Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Allahabad High Court: Annual Digest 2021 [Compendium Of 250 Orders/Judgments]

Sparsh Upadhyay
30 Dec 2021 4:17 AM GMT
Allahabad High Court: Annual Digest 2021 [Compendium Of 250 Orders/Judgments]
x

As the year 2021 is coming to an end, LiveLaw brings to you a yearly Round-up of important updates from the Allahabad High Court. This yearly digest includes 250 orders and judgments, divided into 22 different subject heads.Criminal Law Cases1.Anticipatory Bail Matters Concern Liberty Of Citizens and Required to be Given Priority: Allahabad High Court Directs State To Ensure...

As the year 2021 is coming to an end, LiveLaw brings to you a yearly Round-up of important updates from the Allahabad High Court. This yearly digest includes 250 orders and judgments, divided into 22 different subject heads.

Criminal Law Cases

1.Anticipatory Bail Matters Concern Liberty Of Citizens and Required to be Given Priority: Allahabad High Court Directs State To Ensure 'Proper Assistance' [ Pawan Kumar Yadav And Anr. v. State Of U.P. And Anr. ]

While noting that the Anticipatory Bail matters are 'serious' in nature and are required to be taken up on priority, as they concern the liberty of citizens of the country, the Allahabad High Court recently observed,

"It is found in large number of cases, that the Investigating Officer/Circle Officer do not take them with the seriousness required, repeatedly time is sought for instructions/counter affidavit or placing the relevant record before the Court."

2.Writ Jurisdiction For Registration Of FIR Can't Be Invoked Without Availing Statutory Remedies Under CrPC: Allahabad High Court [Waseem Haider v. State of UP & Ors.]

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court recently observed that informants/ complainants should not directly invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for direction to the Police to register an FIR on their complaints, but they should first avail the alternative statutory remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, of approaching district police superintendents or magisterial court.

"A complainant has statutorily engrafted remedies to ensure that his complaint is taken to its logical end. Thus, he must first exhaust said remedies and cannot invoke extra-ordinary writ remedy as a matter of course, even when crime is not registered and there is no progress in the investigation," observed a Division Bench comprising of Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Ramesh Sinha.

3.Expunging Remarks-While Hearing Appeal Sessions Judge Has No Jurisdiction To Judge The Judicial Officer Who Authored The Judgment: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently in one of its orders has observed that 'sobriety, moderation and reserve are the greatest qualities of a judicial officer and he/she should never be divorced from them.'

The Bench of Justice Alok Mathur was hearing an application filed by a Judicial Magistrate who has prayed before the Court to quash the remarks made against him by the Sessions Judge, Hardoi while setting aside his judgment in a Criminal Case No. 909/2019 [State v. Yamohan Singh].

4.Section 41A CrPC: Allahabad High Court Issues Slew Of Direction To Ensure Compliance Of Safeguards From Arbitrary Arrest In 498A Cases [Vimal Kumar & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.]

In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Police authorities to desist from making automatic/ routine arrests, especially in dowry cases (498A IPC), and strictly comply with the pre-conditions laid down under Section 41A of CrPC.

The High Court further directed all Magistrates to report the names of such police officers who they think make arrests in a mechanical or mala fide manner, so that appropriate action may be taken against them.

5.'Arbitrary & Illegal Submission Of Challan Reports Under Sections 107/116 CrPC': Allahabad High Court Pulls Up UP Govt. [Shiv Kumar Verma And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others]

The Allahabad High Court last week pulled up the Uttar Pradesh Government as the SDM, Varanasi, acted "arbitrarily and illegally" in detaining two persons for breach of peace.

The Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Shamim Ahmed was hearing the plea of Shiv Kumar Verma & Another seeking compensation in lieu of illegal detention from 12th October 2020 to 21st October 2020 under Section 151, 107 and 116 Cr.P.C., Police Station Rohania, District Varanasi.

After briefly noting the facts of the case, the Court observed,

"It stands admitted that the police authorities are arbitrarily and illegally submitting Challani Reports under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C."

6.Commuting Life Sentence- Revaluate Cases For Remission After 14 Years Of Incarceration Even If Appeals Pending: Allahabad HC Directs UP Govt. [Vishnu v. State of U.P.]

Expressing its displeasure over the fact that even after 14 years of incarceration, the State did not think of exercising its power of commuting life sentence of an accused, the Allahabad High Court last month directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to revaluate cases for remission after 14 years of incarceration (even if appeals are pending before the High Court).

The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Gautam Chowdhary also directed the Registrar General to place the matter before the Chief Justice so that it could be ensured that those who are in jail for more than 10 or 14 years get their appeal heard which are mainly jail appeals.

7.Abetment To Suicide Charge Against Husband- "Providing Medical Assistance To Wife Wouldn't Absolve Him From Guilt": Allahabad High Court [Sameer Ali Khan v. State of U.P]

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed the bail plea of a Husband who has been booked for abetting his wife's suicide while noting that only providing the medical assistance to his wife would not go to absolve the applicant from the allegations.

The Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi further noted that the continued course of conduct of the Husband where he did not even permit his wife to see her son, had proven acute nostalgia for her and in that stage of severe psychological turmoil, she was left with no other option but to take this extreme step.

8.Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Murder Accused Incarcerated For 7 Yrs Without Production Of Any Evidence/ Witness Against Him [Rajiv Pratap Singh v. CBI]

The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a murder accused, imprisoned since more than seven and a half years, without production of any material witness or evidence against him in the Trial Court.

"Although the offence with which applicant has been charged is a serious one but it is also a relevant factor to consider that the said charge being based on the testimony of two witnesses, neither of the two have been produced by the CBI in the trial, which is pending since 2013. Even counter affidavit of the CBI is silent with regard to the time frame within which the said two witnesses are to be produced in the trial proceedings," observed the High Court while allowing third bail application of the accused.

9."Compromise Culture Rampantly Prevailing, Life Of Deceased Not Cheap Which Could Be Negotiated Between 2 Individuals": Allahabad High Court [Ritesh Chauhan v. State of U.P. ]

While noting that 'compromise culture' between the contesting parties is rampantly prevailing now a days, the Allahabad High Court last week observed,

"The life of the deceased is not so cheap, which could be negotiated between two individuals."

The Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi noted thus while hearing an application filed by the applicant who was seeking his bail in a case registered u/s 498A, 304B, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

10.'Prosecutrix Testimony Not Reliable': Allahabad High Court Acquit Rape Accused After 20 Yrs In Jail, Appeal Remained Defective For 16 Years [Vishnu v. State of UP]

A Division Bench of Justices Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Gautam Chowdhary came to the rescue of a man, after he suffered 20 years of incarceration in connection with a false rape case filed against him by a woman owing to an alleged land dispute.

The Court opined that the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, if reliable, is sufficient to convict the accused. However, in the instant case, it observed that the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be said to be that of a sterling witness and does not inspires the Court's confidence.

The Bench also pulled up the UP Government for its failure to comply with the mandate of Sections 432 and 433 of CrPC for remission of prisoners lodged in jail for more than 14 years.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Govt For Failing To Consider Remission/ Commuting Sentence Of Eligible Convicts

Also Read: Acquittal Of Rape Accused After 20 Yrs In Jail: NHRC Calls For Report From UP Govt. On Rehabilitation & Action Taken Against Erring Officials

11.Police Were At Informant's Doorstep, Yet Prompt Reporting Of Incident Was Withheld: Allahabad HC Acquits Murder Accused Over Delay Of 3.5 Hrs In Lodging Of FIR [Mukesh Tiwari v. State of UP]

A Division Bench comprising of Justices Manoj Misra and Sanjay Kumar Pachor allowed a criminal appeal and set aside an order of conviction passed under Section 302 of IPC for the offence of murder, citing a delay of 3 hours 20 minutes in lodging of FIR against the alleged offence. It held that the aforesaid delay was 'unreasonable' in view of the fact that the Police authorities arrived at the place of occurrence immediately after the incident.

The order stated, "Normally, a delay of few hours, particularly in night incidents, might not be considered significant but here the police were at the doorstep of the informant and the injured (Pratap Shankar Mishra) was carried to the hospital by the police, with Mazrubi Chitthi, and a so-called witness, who was there at the place of incident and happens to be the brother of the eye-witness, yet prompt reporting of the incident was withheld, which suggests that either the incident was not witnessed or if witnessed, the identity of the assailant was not certain, therefore, the guess-work delayed the FIR."

12.'Evidence Of Interested Witnesses Should Be Subjected To Careful Scrutiny & Accepted With Caution': Reiterates Allahabad High Court [Rampal Singh & Ors. v. State of UP]

A Division Bench comprising of Justices Manoj Misra and Saumitra Dayal Singh held that the testimony of an interested witness, though admissible, should be accepted by the Court after a careful scrutiny and corroboration with other materials placed on record. It observed, "an interested witness must be tested more carefully before any firm conclusion may be reached thereon."

In this context, the Bench referred to a decision of the Apex Court in Jalpat Rai v. State of Haryana, 2011 (14) SCC 208, where it was held, "All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon."

13.Allahabad High Court Lays Down Procedure & Standard Of Evidence For Enquiry Into Criminal Antecedents Of A Candidate During Selection Process [Sanny Kumar v. State of UP & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot laid down the procedure to be adopted by the competent authority for inquiring into the criminal antecedents of a candidate for the purpose of selection. It elucidated the type of materials that may be considered by such authority, the standard of proof, and other aggravating/ mitigating factors for the purpose.

The Bench also made it clear that such inquiry is different from a trial/civil proceeding before a Court of law and hence, competent authority is not always bound by the findings of the court, nor is it invariably constrained by the opinion of the investigation officer. The order came on a writ petition filed by one Sanny Kumar, aggrieved by an order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun, cancelling his selection as Constable in the UP Police, in the backdrop of several criminal cases pending against him.

14.Cases Where Anticipatory Bail Can Be Granted Even After Submission Of Charge Sheet: Allahabad High Court Issues Guidelines

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Siddharth observed that non grant of anticipatory bail to an accused only on the ground that charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer or cognizance has been taken by the Court against him under sec. 204 of Cr.P.C. without considering the prima facie veracity of the same, will "not be in the larger interest of justice."

It propounded various "appropriate cases" where anticipatory bail can or cannot be granted to an accused apprehending arrest even after submission of the chargesheet or cognizance being taken by the Court.

15.Consider Deletion Of Condition Prohibiting Consideration Of Premature Release, If No Application/Request Presented: Allahabad HC To UP Govt. [Satyavrat Rai v. State of UP & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek Agarwal asked the Government of Uttar Pradesh to delete a provision from its policy framed for release of life convicts. It noted that the policy dated 01st August 2018 contains a clause that prohibits the consideration of premature release, if the same is not accompanied by any application / request. "The said condition is in teeth of the statute", observed the Court.

16.Apprehension Of Death On Account Of Covid19 Pandemic Is A Valid Ground For Grant Of Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court [Prateek Jain v. State of UP & Ors.]

In a very important decision concerning the right to life of persons accused of committing a criminal offence, a Single Bench of Justice Siddharth observed that apprehension of death on account of reasons like the present pandemic is a valid ground for grant of anticipatory bail.

The order has been passed in view the inadequate medical facilities in the State, that may leave the accused persons unprotected from the threat to their life on account of arrest as per the normal procedure applicable in normal times.

The Bench observed that the established parameters for grant of anticipatory bail like the nature and gravity of accusation, the criminal antecedent of the applicant, the possibility of fleeing from justice and whether accusation has been made for injuring and humiliating the applicant by getting him arrested have now lost significance on account of present situation of the country and the State on account of spread of second wave of novel corona virus.

17.Accused Has Right To Have His Bail Plea Heard In Reasonable Time: Allahabad HC Seeks Time Bound Procedure For Supplying Instructions To Govt Advocates [Sahil v. State of UP]

"Failure of the police authorities to provide timely instructions to the Govt Advocate/ Additional Govt Advocate in bail applications causes delay in the hearing of the bail applications, and often leads to unjustified incarceration of an accused in jail," a Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed.

It therefore directed the Director General of Police, UP, to ensure that a fair, transparent and clear procedure is created for supplying instructions to the GA/AGA in bail applications before the High Court. It has ordered that the procedure shall be framed within a period of 8 weeks and it shall include the designation of the officials, the tasks or duties which they have to discharge, and a definite time frame for such purpose.

18.Sexual Offence Against Woman- Any Form Of Compromise/Marriage With Accused Shouldn't Form Part Of Bail Condition: Allahabad High Court [Imran v. State Of UP]

A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held that while granting bail in sexual offences against a woman, bail conditions which is/are against the mandate of "fair justice" to the victim shouldn't be imposed such as to make any form of compromise or marriage with the accused.

It also ruled that the Court, while granting bail in such cases, shall take into consideration the directions passed by Supreme Court in Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, LL 2021 SC 168, viz.:

"Imposing (Bail) conditions that implicitly tend to condone or diminish the harm caused by the accused and have the effect of potentially exposing the survivor to secondary trauma, such as mandating mediation processes in non-compoundable offences, mandating as part of bail conditions, community service (in a manner of speaking with the so-called reformative approach towards the perpetrator of sexual offence) or requiring tendering of apology once or repeatedly, or in any manner getting or being in touch with the survivor, is especially forbidden."

19."Ossification Test At A Belated Stage Of Age Of Accused Cannot Be Conclusive To Determine Him As Juvenile On Date Of Incident" [Kiranpal @ Kinna v. State Of UP & Ors.]

