- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- High Courts Weekly Roundup
High Courts Weekly Roundup
Akshita Saxena
14 Sep 2020 3:43 AM GMT
Week Commencing From September 7, 2020 To September 13, 2020 Allahabad High Court 1. Allahabad HC Stays Demolition Of Azam Khans Resort Allegedly Built On Government Land [Dr. Tazeen Fatima v. State of UP & Ors.] In a plea filed by Ms. Tanzeen Fatima, wife of MP Azam Khan, the Allahabad HC stayed the orders of demolition of their 'Humsafar Resort', in UP district...
Week Commencing From September 7, 2020 To September 13, 2020
Allahabad High Court
1. Allahabad HC Stays Demolition Of Azam Khans Resort Allegedly Built On Government Land [Dr. Tazeen Fatima v. State of UP & Ors.]
In a plea filed by Ms. Tanzeen Fatima, wife of MP Azam Khan, the Allahabad HC stayed the orders of demolition of their 'Humsafar Resort', in UP district Rampur, allegedly built upon government land
The division bench of Justices Shashi Kant Gupta and Piyush Aggarwal directed Ms. Fatima to avail her alternate remedy under section 27(2) of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act. The court ordered that 'For a period of six weeks or till the disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner.'
2. Stamp Duty Cannot Be Levied On Contact Security': Allahabad High Court Raps State Government For Ignoring Previous Judgements [M/S Yogendra Kumar v. State of U.P & Ors.].
The Bench headed by Justice Jayendra Thaker quashed the order demanding stamp duty on contract security. It observed,
"The Authorities empowered shall in no circumstance demand stamp duty beyond the scope of Article 57 (b) Schedule 1B of Stamp Act," Article 57 (b) Schedule 1 B stipulates that stamp duty may be levied on the Security Bond and Mortgage Deed, inter alia executed by a surety to secure the due performance of a contract or the due discharge of a liability."
3. [Right Against Exploitation] Allahabad HC Asks UP Govt Why RTE Instructors Are Paid Less The Peon, Etc. [Prabhu Shanker & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.]
The bench headed by Justice Pankaj Bhatia asked the state Government to file a reply affidavit in a plea alleging that the teachers recruited under Right to education are paid an honorarium amount, lesser than peons. The took note of the submission that such actions amount to 'exploitation' and thus sought the authorities' response. In the interim, it ordered that the teachers be paid honorarium of Rs. 17,000/- as per the Central Government's order.
4. Allahabad HC Asks CBI Why Only One Advocate Is Assigned To Represent It Before The High Court [Jawahar Lal @ Jawahar Lal Jalaj v. UOI]
Taking serious view of non-availability of any counsel to assist the Court on behalf of the CBI, the Allahabad High Court directed the Deputy Legal Advisor, CBI, Lucknow Zone to file a personal affidavit, explaining why only one Advocate has been assigned to argue all the CBI cases in the High Court.
"It is very strange that CBI is keeping only one Advocate to argue the matter and nobody is available to assist the learned A.S.G. The Court has taken very serious view of the matter as nobody is available to assist the court on behalf of the CBI in absence of learned A.S.G," the Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed.
5. Allahabad HC Seeks Response From Election Commission In Plea For Online Nomination Of Candidates For Panchayat Election [Gopal Krishna Pandey v. State of UP & Anr.]
A Division Bench comprised of Justices SK Gupta and Shamim Ahmed issued notices on a PIL seeking online nomination of candidates contesting in the upcoming Panchayat Election in the state to avoid crowding of supporters and procession, amid the pandemic. The Court has asked the State Government as well as the Election Commission to file their counter affidavits in the matter within two weeks.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court while hearing two Writ Petitions held that stopping payment of social security pension to the petitioners without conducting any enquiry or without issuing any notice is "illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the object of social security pension scheme, against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India".
Most importantly, the single bench of Justice Battu Devanand observed, "While spending crores of rupees of public money for all the programmes, it is unreasonable to stop payment of meagre amount being paid towards social security pension in favour of the petitioners."
Bombay High Court
1. Bombay High Court Prevents BPCL Employees From Going On Strike Under Industrial Dispute Act As Conciliation Proceedings Are Pending [Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Petroleum Workmen Union & Ors.]
The division bench of Justice KK Tated and Justice NR Borkar granted interim relief to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and directed the Respondents (Petroleum Workmen's Union & Ors.) and their members not to go on strike or indulge in any kind of abstention from work after observing that Section 22 of the Industrial Dispute Act prohibits employees from going on strike when conciliation proceedings are pending.
The bench observed, "Suffice to say that similar contention which are sought to be raised on behalf of the respondent before this court in the Judgement reported in 2011 (III) CLR 187 between the same parties and this court repelled the said contentions. Admittedly the conciliation proceedings are pending."
2. BMC's Action, Prima Facie, Does Not Appear To Be Bonafide & Smacks Of Mala Fides: Bombay HC While Granting Relief To Kangana Ranaut [Kangna Ranaut v. Mumbai Corporation Gr. Mumbai & Ors.]
The Bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla and Justice RI Chagla restrained the municipal corporation of greater Mumbai from carrying out any further demolition at Kangana Ranaut's residence in Bandra. While restraining the demolition court observed that the works that are 'unauthorized' have not come overnight and the manner in which MCGM has proceeded to commence demolition work prima facie does not appear to be bonafide and smacks malafide.
Also Read: Bombay HC Stays BMC's Demolition Of Kangana Ranaut's Building
3. Bombay HC Says Not Necessary To Pass Orders Against Shiv Cable Sena's Boycott Call Against Republic TV As It Has No Effect In Law [ARG Outlier Media Private Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.]
A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Milind Jadhav said that it was not necessary to pass any orders to restrain Cable TV operators from stopping the telecast of the Republic TV and Republic Bharat, as the alleged call for boycott made by 'Shiv Cable Sena', an affiliate of the major partner of the ruling coalition Shiv Sena, has no "effect in law" as it was not a statutory authority.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by Republic TV's parent company ARG Outlier Media Private Limited against Cable Network Operators, for not stopping the broadcast of the TV channels namely Republic TV and Republic TV Bharat after Shiv Cable Sena allegedly sent a threatening letter to various cable network operators to stop airing the petitioner's channels or face public agitation.
Calcutta High Court
1. Calcutta HC Deprecates Recording Of Confessional Statements In Callous Manner; Orders Inquiry Into Errant Officials [Sandhya Maloo v. State]
Expressing serious displeasure at the "indifferent and callous manner" in which the investigation authority recorded the leading statements of an accused, the Calcutta High Court made significant observations on recording of confessional statements.
The Bench comprising Justices Suvra Ghosh and Joymalya Bagchi held that "True and complete disclosure of the crime is the heart and soul of a confessional statement." In the present case however, the so-called leading statements of the accused were "shrouded in mystery" and did not inspire the Court's confidence.
2. [Private School Fees] Calcutta HC Orders Police Action If Parents Continue Protests Outside School Premises [Vineet Ruia v. State of WB]
In the matter relating of charging of fees by private educational institutions, the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday observed that if parents do not desist from agitating before the school premises, the Police may take appropriate action against them.
"It is hoped that the parents desist from carrying out any agitation at the schools gates, particularly since the matter is being considered by the court. Any report of further agitation at the school gates may be reported by the relevant schools for appropriate police action," the Bench comprised of Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya said.
The Single Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha asked the State authorities to provide decent accommodation of one room, to a NEET-UG Aspirant (petitioner) and her accompanying either parent. The Court was hearing the plea of a NEET UG aspirant praying for "setting aside and quashing the memo dated 31st August 2020 declaring lockdowns, inter alia, on 11th and 12th September 2020 in West Bengal."
[NOTE: The examination in question was held on 13th September, 2020.]
The Delhi HC has directed Arnab Goswami to exercise restraint and to 'bring down the rhetoric', till the pleas moved by Tharoor seeking injunction against allegedly defamatory broadcasting on Sunanda Pushkar case is disposed of. The Single Bench of Justice Mukta Singh highlighted that the media should refrain from conducting parallel trials or from calling someone guilty or from making insubstantial claims while the case is pending in the court.
The Bench observed, "The sanctity of an investigation and evidence has to be understood and respected." The court condemned the claims of having firm evidence against Tharoor made by Arnab's counsel and emphasized on the fact that the press has to exercise caution and care while reporting criminal matters that are under investigation. Non-following of orders would call for consequences, the court iterated.
