High Courts Weekly Roundup

Week Commencing July 13, 2020 To July 19, 2020 Allahabad High Court 1) Mumbai Man Accused Of Threatening To 'Blow Up' UP CM Yogi Adityanath Moves Allahabad HC For Regular Bail [Kamran Ameen Khan v. State of UP] The single bench of Justice Alok Mathur asked the Additional Advocate General to seek instructions from the State on the bail application of a Mumbai resident who was arrested last month on the allegation of threatening to "blow up" UP CM Yogi Adityanath. 2) Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Judicial Probe Into Alleged Encounter Of Kanpur Gangster Vikas Dubey As Infructuous [Nandita Bharti v. State of UP & Ors.] A division comprised of Justices Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Karunesh Singh Pawar dismissed a petition seeking Judicial probe into the alleged encounter of Kanpur Gangster Vikas Dubey, noting that the UP Government has already taken steps in that direction. "Considering the fact that Special Investigating Team and Judicial Commission have already been constituted by the State of U.P. to enquire into the alleged incident in question, we dismiss the present writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition, if occasion arises," the court said. 3) [Unlock 2]'People Have Got A Wrong Impression That They Can Now Freely Mix With Each Other': Allahabad HC Suggests Incarceration Of Persons Flouting Physical Distancing Norms [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres And For Providing Better Treatment To Corona Positive Respondent] The High Court suggested the Uttar Pradesh Government to take strict action against those not following physical distancing norms, including 'incarceration'. The suggestion was made by a division bench comprised of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ajit Kumar, after it was informed that the residents are "freely mixing" with each other and are not taking precautions like wearing of masks and washing of hands etc. Bombay High Court 1) MHA Order Directing Employers To Pay Wages During Lockdown, Not Applicable To Workers Who Were Unemployed Or Unpaid Before The Lockdown: Bombay HC [Premier Employees Union v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.] Division bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Riyaz Chagla held that order passed by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs under the Disaster management Act directing all states and union territories to ensure that all the employers shall make payment of wages to their workers without any deduction during the lockdown, is not applicable to those workers who remained unpaid and unemployed for a long period before the lockdown. The bench explained – "To be deemed to be on duty one should be on duty on the date when the lockdown was declared. To be entitled to or for continuity of salary / wages during the lockdown, an employee / worker should receive the same till the month which is previous to closure on account of the lockdown." 2) No Coercive Action Against Schools Conducting Online Classes Nor Against Parents Not Willing To Force Kids To Attend Online Classes: Bombay HC [Parents Teachers Association of United Forum & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.] In a relief to schools and parents alike, Division bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice NR Borkar directed the State Government not to take any coercive steps against those schools that are conducting online classes for students of Class II and below. Similarly, schools have been directed not to take any coercive steps against those parents who are not willing to force their children to attend online classes. 3) Taking Note Of Pendency Of Case In SC, Bombay HC Refuses To Pass Orders For Transport Of Migrants To West Bengal [Center for Indian Trade Unions & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.] A Division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Anuja Prabhudessai refused to pass directions facilitating movement of allegedly stranded migrant workers in the State of Maharashtra to West Bengal, noting the pendency of the suo moto case on migrants issue before the SC. The bench said it does not consider it appropriate to pass any order at this stage and it shall await further orders that might be passed by the Supreme Court in respect of migrant labours. 4) Bombay HC Rejects PIL Seeking Inclusion Of Services Rendered By Lawyers In The Category Of "Essential Services" [Imran Mohd. Salar Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.] Division bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice Madhav Jamdar rejected the criminal writ petition filed by an advocate seeking declaration of services rendered by lawyers as essential service and thus exempt lawyers from restrictions imposed with regard to movement of traffic during lockdown. The bench concluded that it was within the exclusive domain of the state legislature to legislate on which services will be included in the list of 'essential services', keeping in view paramount interest of the community. 5) Bombay ...

High Courts Weekly Roundup

Akshita Saxena

Tags