan, one of the senior-most District Judges in the Higher Judicial Service of the State. ● MP High Court Courts Cannot Routinely Order Determination of Paternity By Way of DNA Tests [Ajay Singh v. Smt. Rama Bai & Ors.] The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the courts cannot routinely order determination of paternity by way of DNA tests as forcefully subjecting someone to medical examination violates their right to privacy. In the present case, Justice GS Ahluwalia was hearing a petition filed against the order of...

High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Arabhi Anandan

Tags