High Courts Weekly Round Up

Week Commencing May 18, 2020 To May 24, 2020 Allahabad High Court 1) Allahabad HC Directs UP Advocates' Welfare Fund Trustees Committee To Take Loan If It Doesn't Have Enough Funds To Support Lawyers [In Re - Assistance To The Needy Advocates And Registered Advocate Clerks] A bench of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Siddhartha Varma directed the Trustees Committee, constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1974, to take a loan in case it does not have sufficient funds to assist financially weak lawyers, during the lockdown period. The court said that under Section 5 the Trustees Committee may use its powers in the present times to borrow funds and, therefore, under no circumstances can U.P. Advocates' Welfare Fund Trustees Committee come up with a case that it is lacking funds. 2) As UP Govt Withdraws Dilution Of Labour Laws, Allahabad HC Disposes PIL As 'Infructuous' [Uttar Pradesh Worker Front v. Union Of India & Anr.] A bench of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Siddhartha Varma has disposed of a PIL challenging the UP Government's order for relaxation of certain labour regulations concerning working hours, rest periods and overtime laws in the state, as infructuous. The petition was disposed of after the Government informed the Court that the impugned notification dated May 8, 2020 had been withdrawn. 3) Allahabad HC Issues Notice On Plea Accusing State Authorities Of Using 'Sodium Hypochlorite' As Disinfectant On Human Bodies, Despite MHA Advisory [Prince Lenin, Advocate v. State Of UP & Ors.] The bench of Justices Anil Kumar and Saurabh Lavania issued notices on a plea alleging that the state Government had been permitting the use of "Sodium Hypochlorite" as a disinfectant on human beings, despite the prohibitory orders issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The cout has given a month's time to the State to file its counter affidavit in the matter. 4) Plea Seeking Opening Of Mosques Offering Eid Prayers: Allahabad HC Directs Petitioner To Approach State Authorities First [Shahid Ali Siddiqui v. State of UP] Directing the Petitioner to first approach the concerned state authorities, the bench of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Siddhartha Varma disposed of a PIL seeking permission to open mosques for offering Eid prayers. The court emphasized that a party seeking writ in the nature of mandamus must first approach to the Authority competent for redressal of the grievance, and should approach the court only if such recourse fails. Also Read: Allahabad HC Allows Recital OF Azan By Muezzin From Minarets Of Mosques Amid Lockdown Without Microphones 5) Allahabad HC Allows Bail Plea Of Five Accused Of Carrying Chicken Meat During Lockdown [Mohd. Asjad Gazi & Ors. v. State of UP] The bench of Justice Rajeev Singh on Wednesday allowed the bail application moved by five persons accused of carrying chicken meat, in violation of the lockdown measures. This was after the Govt. counsel conceded that carrying of "chicks, eggs and meat" was an exempted activity during the lockdown, in terms of the advisories issued by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and also the Director of Animal Husbandry, UP. 6) Allahabad HC Seeks Status Report On Facilities Being Provided To Stranded Workers/ Labourers [Dileep Kumar Mishra v. Union of India & Ors.] In a PIL seeking directions to safeguard the rights of migrant workers, a bench of Justices Anil Kumar and Saurabh Lavania asked the state Government to provide details on the facilities being provide to the workers/ laborers who are walking miles to reach their native places in the State of UP. A report is also sought on the status of workers/ labourers who are stranded in the state. Andhra Pradesh High Court 1) 'Complainant's No-Objection To Deletion Of Names Of Accused During Committal Stage Will Not Preclude Court From Invocation 319CrPC On His Evidence In Trial': AP HC [Boya Kajje Pedda Ambaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.] Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy held that a mere order passed by a committal Court accepting the deletion of names in the charge-sheet on the basis of the no-objection allegedly signified by the de facto complainant, would not come in the way of the trial Court in adding, under Section 319, Cr.P.C, the said names also as accused, in view of the categorical evidence given by the said complainant, being the eyewitness to the offence, during the course of trial. The Court also found no merit in the contention that the de facto complainant 'will not be a reliable and a trustworthy evidence on account of the prevaricating statements given at various stages and the said evidence cannot be made basis for forming an opinion by the trial Court that these accused also committed the said offence', to invoke section 319. Bombay High...

High Courts Weekly Round Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags