High Courts Weekly Round Up [9 March To 15 March]

Judgment/Order Allahabad High Court Allahabad HC Orders Removal Of UP Govt Banners Naming Anti-CAA Protesters Accused Of Violence [In-Re Banners Placed On Road Side In the City Of Lucknow] In a severe jolt to Yogi Adityanath-led government of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court ordered the removal of all posters and banners put up by UP police in Lucknow publishing the names and photos of persons accused of violence during protests against Citizenship Amendment Act. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Ramesh Sinha observed that the State action amounted to "unwarranted interference in the privacy of people" and hence violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also directed the District Magistrate and Police Commissioner to submit a compliance report with the Registrar General of High Court by March 16. Special Courts Under SC/ST Act Empowered To Take Direct Cognizance Of IPC Offences [Sumit v. State of UP & Anr.] The Allahabad High Court has held that Special Courts under the SC/ST Act are empowered to take direct cognizance of offences committed under IPC and committal of the case to it by a magistrate under Section 193 of CrPC is not a mandatory precondition. Section 193 CrPC stipulates that no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under CrPC. The bench comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh-I held that if the Special Court was not allowed to conduct a joint trial and a separate trial were conducted for offences committed under IPC the same would lead to a miscarriage of justice. ● Bombay High Court 'Personal WhatsApp Account Not A Public Place': Sending Of Abusive Messages On Personal Account Not An Offence U/s 294 IPC [Nivrutti v. The State of Maharashtra] The Bombay High Court has held that sending of abusive messages on the personal account of WhatsApp will not amount to the utterance of obscene words in public places so as to invoke Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code. The Division Bench of Justice TV Nalawade and Justice MG Sewlikar observed that WhatsApp cannot be a public place if messages are exchanged on personal accounts of two persons. ● Calcutta High Court Hinduism A Democratic Religion, A Way Of Life: Calcutta HC Rejects Plea Against Bengali Movie "Brahma Janen Gopon Kommoti" [Subhadep Adhikari v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.] Hinduism is a democratic religion and a way of life, the Calcutta High Court remarked while dismissing a plea challenging the release of a Bengali movie by the name of "Brahma Janen Gopon Kommoti". One Subhadep Adhikari had approached the High Court contending that his sentiment has been hurt due to the usage of the expression 'Brahma', who is an important part of the Hindu pantheon, with the expression 'Gopon Kommoti', which, roughly translated, means 'secret act'. It was contended that the release of the movie shall hurt the Hindu religious sentiment, bringing the said movie within the fold of Sections 295A and 298 of the Indian Penal Code. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, refusing to accept this contention said that merely the use of the name of Brahma with an expression in a hilarious manner cannot lead to such a result that the religious sentiment of anybody can be hurt ● Delhi High Court CSE Rule Declaring Persons Who Had Undergone Organ Transplant Unfit For Selection Is Archaic [Udbhav Kumar v. High Court of Delhi & Anr.] Delhi High Court has held that the candidature of a Delhi Judicial Services aspirant cannot be rejected on the ground that he had undergone a renal transplant. While directing against the rejection of the candidature, the Division Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sanjeev Narula opined that the provision in Civil Services Examination Rules which declare persons having transplanted organs as unfit for candidature, as an archaic provision. Death By Rash Driving: Delhi HC Court Holds Debarment From Obtaining Driving Licence For Life As Excessive Sentence [Sunil Kumar Mishra v. State] In a case pertaining to death caused due to rash and negligent driving, the Delhi High Court has noted that a lifetime ban on the convict from getting a driving license is too harsh a sentence when his entire livelihood is dependent upon driving. While modifying the order of sentence in a revision petition, the Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva noted that: 'The punishment of cancellation of the driving license permanently and debarring him from obtaining any driving license throughout his life literally amounts to his civil death because he would not be in a position to carry out his profession for life.' Delhi HC Sets Aside Conviction In Murder Case Observing That Testimony Of Sole Eye Witness Wasn't Reliable [Dalip Kumar v. State of Delhi] The Delhi High Court set...

High Courts Weekly Round Up [9 March To 15 March]

Arabhi Anandan

Tags