2. [UAPA] Accused Has Right To Oppose Police Plea For Extension Of Time For Completion Of Investigation Beyond 90 Days But Cannot Be Provided A Copy Of The Application: Delhi HC [Khalid v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)]
A Bench of Justice Vibhu Bhakru observed that the accused has the right to oppose an application made for the extension of time in completing the investigation under Section 167 Cr.P.C. as modified by Section 43(D) (2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Ac, 1967 for investigating under UAPA.
"At the stage of extension of time for completion of investigation or extension of the period of detention in terms of the proviso to Section 167 Cr.P.C, the appellant cannot ask to see the reports ofPP. Those reports, like the case diary maintained under Section 174 CrPC, are to satisfy the court about the progress of investigation and justification for seeking extension of time to complete the investigation," the Court said.
3. Delhi High Court Orders Government To review Cadre Restructuring Of Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force
The Delhi High Court passed an order directing the Government to review its cadre review/restructuring exercise pertaining to the General Duty Cadre and the Non-General Duty Cadre of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP). The order was passed while hearing a petition filed by personnel of the ITBP seeking to quash orders dated 15th January, 2020 and 31st January, 2020 approving the cadre review/ restructuring undertaken by the ITBP.
The Court directed the Government to undertake a review of the cadre restructuring/review exercise done by it and whereby it should grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the senior most Deputy Commandant, Education and Stress Counselor Cadre of ITBP as well as to the petitioners in the matter. The Court directed the Government to pay regard to the claims/ representations made by the petitioners during personal hearing in its cadre review exercise, if it finds any merit in their claims. The Court also ordered the Government to follow the parameter/principals laid down by the Court rulings with respect to cadre review exercise in its review. It also directed the Government to follow the Office Memorandums and Monograph of the Department of Personnel and Training relating to cadre review.
4. Delhi HC Directs Government To Consider Representation Opposing National Health Data Management Policy's Consultation [Dr. Satendra Singh v. Union of India & Ors.]
Delhi High Court disposed of a petition challenging the consultation process for the National Digital Health Mission: Health Data Management Policy indicating that it shall not decide the adequacy of the consultation process at this stage but the same can be looked into if the final policy is challenged on substantive grounds later.
However, the Bench comprising of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan directed the Government to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policies applicable to the facts of the case. It directed the Government to keep in mind the various grounds raised in the petition before the Court while deciding the issues.
5. Delhi HC Grants Interim Protection From Arrest To Alt News Co-Founder Mohammed Zubair In Plea Seeking Quashing Of FIR [Mohammed Zubair v. GNCTD]
A Single Bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna granted interim protection from arrest to Co-Founder of Alt News Mohammed Zubair in a plea moved by him seeking quashing of the FIR lodged against him over a tweet made by him in response to a twitter user. The Court also directed the Delhi Government and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyber Cell to file a status report on the investigation carried out in this case, within 8 weeks.
The case pertains to a tweet posted by Zubair, sharing the profile picture of the complainant which had him standing with his minor granddaughter, and asking -after blurring the face of the minor girl - if it was appropriate for the complainant to use derogatory language in replies while using a profile picture figuring his granddaughter.
Single Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta directed Arnab Goswami to exercise restraint and 'bring down the rhetoric', till the plea moved by Tharoor seeking injunction against allegedly defamatory broadcasting on Sunanda Pushkar case is disposed of.
While issuing notice to Goswami to file a reply, the Court highlighted that during the pendency of an investigation in a criminal case, media should refrain from running a parallel trial, or from calling someone guilty, or from making unsubstantiated claims.
7. Delhi HC Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Centre's Decision To Allow Telecasting Of Sudarshan TV Show Allegedly Communalising UPSC Recruitment Of Muslims [Syed Mujtaba Athar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.]
The Bench of Justice Navin Chawla issued notice on a petition challenging the Order of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting's allowing the telecast of a show 'Bindas Bol" which allegedly communalising UPSC recruitment of Muslims. However the Court refused to stay the broadcast of the show.
