High Courts Weekly Roundup [April 12, 2021 – April 18, 2021]

Allahabad High Court 1. Consider Vaccinating Students Appearing For Board Exams Against COVID19 : Allahabad High Court [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres…] In a suo moto action taken in view of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, a division bench of Justice Siddhartha Verma and Ajit Kumar directed the Central Government and Indian Counsel for Medical Research to consider giving vaccination to students pursing higher education and giving board examinations. "Central Government and Indian Counsel for Medical Research must rethink for extending the benefit of vaccination to students pursuing higher education and those appearing in Board examination of high school and intermediate looking to the large scale infection in population of younger generation. If the Board and other examination conducting bodies are going for offline examination then government must explore viability to extend benefit of vaccination to such students as well", the Court observed. Also Read: Allahabad High Court To Consider Request Of Bar Association For Closure Of HC For Two Weeks In Wake Of Rising Corona Cases 2. Kashi Vishwanath Gyanvapi Mosque Dispute: "Judge Behaving In Arbitrary Manner, Against The Spirit Of Judicial Discipline": Urgent Application Moved In Allahabad HC An urgent application has been moved by Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Varanasi before the Allahabad High Court in the title dispute concerning Kashi Vishwanath Temple - Gyanvapi Mosque case stating that the Civil Judge acted in the "most arbitrary manner" while passing the order to allow the Archaeological Survey of India for undertaking a survey at the disputed site. The application prays for staying the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 8th April 2021. 3. Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Against Delegating Powers Of Chief Justice 's Power To Senior Judges In His Absence [Ashok Pandey v. Allahabad High Court & Anr.] A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saroj Yadav dismissed a petition against delegating the power of Chief Justice (Master of Roster) to Senior Judges in his absence. It said that the petition, on the face appears to be "fundamentally misconceived". The PIL, filed by one Ashok Pandey, sought directions for not giving effect to provisions contained in Chapter V Rule 9 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The said provision prescribes for appointment of Senior Judges at Allahabad and Lucknow to exercise jurisdiction at their respective places in connection with arrangement of Benches, listing of cases and like other matters. 4. Externment Order Is A Serious Inroad On Citizen's Liberty, Innate Declaration Of Externing Man As Goonda Irreversibly Ruinous To His Reputation: Allahabad High Court [Pawan v. State of UP & Ors.] A single judge bench comprising of Justice JJ Munir observed that an externment order is a "serious inroad on citizen's liberty" and that the innate declaration that a person is a "goonda" is "irreversibly ruinous of his reputation." Through its order, the bench set aside orders made by the District Magistrate externing the petitioner under sec. 3(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 along with an appellate approval order for the reason that they did not disclose "general nature of material allegations" against him within the mandate of the Act. Bombay High Court 1. Second Covid Wave: Bombay HC Directs Installation Of CCTV Cameras In All Institutional Quarantined Centres In Nagpur [Court on its own motion v. Union of India & Ors.] A division bench comprising of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Avinash G Gharote directed the Collector of Nagpur, Commissioner of Nagpur Municipal Corporation and other heads to "prepare proposals for installing CCTV cameras in the corridors of all institutional quarantine centres" and where the corridors are not available, at suitable places, for having "electronic surveillance" in order to check the movements of quarantined patients in and out of the rooms at the State's expenses. The Court gave a time of 10 days from the passing of the said order for sending names to the State or Central Government and to place the copy of the proposal on record. 2. "Can't Consider Delhi HC's Order As A Precedent": Bombay High Court Refuses To Allow Ramadan Prayers In Juma Masjid Mosque [Juma Masjid of Bombay Trust v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.] A division of Justices RD Dhanuka and VG Bisht refused to allow the Juma Masjid mosque in Mumbai to open up for prayers during the holy month of Ramadan, in view of the ongoing critical covid situation in the State. It dismissed a petition filed by the Juma Masjid of Bombay Trust, seeking directions for merely 50 people to pray five times Namaaz and Taraweeh on the one-acre plot, near Crawford Market in South Mumbai. The Bench observed that the Delhi High Court's order of ...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [April 12, 2021 – April 18, 2021]

Akshita Saxena

Tags