High Courts Weekly Round Up [April 27- May 3]

Allahabad High Court 1) Allahabad HC To Hear Plea For Establishment Of Commission To Assess The Impact Of COVID-19 Pandemic On The Indian Economy [Dr. Shivji Shukla v. Union of India & Ors.] The Lucknow bench of the High Court comprising of Justices Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Karunesh Singh Pawa has agreed to hear a PIL pertaining to establishment of a Commission to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the Indian economy, on May 4, 2020. 2) Allahabad HC Rejects Shahjahanpur Law Student's Application Imputing Bias On Part Of SIT [In Re Missing Of An LLM Student At Swami Shukdevanand Law College (SS Law College) v. State of UP] A bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Deepak Verma rejected an application moved by the Shahjahanpur law student, alleging bias on part of the SIT that had investigated her rape case and also the extortion case filed against her. Among other things, the court observed since a FIR had been registered against the law student for extortion, the SIT was "under an obligation" to investigate the matter keeping both sets of allegations in mind. Thus, it could not be said that the SIT proceeded with a view to find her faults. 3) 'Govt Duty Bound To Act Fairly In Matters Of Appointment Of Govt Law Officers': Allahabad HC Quashes Order Disengaging District Govt Counsels [Shyam Narayan Yadav v. State of UP & Anr.] A division bench of Justice Bala Krishna Narayana and Justice Prakash Padia quashed several Government Orders disengaging the District Government Counsels in the State for "total non-application of mind". Among other observations, the High Court stressed that engagement of Government Counsels has to be done in accordance with Legal Remembrancer's Manual, in a fair and non discriminative manner. Bombay High Court 1) Average Time Spent On Reading Newspapers Has Increased; Bombay HC Seeks Logical Explanation For Blanket Ban On Door-To-Door Delivery [High Court of Bombay v. State of Maharashtra] The HC Bench at Aurangabad took suo-motu cognizance of newspaper reports regarding a government notification whereby print media was exempted from lockdown but the door-to-door delivery of magazines and newspapers was prohibited. A single Judge bench of Justice Prasanna B Varale has sought a logical explanation from the state government on its decision, by June 11. Also Read: Circular Prohibiting Door-To-Door Delivery Of Newspapers Is Arbitrary & Unreasonable Says Plea; Bombay HC (Nagpur Bench) Seeks State's Reply 2) It Pays To Litigate But Those Who Litigate Must Also Pay; Bombay HC Dismisses BPCL's Second Appeal With Costs [Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Shri Bhikulal Raghunath Jajoo] Justice DS Naidu dismissed the second appeal filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited with costs, in a suit regarding an open plot of 14,550 sq.ft. which was leased to the said Corporation 55 years ago for 20 years only. 3) Man Who Accused Tablighi Jamaat Members Of Assaulting & Spitting On Him On Social Media; Bombay HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail [Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam v. The State of Maharashtra] The single-Judge bench of Justice SV Kotwal allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by one Abuzar Abdul Kalam, a 42-year-old man who accused members of the Tablighi Jamaat of assaulting him and then spitting on him on social media. He was booked by Mumbai police for indulging in deliberate and malicious acts to outrage religious feelings, defamation, etc., as per a complaint lodged by the Members of the Tablighi Jamaat community. 4) Nationwide Lockdown: Bombay HC Allows Father To See Children Through Video Conferencing In A Case Of Matrimonial Dispute [Madhurima Deepak Pant v. Deepak Lalitprasasd Pant] Justice SJ Kathawalla allowed a father to see his children through video conferencing three days a week, while hearing a writ petition in a matrimonial dispute filed by the man's wife. The said order will remain in operation till the lockdown is lifted in Mumbai and that the video conferencing sessions with children shall be done thrice a week i.e. on Monday, Thursday and Sunday between 5 and 6 pm. 5) Victim & Accused Settle Dispute, But Bombay HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Man Accused Of Raping, Threatening TV Actress [Chirag Sundarlal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra] A Division bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice VG Bisht refused to quash a FIR registered at the instance of a TV actress from Delhi who accused a restaurant owner from Mumbai of sexual assault and forcing her at gunpoint to get an abortion. This was after the victim filed an affidavit stating that they settled the dispute amicably. The bench stated that there are serious allegations against the accused, who allegedly lied to the victim that he was unmarried and committed sexual assault on her multiple times under the same pretext against her consent. 6) Bombay HC Admits PIL Seeking SIT/CBI Investigation ...

High Courts Weekly Round Up [April 27- May 3]

Akshita Saxena

Tags