Gujarat High Court
1. [PASA Amendment] A Welcome Step But Effective Implementation And Execution Is A Must: Gujarat HC Gives Suggestion To Prevent The Misuse Of The Act. [Vijay alias Ballu Bharatbhai Ramanbhai Patni v. State of Gujarat]
The Gujarat High Court acknowledged the State Government's efforts to extend the application of the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities (PASA) Act, 1985 to cybercriminals, loan sharks and sexual offenders amongst the others. The court was hearing an appeal against the detention order under PASA.
While setting aside the detention order, the court stated that merely because a person is 'dangerous person' he cannot be preventively detained, unless as laid down in Section 3(4) of the PASA Act, his/her activities as a 'dangerous person' affected adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. The Court requested the State to make provisions to prevent misuse of the Act.
2. 'In View Of Marriage Of Accused With Victim, Trial To Be Futile': Gujarat HC Quashes FIR For Rape Of Minor [MA Chunavala v. State of Gujarat]
The Bench of Justice Ashokkumar C. Joshi quashed an FIR pertaining to rape of a minor by an on duty police officer, taking into account "full and final settlement" between the complainant and the accused by the latter entering into marriage with the victim.
The Court noted Supreme Court's order in Narender Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute.
However, the Judge opined that normally, the Court would not entertain the quashing petition in serious offences like offences under Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC. However, the Court then stated that in the present case, when the settlement is arrived at between the applicant-accused and the complainant, and the applicant-accused and victim both have married with each other, therefore, the Court is inclined to entertain the petition.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
1. Being Citizen Of India Prerequisite To Issuance Of Bonafide Resident Certificate: HP HC [Kumari Beena v. State of HP & Ors.]
Being a citizen of India is a condition requisite for being granted a bonafide domicile/resident certificate, the Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel said while hearing a challenge to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner whereby the request of the petitioner for issuance of bonafide certificate in her favour was rejected.
The Single Judge noted that the petitioner is primarily relying her claim on the contents of Hand Book on Personnel Matters (Vol. I), in which a bonafide Himachali has been defined and in terms whereof a person is entitled for the Bonafide Himachali certificate, if he/she has been a resident of State of Himachal Pradesh for a period of 15 years.
"In my considered view, the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that citizenship has got nothing to do with the issuance of Bonafide Certificate does not has any merit", observed the bench.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
1. Private Practice By Government Doctors Usage Of Public Facilities For Commercial Exploitation Can't Be Permitted: J&K HC [Azra Ismail v. Union of India & Ors.]
A division bench of Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Puneet Gupta concluded that Government Doctors cannot be permitted to use their employment for private practice and Commercial exploitation. The doctors took undue advantage of the restriction imposed by the Government as many of the health activities were closed but allowed to continue the private practice, the doctors diverted the patients from Government Hospitals to their private clinics.
The Bench further remarked, "It cannot be denied that it is pertinent care and public interest which has to be placed on the highest pedestal and optimised Government Doctors and professionals cannot be permitted to use their employment and public facilities for building private practices and commercial exploitation."
2. "Fake Or Invalid Driving Licenses Are Not Valid Defenses To Avoid Liability Of Insurer": J&K High Court [NICL v. Ashwani Kumar & Ors.]
"Mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver to drive at the relevant time, are not in themselves defenses available to the insurer either against the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy," observed the Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar.
The order was passed in an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited (NICL) challenging the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu which had directed the NICL to pay a sum of Rs. 88,045/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the claimant for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
3. A Judicial Notice Can Be Taken On Deplorable State In Which The Cremation Grounds Exist: J&K HC Asks The Authority To Submit Action Plan [Sumit Nayyar v. Union of India]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul has taken judicial notice on deplorable state in which the cremation grounds exist in the state. The Court ordered that a copy of the Court's order be served upon the Commissioner, JMC, Jammu with a direction that immediate action plan with timeline be drawn up "for improving the conditions of cremation grounds and shall be placed before this Court within four weeks from today."
Jharkhand High Court
"The present matter has pan India ramifications and petitioners have failed to make out a strong ground so as to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court which is otherwise plenary in nature, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the notice dated 03.09.2020 issued by NLSIU, Bengaluru", Single Bench of Justice Rajesh Shankar said while dismissing the Writ petition challenging the decision of NLSIU to conduct NLAT.
