High Courts Weekly Roundup

Week Commencing From September 14, 2020 Till September 20, 2020 Allahabad High Court 1. Elected Representative Not Enjoying The Will Of The People Can't Be Permitted To Be In Power Even For A Second: Allahabad HC [Tripti Rani v. State Of U P & Ors.] The Division Bench comprising of Justices Shashi Kant Gupta and Piyush Agrawal observed that a democratic setup depends upon the will of the people. In case a person loses the majority he/she cannot be permitted to hold office. The Court observed, "In view of the above inherent political philosophy and principle, the provision for bringing a no-confidence motion for removing the representatives, has been introduced in the present Act of 1961. The Will of people is supreme. It cannot be lightly interfered with. Under no circumstance can the will of the people be permitted to be frustrated." Andhra Pradesh High Court 1. AP HC Injuncts Publication Of News Items/Social Media Posts On FIR With Respect To Alleged Amaravati Land Scam The Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari issued an injunction restraining any media reporting as to the FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau alleging corruption and illegal land transactions in relation to the shift of the capital to Amaravti following the bifurcation of the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh in 2014. The Court ordered, "It is further directed that the news in regard to registration of FIR or in the context of the said FIR shall not be made public in any electronic, print or social media." Bombay High Court 1. Rule Of Reservation Prescribed For State Quota Seats Does Not Apply To The Seats Reverted from All India Quota: Bombay HC [United Tribal Association Alliance v. State of Goa] The High Court of Bombay at Goa has ruled that principles of natural justice are not violated if the Institution of Lokayukta decides to implead certain persons as parties to a proceeding in exercise of suo-motu power. Bench of Justice DS Naidu dismissed a writ petition filed by members of a panchayat who were added as parties on the allegation of helping the Sarpanch in committing certain illegal acts. Court concluded that giving notice to every proposed party inevitably results in delay and "docket deluge clogging the judicial avenues, is an unaffordable luxury." 2. Lokayukta Adding Persons As Parties To A Proceeding Exercising Suo Motu Power Without Giving Prior Notice Does Not Violate Principles Of Natural Justice The High Court of Bombay at Goa has ruled that principles of natural justice are not violated if the Institution of Lokayukta decides to implement certain persons as parties to a proceeding in exercise of suo-motu power. Bench of Justice DS Naidu dismissed a writ petition filed by members of a panchayat who were added as parties on the allegation of helping the Sarpanch in committing certain illegal acts. Court concluded that giving notice to every proposed party inevitably results in delay and "docket deluge clogging the judicial avenues, is an unaffordable luxury." 3. In View Of Notification For Decongestion Of Prisons During Lockdown, There Is Automatic Extension Of Parole, No Need To Apply For Extension: Bombay HC [ Faruk s/o Mustak Khan v. State of Maharashtra] The Bombay High Court held that those prisoners or undertrials who have already been granted emergency parole as per notification dated May 8 for decongestion of prisons in view of the Coronavirus, need not apply for extension of parole once the initial 45 day period is over. Division bench of Justice TV Nalawade and Justice MG Sewlikar of the Aurangabad bench observed, "When there is automatic extension of parole period, there is no need of giving application every time when parole period expires. In view of lock-down which was declared and the object behind the notification, no other interpretation is possible. It appears that there is also some wrong notion that when the Court has granted parole under order, the period mentioned in the order will come to an end and after that period application will be required." 4. After Husband's Death, Wife Has Every Right To Claim Maintenance From The Estate Inherited By Father-In-Law: Bombay HC [Sardool Singh Sucha Singh Matharoo v. Harpreet Kaur widow of Bhupinder Singh Matharoo] The Court observed that after the husband's death, a woman has every right to claim maintenance from the estate inherited by her father-in-law. Single Bench Justice Nitin W Sambre observed that as per Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the respondent widow of petitioner's son has every right to claim maintenance from the estate inherited by her father-in-law, that is, the petitioner. "Proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 19 contemplates that the respondent has to demonstrate that she is unable to maintain herself. It is in this eventuality she can claim maintenance from the estate of her husband, still ...

High Courts Weekly Roundup

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags