High Courts Weekly Roundup

Week Commencing From July 20 to July 26, 2020 Allahabad High Court 1) "We Expect Organizers & UP Govt. Would Ensure Social/Physical Distancing Protocol": Allahabad HC Dismisses PIL Against 'Bhoomi Poojan' Of Ram Mandir [Saket Gokhale v. Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Tirthe Kshetra & Anr.] "We expect the organizers and the Government of Uttar Pradesh would ensure all the protocol applicable for social and physical distancing", said the bench comprising of the Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh while dismissing a plea to restrain "Bhoomi Pujan" for laying down foundation stone of Ram Mandir at Ayodhya. 2) Allahabad HC Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of Plight Of Minor Girls Forced To Trade Bodies During Lockdown In UP's Chitrakoot [Suo Moto v. State of UP] The bench comprised of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh took suo moto cognizance of plight of minor girls in UP's Chitrakoot, allegedly being forced to "trade off" their bodies to survive the lockdown induced financial crisis, and issued notices to the District Magistrate and Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Chitrakoot, based on a letter petition sent by Supreme Court Advocate Dr. Abhishek Atrey. The matter is now listed on July 28, 2020. 3) Allahabad HC Takes Suo Moto Cognizance On Probable Spread Of Corona Virus Through Hookah [Suo Moto v. State of UP & Ors.] A bench comprised of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh took suo moto cognizance on the probable spread of Corona Virus through Hookah/s served at various restaurant, cafes, etc. and asked the State Government to show cause why the Hookah service should not be stopped. The matter is now listed on August 6, 2020. 4) Parity Cannot Be The Sole Ground For Granting Bail: Allahabad HC [Gajendra Singh v. State of UP] In a significant decision, the single-Judge bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari has held that "parity" with the co-accused cannot be the sole ground for granting bail and that each bail application has to be decided on the basis of its own merits. Reliance was placed on Rakesh Kumar Pandey v. Munni Singh @ Mata Bux Singh & Anr., where the Supreme Court had denounced the order of the High Court granting bail to the co-accused on the ground of parity in a heinous offence. Andhra Pradesh High Court 1) In Democracy, If Atrocity Committed By Police Against An Advocate, What Would Be Fate Of General Citizen: Asks AP HC "In a democratic state, if such an atrocity is committed by a government functionary against an advocate, who is an officer of the court, it is difficult to perceive the fate of the general citizen", observed the bench of Justices Rakesh Kumar and K Suresh Reddy while hearing a habeas corpus plea against the illegal detention of an advocate by the police. Bombay High Court 1) How Is A Physically Fit Actors Above 65 Yrs Expected To Live A Dignified Life If They Are Not Allowed On Film/TV Sets? ; Bombay HC Seeks Reply From State [Pramod Pandey v. State of Maharashtra] Division bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla and Justice RI Chagla questioned the State Government regarding the guidelines issued dated May 30, 2020 barring cast/crew members above the age of 65 years from entering TV/Film sets and sought a detailed reply from the State. 2) In An Interim Measure, Bombay HC Directs State To Prefer Govt Officials Over Private Individuals As Administrators Of Gram Panchayats [Pradeep Shivaram Hulawale & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra] As elections in 14,000 gram panchayats across the State of Maharashtra have been deferred due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja while hearing a batch of petitions filed on behalf of gram panchayats across the State, in an interim measure, directed the state government on Wednesday to prefer government officials over private individuals while appointing administrators for gram panchayats. The next date of hearing in the matter is July 27. 3) There Cannot Be A Straight Jacket Formula As To How A Woman Will React To An Act Of Outrage: Bombay HC [Jitin Mothukiri v. State of Maharashtra] "There cannot be a straight jacket formula as to how a woman will react to an act of outrage by a male," remarked the bench of Justice Bharati Dangre in an order granting bail to a 24-yr-old rape accused. The observation was made while negating the insinuation of victim's 'consent' imputed by the applicant's counsel. "All women are borne into diffierent circumstances in life, go through different things and faces, experience and react differently and necessarily each woman would turn out to be different from the other. The concept of consent of the victim or as to at what stage the consent was revoked and the act of physical indulgence was attempted to be restrained is a matter of trial," the bench added. Calcutta High Court ...

High Courts Weekly Roundup

Akshita Saxena

Tags