Karnataka High Court
1. Right to Life Cannot Be Invaded Under the Grab of Freedom Of Speech: Karnataka HC Convicts Reporter & Editor For Defamation [Selvina Kom Peter Byarko v. Ganesh P]
The Karnataka High Court reversed the acquittal of a reporter and an editor of a magazine for criminal defamation and observed that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be invaded under the grab of freedom of speech and expression. Single judge bench of Justice M.G Uma set aside the acquittal order passed in favor of editor and reporter of 'Kadala Koogu' (a weekly magazine).
The court said that imputation of truth by itself is not a defense. Accused are convicted under section 500 of Indian penal code and they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 30,000 each within 30 days, failing which the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of one month. From the fine deposited by the accused an amount of Rs 50,000 is to be paid to complainant as compensation under section 357 of the CrPC.
2. Karnataka HC Refuses To Entertain PIL Challenging Bar Council Of India's Direction To Bar Associations To Supply Details Of Practising Advocates [Dr KB Vijayakumar v. BCI]
Observing that "the aggrieved parties (Advocates) in this case are not helpless and they are not prevented by any disability from espousing their cause," the division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice E S Indiresh disposed of a PIL seeking to declare contents of a letter issued on July 24, by the Bar Council of India, (BCI), as illegal and void.
By way of the impugned letter, the BCI had asked all the District and Taluka Bar Associations across the country to supply the details of all practising Advocates who are members of their respective Bar Associations, for perusal of the e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India.
3. 'No Criminal Action For Allegation Of Corrupt Electoral Practice Under Sec.123 RPA' : Karnataka HC Quashes Complaint Against CM Yediyurappa [BS Yediyurappa v. State of Karnataka]
In a relief to Karnataka CM, BSYediyurappa, the Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj quashed a complaint dated 26.11.2019, registered against him for offences under Section 123 (3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and under Section 171C and 171F of the Indian Penal code.
The Court held that an allegation of electoral malpractice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act cannot lead to any penal action, and can only lead to the invalidation of the election if proved. It can lead to a cause of action for filing an election petition to invalidate the result but not a criminal complaint for prosecution, held the court.
Access full report to read further grounds for quashing of complaint.
4. Second Marriage Under Muslim Law Though Legal, May Be Construed As Cruelty To First Wife: Karnataka HC [Yusufpatel v. Ramjanbi]
A Bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice P. Krishna Bhat observed that even though contracting a second marriage by a Muslim husband is lawful, it often causes "enormous cruelty" to the first wife, justifying her claim for divorce.
The Court explained that cruelty is a very subjective concept and the conduct constituting is "indefinitely variable". It remarked, "Merely because an act is lawful, it does not per se become justifiable in married life; for example, of course subject to all just exceptions, smoking and drinking are not unlawful; snoring too, is not; but still in certain circumstances they may amount to cruelty to a sensitive spouse; on the same analogy though contracting a second marriage by a Muslim may be lawful, but it more often than not, causes enormous cruelty to the first wife justifying her claim for divorce."
5. Draft EIA 2020: Karnataka HC Extends Stay On Publication Of Final Notification Until Further Orders
A division bench headed by Chief Justice Abhay S Oka extended the stay on the publication of the Final Notification based on the Draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification 2020 by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change until further orders.
6. Karnataka HC Stays 25% Domicile Reservation For Karnataka Students In NLSIU
The bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Ravi Hosmani passed an interim order to stay the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) Amendment Act 2020 passed by the Karnataka Assembly to grant 25% domicile reservation to Karnataka students in NLSIU, Bengaluru.
The court has also stayed the 5 percent concession on the cut-off score in the admission test to students of Karnataka which was introduced by NLSIU by a notification dated August 4 for granting the impugned reservation.
1. Kerala High Court Issues General Directions For Investigation And Trial In POCSO Cases [Abhishek.K.A @ Bhanu v. State of Kerala]
The Kerala High court issued directives in exercise of the power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. These directions are to be followed by the investigating authorities and trial courts while dealing with POCSO crimes and cases. Court while issuing the guidelines observed that the interference of the court is needed for improving the system radically.
To read the Guidelines, access Full Report.
2. Not Mandatory To Hear Victim While Considering Rape Accused' Plea For Default Bail: Kerala HC [X. v. State of Kerala]
The Kerala High Court observed that the provision contained within Section 439 (1A) of Cr.P.C does not apply to an application for bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. As opposed to Section 167(2), a Court acting under Section 437 and 439 are guided by different considerations in exercising its judicial discretion.
