High Courts Weekly Roundup [Nov 16 – Nov 22]

Allahabad High Court 1. DNA Test For Paternity Most Authentic For Wife To Establish That She Had Not Been Unfaithful, Adulterous Or Disloyal: Allahabad High Court [Neelam v. Ram Asrey] A Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal observed that DNA Test is the most legitimate and scientifically perfect means, which the husband could use, to establish his assertion of infidelity. It said, "This should simultaneously be taken as the most authentic, rightful and correct means also with the wife, for her to rebut the assertions made by the respondent-husband, and to establish that she had not been unfaithful, adulterous or disloyal." The only issue before the Court was, as to whether a Court, in a divorce petition filed by Husband, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of adultery, can direct the wife, either to undergo a D.N.A. test or refuse to undergo a D.N.A. test? 2. Plea Alleging Illegal Detention & Torture Of Juveniles: Allahabad High Court Seeks UP Govt's Response On Implementation Of JJ Act [HAQ Centre for Child Rights v. State of UP & Anr.] A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Govind Mathur issued notice on a PIL concerning illegal detention and torture of juveniles during the anti-CAA protests in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It asked the UP Government to file a counter affidavit, with specific averments regarding statutory compliance with the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 in all the districts of the State. The PIL was filed by an NGO namely, HAQ Centre for Child Rights, alleging that in the process of preventing protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, many minors were detained and tortured by the police in the state of Uttar Pradesh. 3. Allahabad High Court Issues Notice To NTA Over Declaration Of NEET 2020 Result Without Deciding On Objections To Questions [Saliha Khan & Ors. v. Union of India] The Single-Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar issued notices to Union of India & National Testing Agency (NTA) over the declaration of the NEET 2020 result without deciding on objections filed by the Petitioners in relation to a couple of questions (which appeared in the examination) held on September 13, 2020. 4. No Limitation Period For Filing Motor Accident Claim Petition; Amendment Introducing Six Months Cap Yet To Be Notified, Clarifies Allahabad High Court [Shailendra Tripathi & Anr. v. Dharmendra Yadav & Ors.] A Single Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker made it clear that amendments proposed to Section 166 (Application for compensation) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are yet to be notified. Thus, the proposed limitation period of six months for filing a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has not yet come into force. "I have enquired from Sri Ojha, State Law Officer and the position is that 166 (3) has not been brought on the statute book. What is the position is that 166 of 1998 Act would still govern the litigation as of today," the Court said. It clarified that Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 which proposes to amend Section 166 of the principal Act and introduce a six months limitation period for filing a claim petition, was not notified by the Central Government on August 9, 2019 (date when major provisions of the Amendment Act were notified). 5. 'Criminal History Of Applicant Starts From 2019 Only, 54 Case Registered After Change In Govt.': Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Azam Khan's Aide [Aley Hasan Khan v. State of UP] A Bench of Justice Siddharth allowed the bail application of one Aley Hasan Khan, stated to be a close aide of former MLA from Samajwadi Party, Azam Khan, while noting that his criminal history started only after a change in the State Government in 2019. "The criminal history of the applicant starts from the year 2019 only. The 54 cases lodged against the applicant are after the change in the government of the State. Earlier, he had 3 cases against him wherein final report has been submitted. Those cases are regarding minor offences," a Court observed while directing the Applicant's release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond. 6. COVID 19- "Whether Liberty of Accused May Be Curtailed When The Trial Courts Are Unable to Proceed Trial?"Asks Allahabad High Court [Ram Niwas @ Nankan v. State of UP] A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan sought response of the Law Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh as to whether in absence of trial, liberty of the accused-applicant may be curtailed. It was hearing a Bail matter where it noted that charge against was framed on 26.3.2019 but trial was held up due to COVID-19 situation and the next date was fixed for examination of witness on 26.11.2020. "If the aforesaid report is accepted on its face value, then inference may be drawn that the trial court is unable to proceed the trial on account of COVID-19 situation," the Court said. It noted that if Trial Court...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [Nov 16 – Nov 22]

Akshita Saxena

Tags