High Courts Weekly Roundup [March 22 – March 28]

Allahabad High Court 1. "Applicant In Jail Can't Be Left At The Mercy Of State": Allahabad High Court Expresses Displeasure At Non-Filing Of Reports In Time [Anmol Rastogi v. State of UP] A Single Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi rebuked the Uttar Pradesh Government while noting that despite getting sufficient time, almost in every case, the AGA failed to provide counter-affidavit and viscera report of the deceased in time. "The Court is not getting sufficient cooperation from the side of the State. This is a pathetic state and the Court records its strongest exception of such type of attitude from the State," the order stated. 2. Anti CAA-Speech At AMU: Dr. Kafeel Khan Files Plea To Quash Criminal Case, Allahabad High Court Seeks UP Govt's Response [Dr.Kafeel Ahmad Khan v. State of UP & Anr.] A Single Bench of Justice JJ Munir issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government on a petition moved by Dr. Kafeel Khan seeking to quash the criminal proceedings started against him for his alleged inflammatory speech delivered at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). Khan was arrested in December 2019 for allegedly giving a provocative speech in the midst of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests and was jailed for seven months and slapped with the National Security Act. In September 2020, a Chief Justice led Division Bench observed that his speech "does not disclose any effort to promote hatred or violence" and is rather a "call for national integrity and unity among the citizens". 3. "He Stands Before Us With Folded Hands & In Tears", Allahabad High Court Expunges Adverse Remarks Against Judicial Officer [Mohd. Irshad v. Anjum Bano] The Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Saurabh Lavania expunged the adverse remarks made against a Judicial Officer considering his unconditional apology and the fact that he had remained under suspension for more than a year. As accepted by the Applicant/Judicial Officer, he was slightly anguished because he had not passed the order impugned in the first appeal yet he had to appear before the High Court and in a momentary lapse of control over his faculties, the incident recorded in the order of the Court dated 18th November 2019 happened. 4. Any Eventuality That Interrupts Supply Of Water To Agricultural Fields Amounts To Violation Of Right To Trade Under Article 19: Allahabad High Court [Nathu Prasad Kushwaha & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.] A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held that discontinuation of electricity supply which in turn results in interrupted supply of water to agricultural fields is a violation of the fundamental right to trade and profession of the agriculturalists. The observation was made while deciding a PIL seeking restoration of electricity at a Tubewell that is used in all nearby agricultural fields for irrigation. "We are of considered opinion that in command area any eventuality that adversely affects the supply of water to the agricultural fields virtually amounts to the violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India as that affects business and profession of the agriculturists," the Bench observed. Other developments: Apology Accepted- Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Forwarding Message Asking People To Display Black Flags To French President[Covid-19] "Police Has Also Become Complacent": Allahabad High Court Expresses Displeasure Over Non-Adherence To Mask Rule In UP"Was Defending Myself As Well As My Property", Etah Advocate Who Was Assaulted By UP Police Submits Before Allahabad HC, Granted BailLaw Students' Plea Seeking Implementation Of Manual Scavengers Act: Allahabad High Court Seeks UP Govt's ResponseAllahabad High Court Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Forcefully Converting Religion of 19-Yr Old Bombay High Court 1. "Court Is Not A Pedantic School Master" – Bombay High Court Dismisses BVG's Plea Challenging Civic Body's 'No-Blacklister' Condition In Hospital Tender [BVG India Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.] A tender condition disallowing a contractor from participating in the process again, because his work was previously terminated, would not amount to blacklisting, a division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni held while rejecting a petition by mechanised housekeeping major Bharat Vikas Group (BVG India Ltd). It ruled that the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) was entitled to impose such a condition as the "terms of invitation to tender" were not open to judicial scrutiny and the condition is neither illegal nor arbitrary. 2. Setting Out Two Separate Prayers For Injunction, One For Infringement And Other For Passing Off A Singularly Unwise Practice: Bombay High Court [HUL v. An Opposing Party] The High Court called for a halt on the practice of seeking the separate reliefs of...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [March 22 – March 28]

Akshita Saxena

Tags