Justice P.B Suresh Kumar observed, "The purpose of Section 167(2) is to protect the liberty of an individual who has been detained and continues to be detained pending investigation in a case. It is trite that in matters relating personal liberty of an individual, the court must lean in favour of personal liberty. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the provision contained in Section 439(1A) of the Code does not apply to an application for bail under Section 167(2) of the code."
3. Convenience Of Wife Has To Be Preferred Over That Of Husband While Considering Transfer Petitions In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala HC [Reshmi Radhakrishna v. Shiju Alex Varghese]
In matrimonial disputes, while considering transfer petitions, the convenience of the wife has to be preferred over the convenience of the husband, the Bench of Justice Shircy V observed while allowing a Transfer Petition filed by a wife, against whom the Husband had filed divorce petition before Family Court, Pathanamthitta.
4. Section 92 CPC - Court of Additional District Judge Cannot Grant Leave To Institute Suit Against Public Charities : Kerala HC [Sree Gurudeva Charitable And Educational Trust & Ors. v. K. Gopalakrishnan & Anr.]
The Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran ruled that the Court of an Additional District Judge cannot grant leave under S.92 Civil Procedure Code, to institute suit against pubic charities.
Access full report to read the reasoning given by the Court.
5. Kerala HC Issues Guidelines For Maintaining Rape Victim Anonymity In Cases Filed Before It [X v. State of Kerala]
Bench of Justice PB Suresh Kumar, while considering a petition arising out of a bail order passed by POCSO Court, issued some future guidelines for maintaining rape victim's anonymity in the matters instituted before it.
Read guidelines in the original report.
Also Read: Not Mandatory To Hear Victim While Considering Rape Accused's Plea For Default Bail: Kerala HC
Madhya Pradesh High Court
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Yadav and BK Shrivastava the plea by a CLAT aspirant who had moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench) challenging the sudden withdrawal of NLSIU Bangalore from CLAT 2020, to hold a separate entrance test namely NLAT.
Citing complications of territorial jurisdiction, the Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition challenging NLAT and approach appropriate High Court.
Also Read: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging NLSIU Admission Test NLAT2020
Madras High Court
1. Public Information Officers Who Mechanically Reject The RTI Applications Should Be Shown The Door Says Madras High Court [Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission v. P. Muthian]
The information sought by the RTI applicant was in respect to the number of seats that were allocated to the different backward communities for years 2006, 2007 and 2008. The commission contended that the details sought would amount to invasion of privacy and lead to creation of communal discontent and strife. Rejecting the said contention, Justice S. Vaidyanathan came down heavily on the authorities:
"The apprehension of TNPSC, that in-depth description of castes will create communal unrest, is only an illusion and imaginary and if it is the real concern of TNPSC and the Government, they should think of abolishing the quota system as well as removal of column regarding caste particulars in the school certificate itself, so that the people of Tamil Nadu could stand united under one roof irrespective of caste, creed, religion, etc." The court noted that even the office of Chief Justice will come under the purview of RTI Act.
2. What Is Not An Offence Does Not Require A Defence:' Madras High Court Explains Procedure For Inquiry And Trial Against An Accused Of An Unsound Mind [Kaliyappan v. State]
The Bench headed by Justice PN Prakash laid down the procedure for conducting inquiry/trial of an accused of unsound mind. A petition was filed by the father of a murder accused, apprehending that the magistrate might start the trial against his son without ascertaining the mental state of schizophrenia. Upon a finding submitted by the Medical Board of a Government Hospital, the High Court was satisfied that the accused was not fit to face the trial due to his mental illness and hence dropped the proceedings against him in terms of Section 84 of IPC.
3. Discretionary Powers For Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Extended To Persons Indulging In Illegal Sand Mining, Smuggling & Theft Of Sand And Minerals: Madras HC [Bala v. State]
Questioning itself whether the discretionary power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C can be routinely exercised for cases of illegal quarrying/mining, theft and smuggling of sand and minerals, the Madras High Court, finding, that the discretionary power has been consciously and continuously misused by the offenders and the enforcers as well in an organised manner, observed that the anticipatory bail cannot be extended to persons indulging in illegal sand mining, smuggling and theft of sand and minerals.
"This court can see that due to the amount of money involved, the business of illegal quarrying/mining ,theft and sand smuggling activities is increasing day by day and offenders are bold enough to involve in the offences with a fond belief that they will be able to get advance bail by accepting and undertaking to comply with any stringent conditions imposed by the courts", said Justice A. D. Jagadish Chandira, adding that orders of the courts are routinely taken more lightly and the industry is thriving by engaging men and materials on a large scale.
4. Schools Can Allow Students To Attend Classes, With Social Distancing, If Special Attention Needed & Online Teaching Not Possible: Madras HC [R. Bharaneeswaran v. Govt of TN & Ors.]
The Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice R. Hemalatha held that schools in Tamil Nadu can allow students to attend classes, by following physical distancing norms, if special attention is required and online teaching is not an option. Alternatively, the Court said the teachers could also go to the residence of the students.
The Court was dealing with writ petitions having been filed expressing concerns on the usage of online classes hastened by the pandemic.
Manipur High Court
1. Implement Provisions Of Mental Healthcare Act In Letter And Spirit Within 6 Months : Manipur HC Directs State Government [Maibam Jatiswor Singh v. The State of Manipur & Ors.]
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar and Justice Kh. Nobin Singh directed the State Government to implement the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and establish the necessary infrastructures expeditiously.
Orissa High Court
1. [School Fees During Covid 19] Orissa HC Directs Mediation Between Private Schools & Parents
In the matter relating to charging of fees by private educational institutions, the Orissa High Court recently ordered the School & Mass Education Department of the State to convene a meeting between all the stakeholders to arrive at an amicable settlement.
The Division Bench comprised of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice KR Mohapatra has asked the State government to convene a meeting of the representatives of the Private Un-Aided and Aided Educational Institutions and representatives of the parents and teachers' association.
Patna High Court
1. Can't Assume That EC Will Make Decisions Without Considering Prevailing Situation: Patna HC Dismisses For Postponement Of Bihar Polls [Badri Narayan Singh v. MHA & Ors.]
The High Court dismissed two pleas seeking for a direction to the Election Commission for the postponement of the impending Bihar Assembly Elections 2020 and/or restrain the Election Commission from notifying date for assembly election till further order of this Court on the account of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar specifically observed, "The Election Commission is the sole authority responsible for the conduct of elections, including the decision on the schedule of the election. The ultimate decision on when to hold elections lies with the Commission. It cannot be assumed that the Election Commission has taken/or would take its decision without considering the prevailing situation. The Commission cannot be directed to act in any-what-way by any authority."
2. Patna HC Warns Of Contempt If Municipal Corporation Employees Don't Call Off Their Strike [Court on its own motion on the basis of news item…]
The Patna High Court took suo moto cognizance of the pitiable condition of the city on account of dumping of piles of garbage on its streets by the Municipal Corporation employees, who have declared an indefinite strike against non-regularization of their services.
Cautioning the employees of contempt proceedings, the Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar directed them call off the strike immediately and to resume/join their duties and report at their respective places of posting immediately.
Also Read: Patna HC Warns Govt. Doctors Of Contempt If "Illegal" Strike Not Called Off
Punjab & Haryana High Court
1. Not Sufficient Compliance Of A. 311(2): P&H HC Sets Aside Dismissal Order For Want Of Reasons For Dispensing With Inquiry P&H HC Sets Aside Dismissal Order For Want Of Reasons Or Dispensing With Inquiry [Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.]
The Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrpal observed that in the absence of sufficient reasons recorded in writing dispensing with the requirement of holding inquiry in the alleged misconduct of employee by the authority, order of dismissal/removal from service of employee, passed in exercise of the powers under Clause (b) of the 2nd Proviso to Article 311(2) is not sustainable.
2. Parole Is A Reformative Process; Cannot Be Denied On Apprehension Of Absconding: P&H HC [Manga v. State of Punjab & Ors.]
The High Court has reiterated that parole is "reformative process" and the same cannot be denied to a convict merely on apprehensions that he shall abscond or commit further offences.
"It cannot be disputed that the purpose of release is to make sure that the prisoner as such meets with his family members and the general public. It is a reformative process, whereby a convict is reintroduced to normal life and, thus, by declining the said benefit on an application… would come within the vice of irrationality and perversity, in spite of the settled position of law," observed the Bench of Justice GS Sandhawalia.
3. [Divorce] Both Parties Educated & Thus, Presumed To Know Their Best Interests: P & H HC Orders Waiver Of 6 Month Cooling-Off Period [Sangeeta Singh v. Pradeep]
Noting that both parties to the marriage are over the age of 30 and are educated and that they would therefore be presumed to know as to what would be in their best interest, the Bench of Justice Sanjan Kumar has ordered waiver of the compulsory six-month cooling off period before their divorce by mutual consent.
"Broadly, such waiver can be considered if : (i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13-B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year of separation of parties under Section 13-B(1) is already over before the first motion itself; (ii) All efforts for mediation/conciliation to re-unite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by further efforts; (iii) the parties have genuinely settled their differences, including alimony, child custody or other pending issues and; (iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony", reiterated the Court, relying on the 2017 SC authority in Amardeep Singh's case.
4. [Illegal Mining] 'Excessive Extraction Of Minerals Poses Grave Threat To The Bridges/Highways', P&H HC Prohibits Mining Near Highways, Bridges [Bakshish Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.]
Taking serious note of the illegal mining in the State of Punjab and in order "to save environment and ecology" and "to regulate sand mining," the Division Bench comprising of Justices Rajiv Sharma and Harinder Singh Sidhu prohibited mining activities 1 kilometre from the National Highways and ½ kilometre from State Highways in the State of Punjab.
The Court was hearing the plea by a petitioner who submitted before the Court that large scale illegal mining activities are being carried out in their villages as well as on the bed of the Sutlej river.
Rajasthan High Court
1. Online Classes: Rajasthan HC Says Schools Cannot Be Deprived Of Tuition Fees; Allows Them To Collect 70% Tuition Fees In 3 Installments [Society of Catholic Education Institutions in Rajasthan v. State]
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma has made a prima facie observation that schools cannot be deprived of tuition fees from students with respect to online classes. At the same time, the Court noted that the operational costs of the school at present were less when compared to normal times. Accordingly, a single bench passed an interim order allowing schools to take 70% of tuition fees from students for period from March 2020 in 3 installments.
The three installments shall be fixed by depositing the first installment on or before 30.9.2020 while the second installment shall be paid by 30.11.2020 and third installment shall be paid by 31.1.2021, ordered the Court.
Telangana High Court
Noting that the the very identity of the alleged accused persons is unknown, the bench of the Chief Justice and Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy disposed of a PIL on the basis of a report in 'The Hindu' that that certain persons were made to move barricades under scorching summer sun by the police.
The division bench noted that though the present petition is based on a news item published in 'The Hindu', even the reporter, who has given the said news item, is not in a position to reveal the identity of the alleged accused persons. "Therefore, it is very difficult to find out the actual identity of the alleged accused persons, who were allegedly forced to move barricades in hot summer days", it said. It opined that in the absence of concrete evidence and facts, it would be a futile exercise to appoint a Judicial Commission. For, Judicial Commission cannot be asked to go on a "wild goose chase".
2. Ensure That Lady Advocate Who Wrote A Letter To CJ Related To Alleged Custodial Death Of A Person Is Not Threatened' Telangana HC Directs State DGP [PV Nagamani v. State of Telangana & Ors.]
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy directed the Director General of Police, Telangana State, to ensure that Advocate PV Nagamani (who had addressed a letter to the Chief Justice related to the alleged custodial death of one Seelam Rangaiah) and her husband are not threatened by any Police Officer, and that both of them are not called to any police station as long as this case (the alleged custodial death of one Seelam Rangaiah) is sub-judice before the Court.
Tripura High Court
1. [COVID-19] Time Has Come When The Court Needs To Make Inquiries From The Government: Tripura HC Asks State To File Its Response On Several Issues [Court on its own motion]
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice S. Talapatra asked the State to provide relevant details in connection with various issues related to COVID-19.
The Court remarked that "it is a matter of public knowledge that the number of Coronavirus cases in the state is steadily increasing and has reached a high figure." It has sought a report from the Govt on numerous pointers, as detailed in the original report.
Inputs by Ayushi Mishra