A division bench of Justices Pradeep Kumar Srivastava and Sunita Agarwal observed that an ossification test at a belated stage after the advancement of age of the accused or convict cannot be conclusive so as to determine him as a juvenile on the date of the incident. Setting aside the order of determination of age passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, the Court observed thus:

"The ossification test at a belated stage after advancement of age of the accused/convict cannot be conclusive to determine him as a juvenile on the date of the incident, as the evidence afforded by radiological examination is no doubt a useful guiding factor for determining the age of the person but is not of a conclusive and incontrovertible nature and it is subject to a margin of error."

20.Can't Take Cognizance Of Rape Accused Willingness To Marry Victim While Hearing Bail Plea: Allahabad High Court [Kamil v. State of UP & Anr.]

A Single Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal declined to take into account the statement of a Rape accused that he was willing to marry the rape victim while hearing his bail plea. Importantly, the said that it was estopped from taking cognizance of any such compromise (between the rape accuse and victim) once the statements of the victim are read, as recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

"Notwithstanding the sentiments of the victim, as has been held by Supreme Court in the case of Aparna Bhat and Others vs. State of M.P. and Anothers; 2021 CRI. L. J. 2281, this Court is estopped from taking cognizance of any such compromise once the statements of the victim are read, as recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate and therefore, bail application fails and is dismissed," the Court observed.

21.'Arnab Goswami & Amish Devgan' Judgments Won't Apply When Separate FIRs Filed In Separate Incidents Under Same Offence: Allahabad HC [Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State Of UP & Ors.]

A Bench of Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Ajai Tyagi ruled that where for separate incidents, involving in same cognizable offence, separate FIRs have been registered, the Apex Court's Judgments in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami and Amish Devgan won't apply. The observation was made while hearing a matter of a person accused of cheating around 3 lacs persons involving around Rs. 4,000 crores which resulted in separate first information reports being filed on different dates and in reference to different transactions against him.

The High Court noted that the Apex Court decided following points in those cases: (i) one incident giving rise to more than one cognizable offence cannot result in the separate FIR for each cognizable offence involved therein; (ii) one incident may result in several FIRs but subsequent FIR, after the first, is to be treated as a statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C.

However, the Court distinguished the present case while noting that "In the instant case, each FIR is registered by a different person and in regard to the separate incident with him and accordingly, it was registered separately, thus the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony or even in the case of Amish Devgan would not apply."

22.'Link Of Circumstances Missing' : Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Security Guard In Ex BSP MLA Murder Case

Noting that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances are yet to be established during the trial, the High Court granted Bail to a Security guard who has been accused of killing an Ex BSP MLA, Haji Aleem allegedly on the instructions of the son of the deceased.

The Bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava remarked: "The case against the accused applicant is totally based on the circumstantial evidence that he was sleeping in the same room with the deceased. This fact does not appear to be supported by any believable evidence or eyewitness account.

23.Allahabad High Court Issues Directions & Timeline For Disposal Of Bail Applications Under POCSO Act, 2012

The High Court held that only the local police or Special Juvenile Police Unit [SJPU] could serve notice on bail application for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [POCSO Act]. It also prescribed a timeline to execute the different statutory functions by the respective authorities. Justice Ajay Bhanot alongside administered a word of caution by stating that the failure to comply with the directions laid will be due to investigation, and the delinquent officials will proceed against it departmentally.

24.Premeditated Murder Of Wife, Four Minor Daughters: Allahabad High Court Upholds Death Sentence

The High Court upheld the conviction of a man for brutally murdering his wife and four minor daughters aged 7, 5, 3 years and the youngest one was merely one and a half months old. A Bench comprising Justices Ramesh Sinha and Rajeev Singh also affirmed the imposition of death penalty on the accused by opining that it was a 'rarest of rare' case. The accused had been convicted of the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and awarded the death sentence by the Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri. Aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence imposed, the present appeal was filed.

25.Bikru Encounter: "She Was An Important Player In Horrendous Crime Of Killing Of 8 Cops": Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Accused

The High Court denied Bail to the wife of Amar Dubey (hereinafter 'K') who was a close associate of Vikas Dubey, a gangster who is said to be the mastermind behind the killing of eight policemen in the Kanpur's infamous Bikru encounter last year.

She allegedly instigated Vikas Dubey's men to do the policemen to death and she is stated to have been atop a house adjoining Vikas Dubey's, during the entire course of the brutal assault. It has also been alleged that 'K' gave out locations of the policemen, who had concealed themselves to save their lives and exhorted Vikas Dubey's men to do the policemen to death, while the entire encounter between Vikas Dubey and his aids and Policemen was taking place.

26.Allahabad HC Stays Criminal Proceedings Against Man Booked For FB Post Expressing Aguish Over Wife's Death During Medical Treatment (Ashok Kumar Gautam v. State of UP & Anr.)

The High Court stayed criminal proceedings against a person who has been booked for his Facebook post expressing anguish over the death of his wife during the course of her medical treatment in a Government Hospital. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava was hearing a plea of one Ashok Gautam against whom proceedings have been initiated containing allegations relating to a Facebook post.

In his post, he had expressed anguish over his wife's death during the course of her medical treatment and thereafter, he was booked under Sections 504, 507 I.P.C.,Section 66,67-a of Information Technology Act and Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act.

27.POCSO Offences- "Victim's Parent/Guardian Should Be Notified Of Bail Plea & Their Right To Legal Assistance": Allahabad High Court (Rohit v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.)

In an important ruling, the High Court has directed that the notice of the filing of the bail application in every POCSO case shall be given to the Parent/Guardian of the child victim or complainant, to be served through Investigating Officer/S.H.O. of the Police Station concerned. The Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary also made it mandatory for the Investigating Officer/S.H.O. of the Police Station concerned to also include, in the notice, the details regarding the right to legal assistance in Hindi language so as to enable them to take assistance from the Legal Services Authority.

28.Recording Of Victim's Statement By Audio-Video Means, By Woman Officer: Allahabad HC Directs Compliance Of Provisos To S. 161 (3) CrPC [Bulle v. State of UP]

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed that in majority of cases, 1st and 2nd proviso to Section 161 (3) CrPC, which mandate the recording of sexual offences victim's statement by audio-video means and by a women officer, are not being followed by the Investigating Officers in the true sense.

Therefore, it directed the Director-General of Police, U.P., and the Principal Secretary, Home to issue necessary directions/guidelines to all the Senior Superintendent of Police regarding the compliance of these statutory provisions within two months.

29."How Can A Person Involved In Private Dispute Of Criminal Nature Disturb Public Tranquillity?": Allahabad HC Stays S. 111 CrPC Notice [Noor Alam @ Noor Alam Khan v. State Of U.P. & Ors.]

Emphasizing that there cannot be anything more precious than the personal liberty as well as the reputation of a person, the High Court last week stayed Section 111 CrPC notice sent by an SDM to one Noor Alam which contained 'strong words' against him.

The Bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan also observed that in the Section 111 CrPC notice, it was also not clear as to how by involving himself in a private dispute of criminal nature, public tranquillity could be disturbed by the applicant.

30.Exercise Of Power U/S 319 CrPC: "Primacy To Be Given To Evidence Recorded During Trial Over Material Collected During Investigation": Allahabad HC [Adesh Tyagi v.­ State of U.P. and Another]

The High Court recently observed that for the purpose of the exercise of power under Section 319 of the CrPC, the evidence recorded by the court during trial is to be accorded primacy over the material collected during investigation.

Observing thus, the Bench of Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava said: "The contention which has been sought to be raised placing reliance upon the material collected by the investigating officer during the course of investigation, for the purpose of exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code, thus cannot be accepted."

31.Accused Can't Claim That His Confessional Statement Be Considered Regarding Some Offences Only & Not For Others: Allahabad HC [Vinod Mali v. State of U.P.]

The High Court held that when a conviction is made as a whole regarding any occurrence or set of occurrences, the accused cannot, at a later stage, claim that confessional statement made by him should be considered regarding some of the offences only and not for others.

The Bench of Justice Ajai Tyagi was dealing with a contention of the appellant-accused that he could not have been convicted under Section 413 IPC based on his confession as the trial Court did not ask for at least two judgments dealing with his conviction under Section 411 IPC.

32.Forensic Science Laboratory's Report Need Not Be Proved By Calling Its Director As It A Public Document U/S 293 CrPC & Hence Admissible: Allahabad HC [Jose Luis Quintanilla Sacristan v. State of U.P]

The High Court recently held that since a report of State Forensic Science Laboratory is admissible in evidence (as per the provision of Section 293 Cr.P.C.), therefore, there is no requirement to call the Director of that laboratory to get the same proved.

The Bench of Justice Ajai Kumar Tyagi was hearing an appeal of a Spain national accused/appellant against the Judgment and order of conviction of the lower court under the NDPS Act from whose trolley-bag 10 kg. charas was recovered.

33.Section 82 CrPC - Magistrate Should Not Make Proclamation As Absconder In A Routine Manner As Issue Relates To Personal Liberty : Allahabad High Court [Kunwar Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

The High Court has held that for issuance of proceeding under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code [Cr. P.C], the investigating officer has to seek the help of the Court, and only under the orders of the Court proclamation under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be issued.

Justice Saroj Yadav observed that it is settled that if the accused evades the arrest during the investigation, the Investigating Officer has the power to arrest the accused without a warrant if the offence is a cognizable one.

Other developments:

34.Seeking Criminal Trial's Transfer At Drop Of Hat Not Recognized By Any Tenent Of Law: Allahabad High Court [Pramod Kumar Tiwari v. State Of UP & Anr.]

Dismissing a transfer application moved under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court observed that seeking of the transfer of criminal trial at the drop of a hat is not recognized by the courts or by any tenent of law. Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan also emphasized that an order of transfer is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the conduct of the trial by a Presiding Officer.

35.Courts Should Be Cautious That Under Allegation Of Marriage, Victim Isn't Used As Shield To Escape From Offences By Accused: Allahabad HC [Umashankar And Another v. State Of U P And 2 Others]

The Allahabad High Court recently cautioned Courts to see to it under the allegation of marriage with her/victim/girl is not used as a shield to escape from the offences or perpetuation of offences by the Accused.

"The Courts need to be cautious enough to see that under the garb of personal liberty of one, the personal liberty of the victim, is not offended or under the allegation of marriage with her, she is not used as a shield to escape from the offences or perpetuation of offences," the court remarked.

36.Direct Investigating Officers To Complete Probe In Rape Cases Within 2 Months As Per S. 173 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Directs UP Govt To Issue Circular [Mahendra Pratap Singh v State Of U.P. Through Secretary (Home) And 2 Others]

Dealing with the case of the death of a 16-year-old girl from Mainpuri, the High Court asked the Uttar Pradesh government as to whether it has issued an order directing the investigating officers to comply with Section 173 of CrPC mandating the completion of investigation of sexual offences within a time frame If circular/direction has not been issued to date, the Court directed, then immediately an order be issued.

37.Fracture Of Hyoid Bone Often Found In Strangulation Cases & Not In Suicide Cases: Allahabad HC Dismisses Murder Convict's Appeal [Dharmendra Nishad v. State of U.P.]

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a Murder convict who killed his own wife by strangulation inside the privacy of the house (in the bedroom) where the deceased/wife was along with the appellant/husband. The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Manju Rani Chauhan perused the post-mortem report of the deceased and noted that it clearly indicated that the instant case was not a case of suicide, but was a case of murder.

38.No Abetment To Suicide Case Made Out If Man Separates Wife From His Life Due To Which She Dies By Suicide: Allahabad HC [Jagveer Singh Alias Bantu v. State of U.P.]

Setting aside the conviction order passed against a Husband for abetting the suicide of his wife, the High Court last week held that separating wife from his own life could not be a reason which could come under the category of the abetment. The Bench of Justice Ajai Tyagi was hearing an appeal filed by one Jagveer Singh Alias Bantu who had been convicted under Sections 498-A & 306 IPC by Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit.

39.Rape/POCSO Cases- "Send DNA, Other Reports To Concerned Authorities Within 15 Days As Per Govt Circular": Allahabad HC To DGP [Mahfuj v. State of U.P]

The High Court directed the Director-General of Police to ensure that the report regarding the articles recovered or taken into custody while investigating a POCSO case Act or DNA reports etc. in rape cases must be communicated to the concerned District Authorities within 15 days. The Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh issued this direction in view of the Government's 2018 circulars and thereby noting that in a number of cases, the directions contained in Circulars were not being complied with.

40.Witness Protection- "Surprising That Despite Accepting Threat To Life, Witness' Security Was Reduced": Allahabad HC Restores Security Arrangements [Vrijendra Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. & Ors]

Expressing surprise over the decision of a committee headed by the District Judge to reduce the security provided to a witness (in a criminal trial) despite accepting a threat to his life, the High Court restored the security arrangements of the witness/petitioner till further orders.

Essentially, the bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta was hearing the plea of one Vrijendra Pratap Singh, who is a witness in a criminal case and who was earlier provided with one gunner round the clock in view of threat perception to his life at the hand of the accused.

41.Re-evaluate Cases For Remission After 14 Yrs Of Incarceration Even If Appeals Are Pending In HC: Allahabad HC To UP Govt [Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra v. State of U.P]

The High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to instruct the District Magistrates of all the districts to re-evaluate the cases for remission after 14 years of incarceration even if appeals in such cases are pending in the High Court.

The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi ordered thus while hearing an appeal filed by a rape convict challenging his life imprisonment sentence awarded by Additional Session Judge, Special Court (Dakaity Affected Area), District Kanpur Dehat.

42.Indefeasible Right To 'Default Bail' U/S 167 (2) CrPC If Chargesheet Not Filed Within Stipulated Time: Allahabad High Court [Varun Tiwari v. State of U.P.]

The High Court has observed that an accused has an indefeasible right to 'default bail' under proviso to section 167(2) Cr.P.C. if the charge sheet isn't filed within the stipulated time. This assertion came from the bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan while dealing with the bail application of a gang rape accused, against whom, the police failed to file a charge sheet before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow within a stipulated 90 days perids.

43.If Court Doesn't Agree With The Protest Application Then The Same Could Be Treated As Complaint: Allahabad High Court [Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi v. State Of U.P.Through Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others]

The High Court observed that if the Court is not in agreement with the protest application, then the just and proper action could be to read the protest petition as a complaint by the Court. The Bench of Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav observed thus while hearing a plea moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against a 2006 order passed by the Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court of Sultanpur (UP) in the capacity of the revisional court.

44.Merely Stating That Two Persons Of Opposite Gender Have A Close Relationship Won't Amount To Defamation: Allahabad HC [Nakli Singh v. State of U.P. and Others]

Merely stating that two people belonging to the opposite gender share a close relationship, won't amount to defamation, the Allahabad High Court observed last week while quashing a summoning order in a defamation complaint case.

The Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh further observed that being close to someone in a natural or normal human relationship and forming an illicit relationship are two completely different things.

45."Evidence Of Victim Being Last Seen With Accused Not Convincing": Allahabad HC Acquits Man Facing Death Penalty In Minor Murder, Rape Case [Bal Govind Alias Govinda v. State of U.P.]

The High Court acquitted a man convicted for raping and murdering a minor girl and facing the death penalty, having found the evidence of the deceased being last seen with the accused-appellant before the alleged incident as not convincing. Importantly, the Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain also observed that there must have been immense pressure on the police to solve the case and opined that the accused-appellant was named on mere suspicion, and not on evidence, to solve the case.

46.Oral Sex With 10-Yr-Old Boy Not An 'Aggravated Sexual Assault' But 'Penetrative Sexual Assault' Under POCSO Act: Allahabad High Court [Sonu Kushwaha v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

While dealing with the appeal of a POCSO Convict, accused of committing oral sex with a 10-year-old boy, the High Court observed that putting the penis into the mouth does not fall in the category of aggravated sexual assault or sexual assault. It comes into the category of penetrative sexual assault which is punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

Pursuant to the perusal of the specific provisions of the POCSO Act, the Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Ojha observed that the Act [putting a penis inside the mouth of a child] falls under the category of 'penetrative' sexual assault punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act 2012.

47.'Victim Of Rape Cannot Be Compelled To Undergo DNA Test': Allahabad High Court In POCSO Case [Gulafsa Begum v. State of U.P.]

The High Court has ruled that a victim of rape cannot be compelled to undergo DNA test to determine the paternity of her child.

The Court was adjudicating upon a revision petition challenging the order dated June 25, 2021 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur wherein such a DNA test was allowed to be conducted.

Justice Sangeeta Chandra observed with dismay that the concerned Additional Sessions Judge had 'misdirected his energies' as the question in consideration before him was not whether the child born to the victim was the child of the accused (opposite party 2) but whether the offence of rape had been committed by the accused.

48.Can't Withhold Passport Application Merely On Account Of Pendency Of Govt Appeal Against Acquittal Order: Allahabad High Court [Pramod Kumar Rajbhar v. State Of U P And 2 Others]

The High Court has observed that a person's application for issuance of a passport cannot be withheld merely on account of the pendency of a Government Appeal against acquittal order. The Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan further clarified that so long as the order of acquittal (in connection with a criminal case) remains, the petitioner's innocence would be presumed.

49."Improper Examination U/S 313 CrPC Caused Serious Prejudice": Allahabad HC Acquits Murder Accused In Prison For Over 30 Yrs [Ishaque v. State of U.P]

Holding that improper examination of a murder accused under Section 313 CrPC had caused serious prejudice to him and had resulted in miscarriage of justice, the Allahabad High Court recently acquitted the man (who remained in prison for over 30 years) of murder charges.

The Judgment by Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain came in an appeal filed by a Bangladesh National, Ishaque against his conviction order passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in June 1996 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 I.P.C. and section 4/25 Arms Act.

50.Allahabad HC Orders Action Against CWC Chairman For Failure To Follow 'Junaid Case' Guidelines In Case Of 12-Yr-Old Sexual Assault Victim [Shivani Mishra v. State Of U.P And Another]

The Court ordered action against the Chairman, Child Welfare Committee of district Pilibhit who failed to follow the guidelines laid down by the High Court in the case of Junaid Vs. State of U.P. and another.

It may be noted that in Junaid's case, the High Court had, inter alia, issued directions and a timeline for the disposal of bail applications under the POCSO Act, 2012.

Matters of Constitutional Importance

1.Mandatory Publication Of Notice Of Intended Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Violates Right To Privacy: Allahabad High Court [Safiya Sultana v. State Of U.P.]

In an important judgment, Allahabad High Court has held that requirement of publication of notice of intended marriage under Section 6 and inviting/entertaining objections under Section 7 of the Special Marriage Act is not mandatory.

Justice Vivek Chaudhary observed that making such publication mandatory would invade in the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy, including within its sphere freedom to choose for marriage without interference from state and non-state actors, of the persons concerned.

Also Read: Allahabad HC Verdict Comes As Saviour For Inter-Religious Couples Caught Between Special Marriage Act & UP Anti-Conversion Ordinance

2.Mahindra Finance Not An Authority Under Article 12, Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against It: Allahabad High Court [Arif Khan v. Branch Manager Mahindra Finance Sultanpur & Another]

The Allahabad High Court in Arif Khan v. Branch Manager Mahindra Finance Sultanpur & Another, observed that writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to a private body, Mahindra and it does not comes under the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution.

3.Writ Of Habeas Corpus Not Maintainable Against Judicial Order Of Magistrate /CWC Sending Minor Victim To Children Protection Homes:Allahabad High Court (FB) [Rachna & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors.]

A Full Bench comprising of Justice Siddhartha Varma, Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Sanjay Yadav held that an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate or Child Welfare Committee sending victim to women protection homes/child care homes cannot be challenged or set aside in a writ of habeas corpus. Subsequently, the Bench also observed that the detention of a corpus in such child care homes cannot be treated as an illegal detention.

It was dealing with the reference in a habeas corpus petition seeking directions on Superintendent of Children Home (Girl) to release the minor girl namely Anchal, aged 17 years, who was allegedly illegally detained in the Children Home.

4.Constitution Guarantees Right To Trade, Not Profit-Allahabad High Court Dismisses Stamp Venders' Plea Seeking Continuation Of Stamp Papers in Physical form [All UP Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma dismissed a writ petition filed by the All UP Stamp Vendors Association, seeking continuation of judicial and non-judicial stamp paper in its physical form. It rejected the Association's contention that discontinuation of paper stamps by the State Government violates the constitutional protections guaranteed by Articles 19(1)(g), 21 and 38 of the Constitution.

"What the Constitution essentially guarantees is the right to engage in a profession, occupation, trade or business. It neither proffers nor holds forth a guarantee of a profit in that trade or business," the bench observed.

5.Alleged Conversion Racket- "Police Press Note Didn't Violate His Fundamental Right": Allahabad High Court Dismisses Umar Gautam Plea Against Media Trial

A Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Vikas Srivastava dismissed a plea moved by Umar Gautam, who is accused of being part of a nationwide religious conversion racket, against the alleged leaking of sensitive/prejudicial information related to him by the Investigating Agency to the media vide a press note dated June 20, 2021. It opined that the said police communication did not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioner or provisions of any law.

The Court specifically ruled that nothing had been brought on record, which indicated that the investigating agency had leaked any allegations pertaining to the petitioner to the media pending investigation or violated the norms as prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2010 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

6.Is State Funding To Madrasas & Other Religious Educational Institutions Consistent With Constitution's Secular Scheme?: Allahabad HC Seeks Govt Reply (C/M, Madarsa Anjuman Islamia Faizul Uloom And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others)

The High Court decided to consider a bunch of questions framed by it on issues related to religious educational institutions like Madrasa vis-a-vis the role of and interplay between the State Government and such institutions within the framework of the Constitution. The Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot was hearing the plea of a Madrasa duly recognized by the Madrasa Board and aided by the State Government seeking the creation of additional posts of teachers in view of an increasing number of students.

7.Paying ₹450 Per Month Is 'Forced Labour' & Violation Of Article 23: Allahabad HC Directs UP Govt To Pay Minimum Wages To A-IV Class Employee [Tufail Ahmad Ansari v. State Of U P And 2 Others]

The Court pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for paying Rs. 450 per month as wages to a Class-IV post since his initial engagement in 2001, which is less than the minimum wages as prescribed in the State.

The Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed that it was beyond comprehension as to how the state government could exploit a Class-IV employee by continuing to pay him Rs 450 per month for the last 20 years.

8.Article 233- Judicial Officers Can't Apply & Compete For Direct Recruitment To Post Of District Judges: Allahabad High Court [Shashank Singh And 4 Others v. Honble High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Another]

The High Court held that under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, a Judicial Officer, regardless of his or her previous experience, as an Advocate with 7 years practice, cannot apply and compete for appointment to any vacancy in the post of District Judge.

The Bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava and Justice Pritinker Diwaker further clarified that his or her (Judicial Officer) chance to occupy the post (of District judge) would be through promotion in accordance with the Rules framed under Article 233 and Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

Cases on Press Freedom/Journalists' Rights

1. "Press Has Right To Report": Allahabad HC Reserves Order On Plea By Umar Gautam Against Media Trial In Religious Conversion Racket Case

A Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Vikas Srivastava reserved an order on a plea moved by Umar Gautam, who is accused of being part of a nationwide religious conversion racket. seeking restriction on the media from misreporting & making premature statements in relation to their case. It the Counsel for the Petitioner: "Press has the right to report. Have you read Justice Chandrachud's Judgment of Supreme Court?"

Umar Gautam, who himself converted to Islam from the Hindu faith, has been accused of converting 1,000 persons in U.P. and allegedly got many of them married to Muslims.

He was arrested last month by the UP police Anti-Terror Squad (ATS) on the charges of mass conversion of people into Islam through inducements such as marriage, job and money, and mental pressure.

Further, he filed the instant plea before the Allahabad High Court challenging the leaking of sensitive and controversial information about himself and prohibiting the untrue reports from being published/ televised in the print and TV media.

2.Journalist Isn't Expected To Dramatize Horrifying Incident & Make News By Putting His Actor In Danger Of Death [Shameem Ahmad v. State of UP]

A Bench of Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav observed that a journalist is not expected to dramatize a sensational and horrifying incident and make news by putting his actor in a pitiable condition in danger of death. It observed thus while denying bail to a journalist who allegedly tempted a person (since dead) that if he would try to commit suicide in front of the Legislative Assembly building, by making a video of him, he will telecast the same on television.

Regarding the role of a Journalist, the Court also remarked: "The journalist keeps an eye on the anticipated or sudden events happening in the society and brings them to the information of all the people through various news media without any tampering, this is his business."

3.Allahabad HC Stays Arrest Of Journalist Vineet Narain Accused Of Making Defamatory Posts Against Ram Temple Trust Secretary (Vineet Narain v. State Of U.P. & Others and Rajneesh Kapur v. State Of UP & Ors.)

The High Court granted interim protection against arrest to Journalist Vineet Narain and his associate named Rajneesh Kapur, who have been booked for putting up allegations that Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader Champat Rai and his brothers grabbed land from gaushala in Bijnor district.

A Division Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that perusal of the FIR against the petitioners showed that even if the allegations made by them are taken in their entirety they do not constitute the offence alleged.

4."Arguments Have Substance": Allahabad High Court Stays Arrest Of Journalist Booked For Extortion, Forgery (Sharad Kumar Dwivedi v. State Of U.P.Thru.Secy.Home, Lucknow & Ors)

The High Court stayed the arrest of a journalist, Sharad Kumar Dwivedi, booked on the charge of Extortion and Forgery on a complaint made by the Vice President of Bhartiya Janta Party in District Hardoi. The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav, prima facie observed that the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the Applicants have some substance and require consideration by this court, therefore, the Court held that a case for interim relief is made out and issued notice to the State of Government of Uttar Pradesh.

5.The Menace Of Fake, Fabricated & Orchestrated News Is Harming Our Society: Allahabad High Court (Vishnu Kumar Srivastava (Petitioner In person) v. State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Information Lko & Ors)

The High Court observed that the menace of fake, fabricated, and orchestrated news is causing harm to society.

The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Abdul Moin observed this while hearing a plea seeking an appropriate direction to the State authorities for framing guidelines to regulate various news media so that the tendency to spread fake, fabricated, and orchestrated news, may be curbed.

6."FIR U/S 411, 413 IPC Malafide": Allahabad HC Stays Arrest Of 2 Journalists Who Posted About Cop's Misconduct On Social Media [Smt. Deepmala Dubey & Anr. v. State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home,Lucknow & Ors]

The High Court stayed the arrest of 2 Journalists booked under sections 411 and 413 of IPC by making a prima-facie observation that the impugned First Information Report is malafide.

Essentially, the Court was dealing with the plea of two journalists working with Pranam Mamrabhumi Hindi Newspaper, against whom a First Information Report has been lodged for 'Dishonestly receiving stolen property (Section 411) and for 'Habitually dealing in stolen property (Section 413).

7.'No One Is Disputing Your Right': Allahabad HC To Legal Journalists Seeking VC Links; Says Administration Looking Into Matter [Areeb Uddin Ahmed & Ors. v. Allahabad High Court & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Justices Pankaj Naqvi and Jayant Banerji observed that its administrative side is working on all aspects of live streaming and live reporting of Court proceedings, for wider public access. "No one is disputing your right. They're working on all the aspects of the matter, we have to give them some time," the Court said while adjourning the matter for six weeks.

Significantly, the Court opined that there is no need to pass any interim order in the matter. When the Petitioner's counsel Shashwat Anand urged the Court to direct that no coercive action shall be taken against the media persons in case they live report the court proceedings, the Bench responded, "Who is preventing you?"

Cases on rights of Women/children

1.Need To Address Male 'Chauvinism' That Women Are 'Enjoyment Object': Allahabad HC Bats For Specific Law On 'Sex On False Promise Of Marriage' (Harshvardhan Yadav v. State Of UP And Another)

The High Court observed that it is necessary for the legislature to provide a clear and specific legal framework to deal with the cases where the accused obtains consent for sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage.

"This feudal mind set and male 'chauhanism' (Chauvinism) that women are nothing but an object of enjoyment is required to be rigorously addressed and strictly dealt with in order to create a healthier society and to increase a sense of security and protection in the mind of women," the Bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed.

2.India Worships Little Girls But Pedophilia Cases Are Increasing: Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Man Booked For Raping 13-Yr-Old Girl: Allahabad High Court [Jasman Singh @ Pappu Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another]

Emphasizing that India worships little girls, but at the same time, the cases of pedophilia are increasing in the country, the High Court denied bail to a man who has been booked for raping a 13-year-old girl.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus: "In such a situation, if the right decision is not taken from the Court at the right time, then the trust of a victim/common man will not be left in the judicial system. This is the time to strictly stop this kind of crime."

3.Daughters Are Family's Honor; People Who Force Them Into Sex-Trade Not Entitled To Any Sympathy: Allahabad HC Denies Bail [Akash v. State of U.P]

Emphasizing that the daughters are the pride and honor of the family in a civilized society, the Allahabad High Court recently denied bail to a man who forcibly indulged minor victim in prostitution and also committed rape upon them.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh opined that people who are involved in immoral trafficking activities also cause a deleterious effect on the society as a whole and that they are hazardous to the civilized society at large.

4."Plea Filed To Defame Woman, Get Her Custody": Allahabad HC Dismisses Habeas Plea With 50K Cost To Be Paid To Woman [Smt. Netrawati Yadav And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others]

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Habeas corpus plea with 50,000/- cost noting that it had been filed to defame the image of a woman, with the only intention to 'somehow' get her custody.

The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed was hearing the plea of one Dharmendra who filed the plea seeking production of a woman, with whom he claimed to have married, and to set her free from the illegal detention of her father.

5."Man's Act Against Societal Norms; Plea Filed To Defame Woman": Allahabad HC Dismisses Habeas Plea, Directs 20K To Be Paid To Woman (Shivani Gupta through Pritosh Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others)

The High Court dismissed a Habeas Corpus plea filed by a man seeking custody of his alleged lover, a girl, who, presenting herself before the Court, denied the allegations that she has been illegally detained by her father. Therefore, the Bench of Justice Umesh Kumar called the action of the Man in filing habeas plea as "illegal and against the norms of society in which we are living" and thereafter, dismissed his plea with 5,000 cost.

6."Due To Such Incidents, Faith & Trust Is Decreasing": Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Sage (Baba) Booked For Raping Minor [Bhootnath v. State of U.P. and Another]

The Allahabad High Court last week denied bail to a Sage (Baba) accused of raping the minor victim/girl noting that he was known to the victim's father and used to visit her house frequently.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus:

"In this case, a hapless girl had been ravished by the accused. The act of sexual assault induces trauma and horror for any girl or regardless of her social position in society...As a matter of fact, the crime is not only against the victim, it is against the whole society as well. It demands just decision from the Court and to such demand, the Courts of law are bound to respond within the legal parameters."

Related News: "Explain The Delay In Investigation": Allahabad High Court To Uttar Pradesh DGP, SIT Team In 16-Yr-Old Girl's Death Case

7.Allahabad High Court Allows For Termination Of Pregnancy Of 14-Yr Old Rape Victim; Directs State Govt To Provide For All Medical Expenses [Maa Ganga Pukka Mahal Trust v. State Of U P And 6 Others]

Dealing with a PIL seeking shifting of monkeys from the city of Varanasi to the forest area, the High Court directed the authorities to complete the shifting process at the earliest, and in any case not later than a period of three months. The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Anil Kumar Ojha also directed that the shifting of monkeys should be done strictly as per the provisions of law and proper care be taken so that the monkeys are not in any way adversely affected in carrying the operation.

8."Crime Against Woman's Holy Body, Monstrous Burial Of Dignity": Allahabad HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Minor Girl Gang-Rape Accused [Chotu @ Suneel Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Ors.]

Underscoring that crime against the women is a monstrous burial of dignity in the darkness, and it against the holy body of a woman and the soul of a society, the High Court last week denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of gang-raping a minor. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh denied bail to the accused noting that the prosecutrix, a minor, in her 164 CrPC statement has leveled specific allegations of committing gang-rape upon the applicant and other co-accused.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court Summons Uttar Pradesh DGP In 16-Yr Old Girl's Death Case Who Was Found Hanged In School

9."Victim Was Mercilessly Butchered; Lady Folk Not A Commodity To Be Used In Such Fashion": Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Gang-Rape Accused [Vashu v. State Of Up And 2 Others]

The High Court denied bail to a Gang-Rape accused while noting that the accused was involved in the September 2020 incident, wherein the rape victim's body was "mercilessly butchered and mashed by primitive homo sapiens" (sic). Importantly, stressing that the lady folk is not a commodity to be used in such a fashion, the Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi rejected the bail application noting that the offence allegedly committed by the accused deserved no sympathy in a civilized society.

Also Read: Circulating Indecent Videos Of Children, Blackmailing Them For Gains 'Serious Offences'; Society Struggling To Deal With The Menace: Allahabad HC

Directions/Strictures passed to/against State/Reply Sought

1.Public Land In Uttar Pradesh Most Vulnerable To Encroachment, Authorities Not Discharging Their Functions In Timely Manner: Allahabad HC [Yash Pal Singh v. State Of U.P. And 8 Others]

In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court on Thursday (07th January) said that Public land in the State of U.P. is most vulnerable to encroachment and such encroachment "over such public land is not countenanced by the legislature."

Noting that the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, is the response of the legislature to deal with the endemic problem of encroachment over public lands, the Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot further observed,

"The purpose of legislative intent will be defeated in case the statutory authorities do not discharge their statutory functions in a timely manner."

2.How Many Police Stations In The State Aren't Having Toilets For Women? : Allahabad High Court Asks Uttar Pradesh Govt. [Anjali Pandey And 12 Others]

A plea has been filed before the Allahabad High Court by the students of various Law Colleges, seeking direction to the Uttar Pradesh Government to ensure the construction of ladies' toilets in the Police Stations where it is not constructed.

"Life and its consumption includes necessary hygiene and sanitation. In absence of adequate facilities to meet essential human requirements, life cannot be led with dignity", observed the Allahabad High Court.

The observation was made by a Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery while hearing a PIL filed by certain law students, seeking direction to the Uttar Pradesh Government to ensure construction of ladies' toilets in each Police Stations in the state.

3."BSNL Occupying Land Unlawfully"- Cannot Expect Such A Conduct On Part Of Government Company: Allahabad High Court [Smt. Tasirul Nisha v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Thru. Its J.T.O.,New Delhi & Anr]

Noting that the instrumentality of the State i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nagam Limited which is a Government Company, is occupying the land of the petitioner unlawfully, the Allahabad High Court on Monday (01st February) expressed its displeasure with BSNL authorities.

The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Manish Kumar was hearing the plea of one Tasirul Nisha who stated before the Court that B.S.N.L is still utilizing her land without even paying rent.

4.Allahabad High Court Seeks UP Govt's Response On Implementation Of Anganwadi Projects In The State [Nishant Chandra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.]

A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery sought the response of the UP Government on the condition of Anganwadis in the State, especially with regard to nutrition programmes undertaken therein.

The order was passed on a PIL filed by one Nishant Chandra and others, appearing in person. They had submitted that most of the Anganwadis in the State of Uttar Pradesh are not having adequate means to provide nutritive food to the children.

Underlining that western filmmakers have refrained from ridiculing Lord Jesus or the Prophet but the Hindi filmmakers have done this repeatedly and still doing this most unabashedly with the Hindu Gods and Goddesses, a Bench of Justice Siddharth denied Pre-arrest bail to Commercial Head of Amazon Prime Video, Aparna Purohit, in the ongoing investigation against the web series 'Tandav'.

Drawing parallels with the Munawar Faruqui incident, the Ciurt remarked, "Things are worsening as is evident from the fact that an obscure stand-up comedian, Munawar Faruqui, from Gujarat made comments on Hindu God and Godesses in a new year show at Indore and gained undue publicity on being arrested in a case. This shows that from films this trend has passed to comedy shows."

5.Establish Uttar Pradesh Educational Services Tribunal Only After Court's Permission: Allahabad High Court [In Re Constitution Of Education Tribunals]

A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery ordered that its permission is needed before establishing the Uttar Pradesh Education Services Tribunal, which is the subject matter of an ongoing lawyers strike. The Government is also requested to invite representatives of the Bar Associations of the Allahabad High Court at Prayagraj as well as at Lucknow to have deliberations with regard to their demands which are being agitated by different demand charters.

In a suo moto case registered by the Court following conflict between the Allahabad High Court Bar Association and the Awadh Bar Association with respect to the location of Tribunal's principal seat, the Court said, "The Legislature may complete the process of enacting the Act of 2021, if so desires, but, shall establish Educational Tribunals as proposed only after the leave of this Court."

6.UP Panchayat Polls- "Consider 2015 And Not 1995 As 'Base Year' For Reserving Seats, Hold Elections By May 25": Allahabad High Court [Ajay Kumar v. State Of UP & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Justices Manish Mathur and Ritu Raj Awasthi quashed an order of the Uttar Pradesh government dealing with the reservation of seats (for various categories of candidates) for the upcoming panchayat polls, taking 1995 as the base year. The Government submitted that it has no objection to implement the reservation and allotment of seats of constituencies in Panchayat's elections taking 2015 as the base year.

Citing demographic changes on the basis of census of 2001 and 2011, it was argued that it wouldn't be conducive to have 1995 as the base year for purposes of applying reservation and that the base year in view of the changed demographic situation was required to be taken as 2015.

7."Under Which Authority Of Law Shia Waqf Board-Administrator Appointed When Waqf Act Doesn't Permit So?": Allahabad High Court To Govt. [Asad Ali Khan v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minority Welfare/Waqf, Lko. & Anr.]

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday (18th March) asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to explain as to under which authority of law it appointed an administrator in the Shia Waqf Board noting that the Waqf Act 1995 doesn't permit the same.

Further noting that an administrator was appointed only on 16th March 2021, the Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Manish Kumar found it 'disturbing' as it observed that under the scheme of Waqf Act 1995, there is no authority vested in the State Government to appoint an administrator.

8."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.

9.Properly Scrutinize Cases Before Deciding To File An Appeal, Refrain From Doing So When No Error Exists: Allahabad HC Directs UP Govt. [State of U.P. Vs. Gurucharan Alias Sani Sardare And Another]

The Allahabad High Court recently directed the State Government to we direct the State Government to make proper scrutiny of the cases before taking a decision for filing an appeal

"Otherwise, it causes an unnecessary burden on the Courts as well as on the office of the Government Advocate", added the Court.

Dealing with a case, wherein no error in the impugned order was shown which could have justified the filing of the appeal, the Bench of Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Shamim Ahmed directed,

"The State Government should refrain themselves to file appeal in a case where no error exists."

10.Allahabad High Court Reprimands UP Government For Not Accepting E-Notices [Mohd. Ahmad & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Gupta and Gautam Chowdhary pulled up the UP Government for forcing the litigants to move out of their houses amid the Covid-19 pandemic merely for serving copies of petitions/ applications filed by them.

It observed, "At the moment, on account of pandemic, the Court proceedings are being held by virtual mode. To avoid physical contact between individuals, various relaxations have been made by this Court in relation to the filing of the writ petitions by virtual mode so that no one is forced to travel long distance or physically come to the High Court only for the purpose of filing a petition. In such a scenario, insistence on part of the State respondents to serve a hard copy of the petition in their office is not acceptable, particularly when service of notice by e-mail is now a legally recognised mode of service."

11.UP Local Polls- Allegations Against BJP Creating Pressure On Candidates, Allahabad HC Directs Election Commission To Ensure Fair Polls [Anita v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. & Ors]

A Bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Saurabh Lavania directed the State Election Commission of Uttar Pradesh to ensure free and fair elections to be conducted of Zila Panchayat Chairpersons in the State.

The Counsel appearing for the Petitioner had alleged that immense pressure was being exercised on the candidates, their relatives and agents so as to influence the elections in favour of the private opposite party who is affiliated with the ruling party of the State.

12.Fraudulent Withdrawal Of Money from Rtd. Judge's Account- "Police Not Serious To Control Such Fraudulent Activities": Allahabad High Court [Neeraj Mandal @ Rakesh v. State of UP]

Hearing a matter wherein money was fraudulently withdrawal from the bank account of a Judge (retired), a Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed that the police authorities are not making serious efforts in controlling these types of fraudulent activities. The Court expressed its displeasure "with the efforts being made by the police authorities with regard to fraudulent withdrawal of money prevailing around the district as well as the state level".

With this, the Superintendent of Police (Cyber Cell) Lucknow was directed to file his personal affidavit mentioning therein the number of F.I.R.s registered around the State of U.P. within a year, the current status/progress of investigation, the amount of fraudulent withdrawals, the money recovered to the victim and the efforts being made to control these type of fraudulent activities.

13.Attempt By State Authorities To Damage System Of Free & Fair Poll Not Conducive To Democratic Functioning: Allahabad High Court

Granting police protection to a member of Block Development Committee, who intended to contest the election of Block Pramukh and who was allegedly being prevented by the local district and police administration from filing his nomination papers, the High Court remarked: "Any attempt from any corner including State authorities or district administration to damage the system of the free and fair poll is not conducive to the democratic functioning of the State."

The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I also stressed that free and fair elections to democratic institutions of the country is one of the basic features of our Constitution.

14.Controlling Crime By Making Law Is The Most Important Duty Of Legislature In Democratic Polity: Allahabad High Court [Arjun v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others along with connected matters]

The Allahabad High Court today observed that controlling crime by making appropriate legislation is the most important duty of the legislature in a democratic polity and for this reason, it is necessary to scuttle serious threats to the safety of the citizens.

Referring to the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Shamim Ahmed noted that the purpose of this law is to curb such crimes, which have become epidemic in society.

"The legislature has felt that there should be curtailment of the activities of the gangsters and, accordingly, provided for stern delineation with such activities to establish stability in society where citizens can live in peace and enjoy a secured life," added the Court.

15.Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Uttar Pradesh Govt's Order Designating Gond Sub-Castes Under ST Category [Nayak Jan Seva Sansthan v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others]

The High Court set aside the order of the Uttar Pradesh government under which two Gond sub-castes — Nayak and Ojha were designated in the category of Scheduled Tribes (ST).

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV held that it was not permissible for the UP Government to refer to the caste Gond or its synonyms / sub-caste Nayak and Ojha as falling in the category of scheduled tribes.

16."Natural Justice Principles Violated": Allahabad HC Quashes Govt Order Cancelling Retailer's License For Selling Beef, Hurting Sentiments (Ikrar Husain v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.)

The High Court quashed an order of a Food Safety Officer who canceled the retailer license of a man, named Ikrar Husain, obtained under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 which was otherwise valid up to January 21, 2022. The Ground for the cancelation of the license was that the petitioner, Husain, a retailer, was doing the business of selling buffalo meat, thereby hurting the sentiments of a particular community.

17.PMS Doctors Retired Prior To August 24, 2009 Entitled To Revised 'Non-Practicing Allowance': Allahabad HC Quashes UP Govt Order (Dr. Avinash Chandra Srivastava & Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.)

The High Court quashed an Uttar Pradesh government order denying revised NPA (Non-Practicing Allowance) benefit to provincial medical service (PMS) doctors retired prior to 24 August 2009 and directed it to refund the NPA amount recovered in pursuant to Government order, within a period of three months.

In response to the State's argument that there are financial constraints in extending the revised NPA benefits to the petitioners, the Bench of Justice Alok Mathur emphasized that the State was duty-bound to pay the statutory dues of the employees cannot avoid its liability citing financial constraint.

18.How Public Land Will Be Saved From Unauthorized Construction In Name Of Religious Places: Allahabad High Court Asks UP Govt

The Allahabad High Court asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to submit a report disclosing a comprehensive plan and proposed consequential government action as to how the public lands are going to be saved from unauthorized construction in the name of religious places.

The Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar was hearing a contempt plea wherein it was alleged that the State Government had not complied with the order of the Court passed in Writ- C No.- 26941 of 2013.

19."Due To DM's Inaction Unavoidable RERA Cases Coming To Court": Allahabad HC Seeks GB Nagar DM Suhas LY's Personal Presence [Priya Kapahi And Another v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others]

The High Court sought the personal presence of the District Magistrate of Gautam Budh Nagar, Suhas LY while observing that due to his inaction 'unavoidable' RERA cases were coming to the Court.

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Munishwar Nath Bhandari, and Justice Piyush Agrawal has asked him to remain present before the Court on October 4, 2021, to explain his inaction in reference to the recovery certificate issued by RERA Authority in several cases.

20.Magistrate Meeting BJP Leader In Chamber No Ground To Transfer Case: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Transfer Plea [Himanshu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

The High Court rejected a plea to transfer a case to another court on the ground that the Magistrate presently hearing the case had met a Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) leader in his chamber. Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar observed that just because the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) met a political leader, it cannot be the sole ground for transferring or withdrawing a case from a particular court.

21.Whether UP Govt Wants To Establish Forensic Lab At All Commissionary HQ In State For Speedy Criminal Probe?: Asks Allahabad HC [Ambesh Kumar And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others]

The High Court asked the Uttar Pradesh Government as to whether it wants to establish a forensic lab at all Commissionary headquarters in the State of Uttar Pradesh in order to facilitate fair, proper, and speedy investigation and fair and speedy trial.

The Court called for a reply from the UP Government in view of the fact that several persons are approaching the Court seeking direction for testing of samples and submission of the forensic reports which were collected one or two years ago.

22.Its The Responsibility Of The Administration To Identify Safe Areas For Sale Of Firecrackers: Allahabad High Court [Manoj Mittal v. Union Of India And 4 Others]

The High Court observed that it is the responsibility of the administration to identify the safe areas where the sale of fire crackers shall be permissible.

The Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot was hearing the plea of one Manoj Mittal, whose application for renewal of licence regarding the storage and sale of crakers was rejected by the Saharanpur District administration earlier this year.

23.State Not Expected To Take Land Of People & Not Pay Compensation- Allahabad HC Seeks State Chief Secretaries' Affidavits [Jeet Narayan Yadav & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.]

Stressing that the state is not expected to take the land of the people and not pay the compensation, the High Court sought the personal affidavits of Additional Chief Secretaries of the Uttar Pradesh state regarding the grievance of people who seek compensation for their land acquired by the state government.

The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal was hearing the plea 3 petitioners submitting that their land had been taken, however, no compensation had been paid to them.

24."Refer To 'Talisman' Given By Mahatma Gandhi In Case Of Dilemma About Right Decision": Allahabad HC Tells UP Govt Officers [Unnati Management College And 4 Others v. Rakesh Kumar,Director]

In a significant observation, the High Court asked the Uttar Pradesh Government officers to refer to the Talisman given by the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi whenever they are confronted with doubt and are in a dilemma about the right decision.

Essentially, the Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot was dealing with a contempt plea filed on account of violation of the Court's order dated March 15, 2021, related to the grant of scholarships to needy students who belong to the lowest strata.

25.Allahabad High Court Directs UP Govt, Its Authorities & Committees To Implement Witness Protection Scheme [Mithlesh Narayan Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another]

The High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government and all its concerned authorities/committees to implement the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 forthwith.

This direction came from the Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Vikas Budhwar that was hearing the plea of a petitioner, Mithlesh Narayan Tiwari, who is a witness in a 2018 Murder case, and his application for protection was rejected twice by the District Level Committee/Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj.

26.Compelling Small Farmers To Pay Bribes The Most Unfortunate Thing To Happen Even After 75 Yrs Of Independence: Allahabad HC [Rasool Ahmad v. State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lucknow & Ors.]

The High Court observed that when small farmers are compelled to pay bribes, it is the most unfortunate thing to happen even after 75 years of independence.

The Bench of Justice Manish Kumar and Justice Rajan Roy observed thus while dismissing an appeal filed by a government servant (convicted for demanding bribe) against the order of the appellate court upholding his conviction as also sentence by the trial court.

27.[49 Cases 'Wrongly' Imposed On A Man] "State's Heavy-Handed Exercise Of Powers Calls For Court's Interference": Allahabad HC [Gaurav @ Gaura v. State of U.P.]

Dealing with a case related to a man against whom 49 cases were registered by the Uttar Pradesh Police over a span of 23 years, the Court observed that the state's heavy-handed exercise of powers resulting unforeseen situations which comprehend mischief to lives calls for interference of the Court.

Observing that it is not expected from the U.P. Police, the Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh had, last month, noted that such callous action cannot be imagined from the officers of the disciplined force.

Also Read: Kasganj Custodial Death: Allahabad High Court Issues Notice On PUCL's Plea Seeking Establishment Of Fast-Track Police Courts

28.Allahabad High Court Directs DGP, Lucknow CP To Recover & Produce A 15-Year-Old Girl 'Illegally Detained' By 2 Persons

Expressing its disappointment over the lethargic attitude of the Uttar Pradesh Police to trace out a Hindu minor girl from the illegal detention of two youths who belong to a different religion, the Court directed the DGP and Commissioner of Police (CP), Lucknow to take necessary action in the matter.

The Bench of Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav has directed the DGP and CP, Lucknow to recover the minor girl and ensure her production before the Court on December 23.

29.Murder Convicts Get COVID Parole Thrice: Allahabad High Court Seeks Reply Of UP Govt, Orders Enquiry

Questioning the move of the Uttar Pradesh Government to release 4 Murder convicts on COVID Parole, the Court directed the Chief Secretary of State's Government to enquire into the matter as to under what circumstances the convict/appellants were released on parole thrice.

The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Vivek Varma has also sought a report as to how many such convicted persons for death and life imprisonment by the trial Court and other convicts, who were in jail for the offences involving punishment for more than seven years, have been released in the State of U.P.

Also Read: "Serious Allegations Of Mala-Fides": Allahabad HC Issues Notice To UP Dy-CM Keshav Maurya In 'Illegal House Grabbing' Case

30.Allahabad High Court Directs UP Govt To Regularly Update State Enactments, Amendments On Official Websites [In Re - Regular Publication of All The Enactments of The State Legislature, as well as Rules, framed]

The High Court called upon the Uttar Pradesh Government to regularly update the text of the state laws, along with the amendments, if made, on its official websites.

The bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal, while hearing a suo moto matter [In Re - Regular Publication of All The Enactments of The State Legislature, as well as Rules, framed] actually visited two different websites, i.e., "Indiacode.nic.in" and "upvidhai.gov.in" and found that state enactments had not been updated on the website.

NSA Detention/Goonda Act/Gangster Act Cases

1.Attempt Made By Centre To Justify Delay In Deciding Representation, Amplifies Bureaucratic Red-Tapism In Movement Of Files: Allahabad HC Quashes NSA Detention Order [Mohhammad Sazid v. Superintendent, District Jail, Lucknow & Ors]

Pulling up the Centre and the State Government for their delay in deciding the representation made by the detenue, a division bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Jaspreet Singh quashed the detention order passed under the National Security Act after opining that Centre's attempt to justify the delay amplifies Bureaucratic Red-Tapism in movement of files.

"From the perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the Union of India, it indicates that an attempt has been made by the Central Government to justify the delay in deciding the representation. In paragraph 5 (a) to 5 (d) various dates have been mentioned which only indicates the movement of file from one desk to the other which only further amplifies the bureaucratic/redtapism in the movement of the files, without considering that the issue of detention is a priority and the matter should have received prompt attention," the Court said.

2."Act Smacks Of Prejudice & Malafide": Allahabad High Court Questions DM For Slapping 'Gangster Act' On Lady For 2 Pending Cases

The High Court called it a strange case that on account of just two pending criminal cases against a lady, the Gangster Act [The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986] was slapped on her.

The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh sought a personal affidavit from the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar explaining as to under what circumstances a lady (the applicant) against whom only two cases are pending has been made a criminal under the Gangster Act.

3.Cutting Beef Due To Poverty, Unemployment Or Hunger In Secrecy Not 'Public Order' Issue: Allahabad HC Quashes NSA Detention [Parvez Thru His Brother Imran v. State Of UP]

A Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav quashed a detention order passed under the National Security Act, 1980 against 3 men who have been accused of cutting small pieces of beef for selling purposes in a house in secrecy. It observed that the case of the petitioners/detenues of cutting cow beef in pieces in the secrecy of their own house can at best be described as a matter affecting law and order and not public order.

"…the petitioners and co-accused were mutely arrested when they were found cutting beef in the wee hours of the morning in the house of the petitioners. We also do not know whether the cause was poverty, lack of employment or hunger, which may have compelled the petitioners and the other co-accused to take such a step," observed the Court.

4.Lodging Of An FIR Under 'UP Gangsters Act' On The Basis Of A Single Case Is Valid & Permissible: Allahabad High Court

A Bench of Justice Samit Gopal and Justice Pritinker Diwaker observed that the lodging of a first information report under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 even on the basis of involvement of a person in a single case, is valid and permissible. It relied on the landmark rulings of the Allahabad High Court on this subject matter to reach this conclusion.

The Court observed thus while dismissing a bunch of 12 writ petitions filed by Ritesh Kumar alias Rikki and others raising the following question: "Whether a first information report under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Gangsters Act'] can be lodged and is maintainable on the basis of involvement of the petitioner(s) / accused in a single previous case."

5."Delay In Deciding Representation": Allahabad HC Quashes NSA Detention Of Accused In 'Journalist Shubham Tripathi Murder Case' [Kanhaiya Awasthi v. Union of India]

The High Court quashed the National Security Act (NSA) detention of one Kanhaiya Awasthi, who is an accused in the Unnao-based journalist Shubham Mani Tripathi murder case. Tripathi, who was a journalist by profession and the district correspondent of a news daily 'Kampumali' published from Unnao and who used to cover stories related to land mafias, was allegedly murdered by Awasthi and other co-accused persons.

6."Authorities Issuing 'Goondas Act' Notice In Matrimonial Disputes": Allahabad HC Seeks Govt Reply On Misuse Of Law By DM/ADM/Police (Shiv Prasad Gupta v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others)

Hearing a case wherein a show-cause notice had been served to a man under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 in a matrimonial dispute, the High Court last week sought the Uttar Pradesh Government's response on the 'misuse' of Law.

The Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Piyush Agrawal was hearing the Criminal Writ plea of one Shiv Prasad Gupta, against whom a case had been registered under sections 498-A, 354, 323, 504, 506 & 120-B IPC and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by his wife.

7.NSA Invoked For FB Post On 'Babri Masjid': "Detention Justified But Delay In Disposing Representation": Allahabad HC Quashes Detention Order (Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri Thru. Brother Mohd. Siraj v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Min. Of Home N.Delhi & Others)

The High Court quashed a detention order passed by the DM, Lakhimpur Kheri under the National Security Act, 1980 against a man for his alleged Facebook post on Babri Masjid ("Babri Masjid will one day be rebuilt, just like Turkey's Sophia Mosque was rebuilt", the accused had posted on FB).

The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav was hearing the habeas corpus plea of one Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri and found justification in his detention by the Detaining Authority, however, quashed the same on the ground that there had been a delay in disposing of his representation by the Union Government.

8.Allahabad HC Upholds NSA Detention Order Passed Against Man Accused Of Murdering Hindu Samaj Party's Kamlesh Tiwari [Mohseen Saleem Sheikh v. U.O.I. Thru Secretary,Min. Of Home Affairs,New Delhi & Ors.]

The Court upheld the detention order passed under the National Security Act against one Mohseen Saleem Sheikh, who has been accused of conspiring in the 'brutal murder' of the President of the Hindu Samaj Party, Kamlesh Tiwari.

Even though the period of detention is already over, the Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav found justification in the detention order passed against Detenue/petitioner Mohseen Saleem Sheikh, and therefore, upheld the detention order.

9."Unexplained Delay Of 4 Days": Allahabad HC Quashes NSA Detention Of Man Who Allegedly Protested, Assaulted Police Force [Sonu @ Mohd. Ishtiyaq Through Mother Shameem Bano v. Union of India and others]

The High Court quashed the detention order passed under the National Security Act on account of 4 days of unexplained delay in disposing of the petitioner/detenue's representation by the Union of India.

This order was passed by the Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav while hearing the habeas corpus plea filed by the detenue Sonu @ Mohd. Ishtiyaq through his Mother Shameem Bano.

10.Preventive Detention Powers Shouldn't Be Exercised Sans Possibility Of Person Being Released From Custody: Allahabad HC Quashes NSA Detention [Abhayraj Gupta v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly]

The High Court quashed a detention order passed against a murder accused by exercising powers under the National Security Act, 1980 as it observed that if a person is in custody and there is no imminent possibility of his being released, the power of preventive detention should not be exercised.

The Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi with the habeas corpus plea of one Abhay Raj Gupta, who is presently in custody in Central Jail, Bareilly, filed through his mother, challenging his detention order dated January 23, 2021.

Cases on Live In relationships/Protection Pleas/Right to Choose Partners

1.Nobody Can Interfere In Peaceful Life Of Two Adults Residing Together: Allahabad HC Provides Protection To Another Inter-Faith Couple

The Allahabad High Court reiterated that no one is entitled to disrupt the lives of two adults, who reside together willingly.

Holding thus, the Court came to rescue of another inter-faith couple, facing harassment at the hands of their families.

A Single Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava observed,

"The Court has repeatedly held that where the two individuals having attained the age of majority, are living together, nobody is entitled to interfere in their peaceful life."

2."She Hasn't Even Filed Divorce Plea": Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea of Woman In Live-In Relation Seeking Protection Against Husband [Surabhi v. State Of UP & Ors.]

A Bench of Justices Sunita Agarwal and Sadhna Rani (Thakur) dismissed a protection plea of a woman in a live-in relationship who alleged that she left her matrimonial house in view of the anti-social activities of his husband and is now living with one Mohit in a live-in relationship. In her plea, she asserted that a representation/application had been moved by her before the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, seeking protection from her husband.

However, the Court noted: "It is admitted fact of the matter that the petitioner has not moved any application under the relevant provisions such as Domestic Violence Act and Indian Penal Code, for any threat or act of violence of her husband. It is admitted fact of the matter that the petitioner has not even filed any petition under Hindu Marriage Act for divorce."

3.Interfaith Couple- "No Sign That She Is Major & Wants A Marital Life": Allahabad High Court Refuses Protection

The Court refused to pass a protection order in favor of a woman/girl (claiming to have married a Hindu Man) noting that she did not produce any documentary evidence showing that she belongs to the Muslim religion and that she now wanted to adopt the Hindu religion.

Observing that the petition does not even show that the Couple is major, the Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker further noted that there was no sign that the parties wanted to have a marital life.

4.Honour Killing- 'People Eliminating Family Member For Choosing A Life Partner Can't Have Place In Society': Allahabad HC Denies Bail

While denying bail to a man for participating in the 'brazen act of honour killing' of his sister, the High Court observed that there is no place for those citizens in the society who go to the extent of eliminating a family member for choosing a life partner of his/her choice.

"In the opinion of this Court, prima facie if these allegations were to be established at the trial, there is no place for citizens in our society who act in derogation of the much cherished constitutional values of individual liberty, and, instead, repose faith in archaic social values of family honour to an extent that they would go to eliminate a family member choosing a life partner for herself," the Court observed.

5."Live-In Relation Can't Be At Cost Of Country's Social Fabric": Allahabad HC Imposes 5K Cost On Married Woman Living With Partner (Smt. Aneera & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh)

Observing that live-in-relationship cannot be at the cost of the social fabric of this Country¸the High Court dismissed the protection plea of a married woman living with her partner with an exemplary cost of Rs.5,000.

Calling her live-in relationship with her partner an illicit relationship, the Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Subhash Chand observed thus: "Directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relations."

Also Read: Inter-Religious Marriage- "Woman Major, Has Right To Choose Her Partner": Allahabad HC Quashes FIR U/S 366 IPC Against Husband

6.Adults Have Right Of Choice Of Their Matrimonial Partner Irrespective Of Religion Professed By Them: Allahabad High Court [Shifa Hasan And Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.]

The High Court observed that it cannot be disputed that two adults have the right of choice of their matrimonial partner irrespective of the religion professed by them.

The Bench of Justice Deepak Verma and Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta observed thus in a plea filed by one Shifa Hasan (19-year-old) and her male partner (24-year-old) who claimed to be in love with each other and submitted that they are living together out of their sweet will.

7.Need To Look At Live-In Relations From The Lens Of Personal Autonomy Rather Than Notions Of Social Morality: Allahabad HC [Shayara Khatun v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

The High Court observed that live-in relationships are required to be viewed from the lens of personal autonomy rather than the notions of social morality The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed thus while dealing with two protection pleas filed by interfaith live-in couples.

This assertion by the court came while dealing with two pleas filed by Shayara Khatun and her partner (both major in live-in-relationship with each other since last more than two years) and Zeenat Parveen and her partner (both major and in a live-in relationship since last 1 year)

8.Interfaith Marriage Registration Can't Be Refused By Insisting On Conversion Approval: Allahabad HC Affirms Right To Choose Partners

The High Court observed that the Marriage Registrar/Officer lacks the power to withhold the registration of marriage, merely for the reason that the parties have not obtained the necessary approval of conversion from the district authority.

This assertion came from the bench of Justice Suneet Kumar who was hearing a batch of petitions (17 in number), pertaining to an interfaith marriage contracted by the petitioners.

Also Read: "We Aren't Against Live-In Relation": Allahabad High Court Orders Protection For Same-Sex Couple

Human Rights/Fundamental Rights/Liberty of citizens

1.Irrational And Indiscriminate Arrests Are Gross Violation Of Human Rights, Arrest Should Be The Last Option For The Police: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court observed that after the lodging of FIR, the arrest can be made by the police at will and that there is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an FIR has been lodged.

The Bench of Justice Siddharth, however, noted that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to "those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required.

2.Practice Of Publishing Names Of Accused On Flysheet Boards Without Proclamation Violates Human Dignity & Right To Privacy: Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court held that the practice of putting names of the accused persons on the flysheet board without issuance of proclamation under sec. 82 of Cr.P.C. is derogatory to the concept of human dignity and privacy enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution.

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising of Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek Agarwal. Justice Naqvi presided over the bench and delivered a concurring opinion.

3.Allahabad High Court Dismisses A Man's Plea For Allowing Live-Body Donation (Jeevit Deh Dan) Of His Body Organs And Tissues [Ranjan Srivastava v. Union of India]

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea seeking a direction to enable and make it lawful for the petitioner to perform Live Body Donation (Jeevit Deh Daan) of his human body and of all his living organ and tissues.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Yadav and Justice Jayant Banerji was hearing the plea of one Ranjan Srivastava who further sought a direction to enable and make it lawful for medical doctors/hospital/institution to perform the necessary medical procedures on him for his act of Live Body Donation (Jeevit Deh Daan).

4.Detention Of A Person Despite Furnishing Of Personal Bond Violative Of Article 21: Allahabad High Court [Shiv Kumar Verma & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court has held that keeping a person in custody, despite his furnishing personal bonds as required by the magistrate, is violative of his right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A Division Bench comprising of Justices Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Shamim Ahmed recently pulled up an Executive Magistrate for failing to release two persons, arrested on apprehensions of breach of public peace, despite their furnishing personal bond and other papers.

5.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.

6.'Right To Free Speech Not A License To Injure Religious Feelings": Allahabad HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To PFI Member Accused Of Spreading Propaganda Against Ayodhya Ram Temple [Md. Nadeem v. State of UP]

A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh denied the anticipatory bail plea of a man accused of trying to promote enmity between two religious communities by spreading propaganda about the foundation laying ceremony of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya.

"The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression in a secular State is not an absolute license to injure and hurt the religious feelings and faiths and beliefs of fellow citizens," it observed.

On noting that a prima facie case is made out against the accused, Md. Nadeem, the Bench observed, "A person who takes the risk of dissemination of blasphemous messages is not entitled to get the discretion of the Court exercised in his favour."

7.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.

8.Conviction Of A Juvenile By JJ Board Is Not A Disqualification for Employment, Requirement Of It's Disclosure Violates His Privacy, Art.21 :Allahabad High Court [Anuj Kumar v. State of UP]

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Ajay Bhanot held that using criminal prosecution faced by a candidate as a juvenile to form an opinion about his suitability for appointment is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, holding that an employer cannot ask any candidate to disclose details of criminal prosecution faced as a juvenile, the Court has also held that the requirement to disclose details of criminal prosecutions faced as a juvenile is violative of the right to privacy and the right to reputation of a child guaranteed under Article 21.

The observation came in a petition assailing the order dated 3rd September 2020 passed by Commandant of Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC), Etah wherein the petitioner was found as being not suitable for the post of Constable by the Competent Authority.

It was the case of the petitioner that the Authority was "misdirected in law" by overlooking the fact that the petitioner was tried for an offence as a juveline. It was therefore argued that the impugned order for arbitrary, illegal and violative of petitioner's fundamental rights under Art. 14, 16 and 21.

9.Ex-IAS Officer Booked For A Tweet Regarding COVID Affected Dead Bodies: Allahabad High Court Stays Arrest [Surya Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home And Ors.]

The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Jaspreet Singh stayed the arrest of a retired IAS officer who has been booked under various offences under IPC, Uttar Pradesh Public Health and Epidemic Diseases Control Act, 2000, Disaster Management Act, 2005 and IT Act for allegedly tweeting some photos and videos alleging COVID mismanagement in Uttar Pradesh with regard to COVID Dead Bodies.

It was hearing the plea of the Retired IAS office, allegation against him is that the photographs he attached with the tweet and posted on Twitter deliberately spread hatred and it resulted in spreading tension among different sections in the locality.

10.Man Booked For Video Criticizing Govt's Handling Of COVID Dead Bodies: Allahabad HC Issues Notice To Govt, Stays 'Coercive Measures'

The High Court issued notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh on the plea of a man who has been booked under various sections of IPC for allegedly promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion for his speech in which he criticized the Government's way of handling COVID dead bodies.

The Bench of Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Naveen Srivastava has also directed that no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner if he cooperates in the pending investigation.

11.Allahabad High Court Grants Interim Protection From Arrest To Ex-UP Governor Dr. Aziz Quereshi In Sedition Case Over Alleged Remarks Against CM [Dr. Aziz Qureshi v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others]

Dr. Aziz Quereshi, former Governor of Uttar Pradesh including two other States, was granted interim protection from arrest by High Court in a sedition case registered against him over his alleged derogatory remarks against CM Yogi Adityanath led Uttar Pradesh Government.

A bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Mohd. Aslam granted him the protection till the next date of hearing while listing the case for October 6 on state counsel's request.

12.Man Allegedly Asks Muslims 'To Take Revenge If SC Gives Ayodhya Ruling In Favour Of One Community': Allahabad HC Grants Him Relief [Muhammad Saghir Khan v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.Lko.& Ors.]

The High Court granted protection from arrest to a man who allegedly delivered a speech asking the Muslim youths to take revenge in their own way if the Supreme Court pronounces 'Ram Mandir Judgment in favor of one community'. The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Saroj Yadav noted that the speech rendered by the petitioner does not reflect or appeal to the youth to indulge in any criminal act by rebelling or by using violence.

13."Magistrate Didn't Apply Judicious Mind": Allahabad HC Orders Clubbing Of 3 Charge Sheets Filed Against CAA-NRC Protestor [Shamshad Ahmad v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko & Another]

The High Court ordered clubbing of the 3 Charge Sheets filed by the Uttar Pradesh Police against a CAA-NRC Protestor alleging his involvement with regard to more or less similar incidents. The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan observed that after taking cognizance of the first Charge Sheet, the Magistrate should have asked the Investigating Agency as to why, after carrying out separate investigation in all the three, more or less similar incidents, three separate charge-sheets have been filed therein.

Family/Custody/Maintenance/Matrimonial Matters

1.Woman Entering Into New Relationship Without Securing Divorce Wouldn't Deprive Her Of Custody Of Minor Child: Allahabad HC [Anmol Shivhare (Minor) v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others]

The Allahabad High Court observed that the fact that the mother enters into a new relationship allegedly without obtaining divorce from her husband, may be something that the law and the society frown upon, but, this in itself, wouldn't deprive her of the custody of her minor child.

The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir observed that "depriving the minor of his mother's company, might have an adverse impact on his overall development. This, in-turn would derogate from the minor's welfare."

2.Strict Proof Of Performance Of Essential Marriage Rites Not Required In Plea For Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC: Allahabad High Court [Irshad Ali v. State of UP & Anr.]

The Allahabad High Court has held that while claiming maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, a party need not furnish strict proof of performance of essential rites of marriage.

A Single Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh has held that if from the evidence which is led, the Magistrate/ court is prima facie satisfied with regard to the performance of marriage in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, which are of summary nature, strict proof of performance of essential rites is not required.

"It is well settled that for the purposes of a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the factum of marriage has to be prima facie considered. If there is prima facie material on record to suggest that the parties have married or are having relationship in the nature of marriage, the court can presume in favour of the woman claiming maintenance," the order stated.

3."Parties Wish To Bury Differences, Talaq Acceptable To Both": Allahabad High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Husband [Mohammmad Gufran v. State Of U P And 3 Others]

Noting the fact that the parties (Husband-Wife) in a matter have accepted the talaq, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday (12th January) observed that now the talaq would be termed to be a khula talaq.

The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Gautam Chowdhary was hearing a plea under Article 226 of Constitution of India by one Mohammad Gufran, accused of committing offences u/s 498-A, 494, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

4.Section125(3) CrPC Mode Of Enforcement Of Right To Maintenance; Its Invocation Against Defaulter Cannot Be Faulted: Allahabad High Court [Alakhram v. State of UP & Anr.]

The Allahabad High Court held that the liability of a man to maintain his wife, children or parents under Section 125 CrPC is one of "continuing nature" and a Magistrate cannot be faulted for issuing warrant under Section 125(3) in case of default.

A Single Bench of Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,

"The liability to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being in the nature of continuing liability; accordingly, in case of a default in complying with an order passed under Section 125(1) for payment of maintenance or for any breach thereof, the invocation of the exercise of power under Section 125(3) by the Magistrate, cannot be faulted with."

5.Allahabad High Court Devotes Whole Day To Unite Young Couple, Their Family And Succeeds [Usha Anuragi and 3 Others v. State Of U.P. and 2 Others]

The Allahabad High Court last week tried its level best, to bring two families again on good terms by sorting out their disputes in a matter wherein both, Wife and her Husband stated before the Court that they wish to bury all the old differences and nightmares.

The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Gautam Chowdhary observed,

"We normally in dispute pertaining to such offence do not even issue notice but we now feel that when in the highest Court of the State, people have expectation from us more than they wanted from the trial judiciary."

6.Despite Marrying Willingly A Minor Girl Can't Be Allowed To Stay With Husband Till She Attains Majority: Allahabad High Court [Pradeep Tomar And Another v. State of U.P. and Another]

The Allahabad High Court recently held that a minor girl cannot be allowed to live in a matrimonial relationship with a man she claims to be her husband, even if she had left her home of her own accord and married the Man out of her own free will.

The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir ruled thus while taking into account her High School Certificate which "clearly indicated" that she is a minor as her date of birth is 04th November 2004.

The Bench specifically stated,

"So long as the prosecutrix is a minor, she cannot be permitted to accompany the accused Pintoo, whom she claims to have married."

7.Allahabad High Court Allows Mother's Habeas Corpus Plea Seeking Child's Custody From Father [Master Advait Sharma v. State of UP & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice JJ Munir allowed the habeas corpus petition of a mother, seeking the custody of her child aged three and a half years, from her husband (the child's father). It observed that there is a strong presumption about a child's welfare to be better secured in the mother's hand.

The Bench remarked, "It is the precipitate wisdom of generations that a young child's welfare is better ensured in the hands of the mother than the father, or for that matter, anyone else. It is in keeping with this transcendent experience of mankind that the proviso to Section 6(a) of the [Hindu Minority and Guardianship] Act of 1956 reserves to the mother the right to the child's custody until the age of five years."

8.Wife's Silence Cannot Give Rise To An Inference That She Had Consented For Purpose Of Adoption U/S 7 Of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act: Allahabad High Court [Bhanu Pratap Singh v. State of UP]

A Division Bench comprising of Justices Manoj Misra and Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held that a wife's silence or lack of protest at the time of adoption by her husband cannot give rise to an inference that she has consented to such adoption under Section 7 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956.

It held that in order to satisfy the mandate of the proviso to Section 7 of the Act, a party propounding adoption by a Hindu male, who has a living wife, has to adduce evidence to prove that the same was done with the consent of his wife.

"This can be done either by producing document evidencing her consent in writing or by leading evidence to show that wife had actively participated in the ceremonies of adoption with an affirmative mindset to support the action of the husband to take a son or a daughter in adoption," the Bench said.

9.Allahabad High Court Denies Daughter's Custody To Mother Accused Of Murdering Husband, Grants Liberty To Seek Custody Once Acquitted [Gyanmati Kushwaha & Anr. v. State Of UP & Ors.]

A Bench of Justice JJ Munir refused to hand over the custody of a two-year-old daughter to the petitioner-woman who has been accused of murdering her husband (i.e., child's father). It however, gave the mother the liberty to seek daughter's custody in the event she is acquitted by judgment based on doubt or otherwise.

The Court opined that if the mother were to be convicted, the minor's welfare would be thrown into disarray. "It would be irreversibly unsettling and debilitating in her formative years. It may even expose her to insurmountable trauma, if she witnesses her mother, whom she is bonded with, convicted in the case of her father's murder", remarked the Court.

10.Matrimonial Cruelty- "Why Police Forcing Woman To Go Back To Husband": Allahabad High Court Seeks SP's Reply

The Court called for an explanation from Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, and the Superintendent of Police, Kasganj as to why a woman, harassed by her husband and thrown out of her matrimonial house was being forced by the police to go back to her husband.

The Bench of Justice JJ Munir noted: "The petitioner prima facie is a deserted woman, who has nowhere to go and is now facing harassment at the hands of the respondents, including the police to go back to her husband where she may become a victim of matrimonial cruelty, and maybe, face danger to her life."

11.Habeas Corpus Writ At Husband's Behest To Regain Wife Not Available As A Matter Of Course: Allahabad High Court [Mohd. Ahmad & Anr. v. State Of U.P. & Ors.]

Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed that the remedy of the writ of habeas corpus at the instance of a Husband, seeking to obtain possession of his wife is not available as a matter of course.

Dealing with the Husband's plea seeking production of his wife, the Court observed thus: "In view of the other remedies available for the purpose under criminal and civil law, issuance of a writ of habeas corpus at the behest of a husband to regain his wife may not be available as a matter of course and the power in this regard may be exercised only when a clear case is made out."

In this case, Petitioner no.2 (Wife) left her matrimonial home sometime in the month of June, 2019 on account of some serious differences with her husband (petitioner no.1).

Thereafter, an application (presently pending) for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the Husband. Further, claiming that sometime in the month of November, 2020, information was received by him suggesting that his wife was being detained at her parental home and thus he filed the instant Habeas Corpus plea seeking the production of the wife.

12.Can't Transfer Matrimonial Case On Husband's Convenience Just Because Of His Posting To A Different Station: Allahabad HC [Surendra Singh v. Smt. Vineeta Singh]

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that merely because the husband has now been posted to a different station, a matrimonial dispute case cannot be transferred according to his convenience.

This assertion came from the Bench of Justice J. J. Munir, that was hearing the plea of one Surendra Singh seeking transfer of a divorce case filed by him u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hapur to Banda or any other adjoining district.

13.Can't Oust Woman From Matrimonial Home On The Basis Of Summary Proceedings Under Senior Citizens Act: Allahabad HC [Smt. Khushboo Shukla v. District Magistrate, Lucknow & Ors.]

The High Court made it clear that the wife cannot be ousted from her matrimonial home on the basis of the summary proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. With this, the Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary came to the aid of a widow by setting aside an eviction order passed against her and her son from her in-laws' house.

Transgender Persons/Vulnerable Sections/Minority/SC/ST

1.Same-Sex Couple Facing Discrimination:Allahabad High Court Calls It 'Stark Reality Of Society', Grants Them Protection [Poonam Rani And Another v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others]

The Allahabad High Court in January 2021 granted protection to a homo-sexual couple who alleged before the Court that they are being threatened with violation of their rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India only on the ground of their sexual orientation.

The Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori was hearing the plea of one Poonam Rani and her partner seeking protection. They also alleged that they are facing hard resistance at the hand of their family members.

2.SC/ST Act: Allahabad HC Issues Directions Regarding Timely Service Of Notice Of Bail Pleas To Victim & Placing Of Same Before Court [Ajeet Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another]

While hearing the concerns of parties that certain anomalies in the practices of hearing of bail applications/bail appeals under 'The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989', the Allahabad High Court on Monday (11th January) issued certain directions regarding placing of bail application/bail appeal under the Act before the Court and timely delivery of notice to victim.

The Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot noted that Bail applications should be processed expeditiously and placed before the court for hearing in a reasonable and definite time frame.

3."Religious Rights Of Muslim Community Infringed":Allahabad High Court Orders To Stop Encroachments On Kabaristan By Ant-social Elements [Mohammad Shahid And 2 Others v. State Of U P And 7 Others]

"Every citizen has an equal and inalienable right as any other citizen for living peacefully, without fear of antisocial elements and for enjoying religious freedom", observed the Allahabad High Court last week while issuing some directions in a plea seeking necessary action against illegal encroachment/damage made to a Kabristan (Muslim graveyard) situated in District Kaushambi of Uttar Pradesh.

The Bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Sanjay Yadav further observed

"Wherever, the High Court has reason to believe that fundamental and Constitutional rights of citizens are threatened, Article 226 of the Constitution of India vests sufficient powers to intervene and issue necessary directions."

4. Farmers Protests : Why 'Exorbitant' Personal Bonds Sought From Farmers With Tractors? Allahabad High Court Asks UP Authorities

In a significant judicial intervention, the Allahabad High Court asked Uttar Pradesh authorities to explain why Sub-Divisional Magistrates issued notices to farmers with tractors to furnish 'exorbitant personal bonds' in the wake of farmers protests.

A division bench of Justices Ramesh Singha and Rajeev Singh passed the order in a PIL filed challenging the notices issued under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on January 19 asking farmers to furnish personal bond in the range of Rs 50,000 to Rupees 10 lakhs and two sureties for the like amount citing apprehension of breach of law and order amid farmers protests.

5."If Display Of Affection Between LGBT Partners Isn't Indecent, It Can't Be Bogged Down By Majority Perception:" Allahabad High Court Reinstates LGBT Member In Service [Pramod Kumar Sharma v. State Of U P And 2 Others]

The Allahabad High Court last week quashed the order of the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner (one Pramod Kumar Sharma) on account of a viral video of the petitioner.

The Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal noted that in the Counter Affidavit (filed by the officer who had passed the order of cancellation) sexual orientation of the petitioner was stated to be indulgence in untoward activity.

Observing that it is completely in violation of the observations of the Apex Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India reported in (2018) 10 SCC 1, the Court directed the Commandant General of Home Guards, Head Quarters, U.P. Lucknow to take the petitioner back in service with immediate effect.

6.Unfortunate That The Properties Of Religious And Charitable Institutions Are Being Usurped By Criminals: Allahabad High Court [Bharat Das @ Ram Newaz Singh v. State of U. P.]

The Allahabad High Court earlier this month dismissed the bail application filed by a man accused of selling properties of a Math (Akhil Bhartiya Udasin Sangat Thakurji Virajman Thakurdwara Jhaaulal) on the basis of forged and fabricated documents in favour of the land mafias.

While dismissing his bail plea, the Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed,

"It is unfortunate that the properties of religious and charitable institutions are being usurped by criminals."

7.Allahabad High Court Directs Govt To Provide Free Of Cost Treatment To A Poor Lady Suffering From Breast Cancer

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday directed the State Government and the Hospital authorities to carry out free of cost medical treatment to a poor lady suffering from breast cancer, unable to afford the treatment due to lack of income and funds.

A division bench comprising of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Manish Kumar gave the order.

The petition was filed by one Sauhard Lakhanpal seeking financial help for his mother who was suffering from Infiltrating Ductal Carcinoma, a form of breast cancer, in order to undergo her medical treatment.

8."Ensure That Local Police Don't Interfere In Married Life Of Muslim Woman Who Adopted Hindu Religion": Allahabad High Court To SSP

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday (May 26) ordered to extend and provide necessary protection to the life and limb of a Muslim woman who converted to the Hindu religion and married a Man according to Hindu rites.

The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir also directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut to ensure that the local Police do not interfere in the peaceful married life of the petitioners (Woman and her Husband)

9.Victim A Major, Went To Hotel Room On Her Own Sweet Will": Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Booked Under UP Anti-Conversion Law [Sonu Rajpoot @ Zubair v. State of UP]

A Single Bench of Justice Samit Gopal granted bail to a man booked under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religion Conversion Act, 2020 who has been accused of committing rape upon the victim in a room of a hotel. Noting that the victim is a major and had a consenting relationship with the accused, the Court observed thus:

"The (bail) applicant and the first informant/victim were in a relationship for long and she used to spend time with the applicant and used to travel with him and went to a room of a hotel on her own sweet-will."

10.Gareeb Nawaz Mosque Demolition: Masjid's Committee Members Get Protection Against Coercive Action From Allahabad High Court In Forgery Case [Mushtaq Ali & Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) last week stayed the arrest of Gareeb Nawaz Masjid's Committee members against whom an FIR has been filed accusing them of forging Mosque's documents.

It may be noted that the Masjid was demolished earlier this month by the district administration in Barabanki, claiming it to be an "illegal structure". Thereafter, the Barabanki Police had lodged a case against eight people "who were members of a committee", for allegedly resorting to fraud and cheating to get the mosque registered as a Waqf property.

The Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava directed that until a police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is filed, the petitioners shall not be subjected to any coercive measures.

11.Petitions In Allahabad High Court Challenging 'Love Jihad' Ordinance Dismissed As Withdrawn With Liberty To Challenge Act

A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Yadav and Justice Siddhartha Varma asked the Petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance to withdraw their petitions as infructuous, as the Ordinance has been replaced with an Act.

The Court however issued notice on a PIL filed by the Association for Advocacy and Legal Initiatives through Advocate Vrinda Grover, challenging the Act of 2021. It has directed that the pleadings be completed in the case before the next date. The matter will be listed for arguments in the week commencing August 2nd, 2021.

12.'Prima Facie Raises Important Questions': Allahabad High Court Issues Notice On Pleas Against Demolition Of Gareeb Nawaz Mosque In UP [UP Sunni Central Waqf Board v. State of UP & Ors.]

A Bench of Justices Saurabh Lavania and Rajan Roy issued notice on a writ petition filed by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, challenging the demolition of the Gareeb Nawaz Mosque in Uttar Pradesh's Barbanki District (Ram Sanehi Ghat area). All the opposite parties have been directed to file their counter affidavit in the matter, positively within 3 weeks. The case is fixed for hearing on July 23.

It observed that the petitions prima facie raise important questions as to the existence of a Mosque on public utility land. It said that the petition also raises questions with regard to exercise of power by State authorities under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and other related provisions, its scope, especially the allegations of malafide exercise of power and the manner in which it has been done.

13."Anti-Social Activity": Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Man Who Allegedly Raped, Posted Woman's Obscene Snaps On FB & Dared That Law Won't Saver Her [Manav Sharma v. State Of U.P.]

The Allahabad High Court has denied bail to a man 'prima facie' accused of raping and posting obscene photographs of a woman on Facebook with whom he once had a relationship.

The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir was hearing the bail plea of one Manav Sharma under Sections 376(1), 506 I.P.C., and Section 67-A Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.

His counsel submitted that it was a case where the applicant and the prosecutrix were into a long relationship and after she went away to Russia in connection with her higher education, she disowned the relationship.

14.Gareeb Nawaz Masjid Demolition: Allahabad HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Mosque Committee Secretary Over 'The Wire' Report

A Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari rejected the plea filed by Secretary of the Gareeb Nawaz Masjid Committee, Mohammad Anees and a local resident of Barabanki, Mohd. Naeem seeking quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) registered against them by the Uttar Pradesh Police.

The FIR in question was registered against them & news portal, The Wire and its two journalists, who are associated with the Portal for their report on the alleged Gareeb Nawaz Mosque illegal demolition (Ramsanehighat, Barabanki) issue in Uttar Pradesh. The Court said that it would remain open for the petitioners to file a pre-arrest bail in the matter and that Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings.

15."No Act Committed To Convert Victim's Religion": Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man In Jail For 8 Months Under UP 'Love Jihad' Law

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday granted bail to a man booked for unlawfully converting the religion of a 19-year-old girl noting that no act was committed towards the conversion of her religion.

The Bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava was hearing the criminal appeal of one Arif challenging the bail rejection order passed against him by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saharanpur.

16."Nothing Convincing Argued On Behalf Of State": Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Booked Under UP 'Love Jihad' Law (Motilal @ Motiram v. State of U.P. and Another)

The High Court granted bail to a man booked under UP Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, popularly known as the 'Love Jihad' law of Uttar Pradesh, noting that nothing convincing had been argued on behalf of the complainant & State to deny him bail. The Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I was hearing the bail plea of Appellant/Accused Motiram who was booked under Sections - 342, 366, 384, 506 I.P.C. & 3/5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance & 67A I.T. Act.

The High Court stayed an order passed by the Uttar Pradesh Police transferring an investigation into an 'Anti-Love Jihad Law' matter [U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020] to Karnataka Police and called for a response from the State Government.

The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav was hearing the plea of a lady, Umme Kulsum, who sought quashing of an order passed by the Police Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow transferring the investigation in a case registered under UP Anti-Love Jihad Law, among others, to the Commissioner of Police, Banglore City.

The High Court granted bail to one Javed Alam who has been accused of establishing physical relations with the victim on the false promise of marriage while noting that he is willing to marry the victim if she converts her religions. The Bench of Justice Alok Mathur was hearing the bail plea of Alam against whom an FIR has been lodged by the father of the victim woman alleging that he had put a condition on her that she should convert her religion and only then he will marry her and therefore, FIR was registered under Section 376 IPC

The High Court granted bail to one, Mohammad Rashid Khan, who has been booked for 'propagating' the concept of Islamic State and instigating people to instigate the persons to indulge in violence and other anti-national activities. The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh granted him bail looking into the nature of the accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court (Lucknow Bench) directed Uttar Pradesh Government authorities to take immediate steps for change of name and gender of a Transgender in her educational mark-sheets and certificates.

The Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary also ordered the issuance of fresh changed mark sheets and certificates to her, as per the certificate issued by the District Magistrate to the petitioner.

The Allahabad High Court recently stayed the arrest of a man who has been booked under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and under various sections of IPC for cremating the dead body of his mother in a Muslim graveyard which is recorded in the revenue record as a Waqf property.

The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Saroj Yadav was hearing the plea filed by one Mohd. Aslam seeking quashing of the FIR filed against him under Sections 353, 447,34, 504 IPC and under Section 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

Directions For Advocates/Bar Councils/Associations/Delays

A Single Judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising of Justice Rekha Dikshit on Monday expressed dissatisfaction on the acts of counsels seeking unnecessary adjournments ultimately affecting the justice-dispensation system in the judiciary.

"We are constrained to say the virus of seeking adjournment has to be controlled." The Court observed while hearing a petition seeking direction on the Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad to decide a pending case of 2018 under Sec. 12 of the Domestic Violence Act.

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on Monday made it clear that going for pilgrimage is no ground to seek adjournment in a court of law.

In response to a request made at the Bar for adjourning a Bail application on the ground that all the counsels have gone for pilgrimage, a Single Bench of Justice DK Singh observed,

"This Court does not take cognizance of the people going for pilgrimage."

A Single Bench comprising of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed that the rule of delay and laches, as a policy of litigative repose, creates certainty in legal relations and curtails fruitless litigation thereby ensuring that the administration of justice is not clogged by pointless litigation.

The observation was made while dismissing a writ petition filed after a delay of more than 4 years, by observing it to be barred by the rule of delay and laches, without there being any satisfactory explanation as to the delay.

The Allahabad High Court on Friday declined to hear an advocate appearing in a matter as he was riding a scooter while appearing before the Court through Video Conferencing mode.

The Allahabad High Court has directed the office bearers of the Bar Associations of the High Court to advise their members, not to adopt any casual approach while appearing before this Court through virtual mode which may cause hurdles in the administration of justice.

The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus on Wednesday while observing that, an advocate, appearing on behalf of one of the parties through VC Mode, appeared wearing a colored shirt and has not shown any remorse despite his conduct was objected.

To this, the Court said:

"Off late this court, other High Courts, even the Supreme Court had witnessed various incidents, where many advocates adopted very casual approach while appearing through virtual mode and appeared wearing vest, tee shirt or coloured shirt, in puja attire, while driving scooter, while taking a leisurely walk, sitting inside a stationed vehicle, from market places, places with noisy surrounding, places with unpleasant backgrounds, keep talking on phone or not paying attention to the court though video and audio tab remained on, even an advocate appeared lounging on the bed and a lady advocate with face pack on."

The Allahabad High Court yesterday termed the act of the lawyer as 'unacceptable' who was trying to dress himself up while the Court was dictating the Order in a bail application.

Listing the matter as fresh on July 26, the Bench of Justice Samit Gopal said:

"Learned counsel appearing for the applicant is not in proper uniform as per the modalities of functioning of the Court. He is trying to dress up, when the order is being dictated. This is not acceptable."

In yet another incident of Lawyer appearing before the Court in a 'discourteous manner', the Allahabad High Court yesterday reprimanded a Lawyer who appeared through VC mode accompanied by another person who was visible on screen, "bare body and without a shirt"

The Bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh observed that it is the responsibility of a Lawyer to ensure that there is no such incident where people inappropriately dressed appear in the virtual room from where the solemn Court proceedings are being conducted.

8."No Real Threat; Seeking Security To Flaunt His VIP Status": Allahabad HC Dismisses Lawyer's Plea Seeking Personal Security (Smt Aalia v. State of U.P)

The High Court dismissed his plea challenging State Government's order refusing to provide him personal security.

The Bench of Justice D. K Singh was hearing the plea of a practicing lawyer of District Lucknow who claimed that due to the nature of work being performed by him, he receives continuous threats to his life and property and thus he should be provided with personal security. The bench observed that the lawyer-petitioner was seeking security as an authority of symbol to flaunt his status a VIP with no real threat in existence.

9.State Law Officers Should Get Reasonable Time To Prepare Cases To Assist Court: Allahabad High Court Directs Formation Of Guidelines [Soib v. State of U.P.]

The Allahabad High Court expressed its shock over the way in which the bail applications are opposed by the State Law Officers before it, and thus called for the formation of certain guidelines so that they get reasonable time to prepare the case in order to give proper assistance to the Court.

The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery was informed by the AGA that due to paucity of time, the State Law Officers are unable to go through the entire file/case diary and are not able to assist the Court properly as that they receive files only at about 10'0 Clock in the Court on the day when the case is listed.

To this, the Court observed thus:

"The State of Uttar Pradesh is the biggest litigant before this Court. The Court is informed that at about 1,000 bail applications are listed in a day before different Benches of this Court. Therefore, it is apparent that in the absence of proper assistance, the rights of either of the parties are likely to be affected adversely. Therefore, it is imperative to pass certain directions to streamline the functioning of State Law Officer."

10."Lawyers Charge Professional Fee & Then Abstain From Work": Allahabad HC Refuses To Direct Time Bound Disposal Of A Case [Prafull Kumar v. State Of U.P And Another]

"Lawyers cannot take the working of the Court for granted as on one hand, obviously, the lawyers must have charged their professional fee and thereafter, they are abstaining from work and on the other hand, they are seeking a direction to the Court concerned to decide the case within a specific period," observed Allahabad High Court today while dismissing a plea seeking time-bound disposal of a case.

The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla was hearing a writ petition filed by one Prafull Kumar seeking a direction to the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad to decide an Appeal within a specific period as fixed by the Court.

Also Read: Need To Develop A Mechanism To Hear Cases Despite Lawyers Being On Strike So That Litigants Don't Suffer: Allahabad HC

Train Junior Counsels Regarding Their Demeanor Before The Court: Allahabad High Court To Bar Associations

Lawyer Present In Court Sends Illness Slip Seeking Adjournment: Allahabad HC Directs To Inform Bar Association About Members' 'Unfair Practice'

Time To Take Cognizance Of 'Meaningless Litigation' Generated Due To Lawyers Abstaining From Work: Allahabad High Court

11.Collusion In Bail Hearing Through Forged Vakalatnama : Allahabad High Court Deplores 'Downfall In Moral Values' Of Advocacy [Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

In a bail hearing before the Allahabad High Court, it was revealed that the advocates appearing on behalf of the accused and the complainant were acting in collusion, wherein the counsel for the complainant had filed forged vakalatnama at the directions of the counsel for the accused. The counsel for the accused had 'arranged' a forged vakalatnama and engaged a lawyer to represent the accused to record no-objection to grant bail.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh noted that the said action by long-standing counsels is highly deplorable, attacking the sanctity of the profession and the institution. As a remedial measure, the Court noted that a self-attested copy of any identity proof (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the person's mobile number should also be filed along with the Vakalatnama.

12.When Advocates Indulge In Unruly Behaviour, It Poorly Reflects On Institution's Image: Allahabad HC Reschedules Awadh Bar Assn Elections []

Emphasizing that when Advocates indulge themselves in unruly, indecent and undemocratic behaviour, it poorly reflects on image of the Institution, the Allahabad High Court today delivered its Judgment in the suo motu case relating to the Election of Awadh Bar Association and has fixed the date of the elections on September 25.

Canceling the entire election process which was held, amid the ruckus, on August 14, the bench of Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has now framed guidelines for conducting the election on September 25.

13.Allahabad HC Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost On Lawyer For Unauthorisedly Filing Plea On Behalf Of Absconding IPS Officer & Misleading Court [Dr. Mukut Nath Verma v. Union Of India]

The High Court imposed Rs. 5 lakh costs on an Advocate, Dr. Mukut Nath Verma after concluding that he unauthorisedly filed a writ petition on behalf of Suspended and Absconding IPS Officer Mani Lal Patidar and also levelled serious allegations against state authorities, and thereby misleading the Court. The Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Piyush Agrawal also asked the Bar Council of Delhi to take appropriate action against the advocate in accordance with the law.

Also Read: Allahabad HC Seeks UP Bar Council's Reply On Procedure To Deal With Complaints Against Lawyers Practising With Forged degrees

14.Allahabad High Court Frames Contempt Charges Against Lawyer Who Called Judges 'Goondas' And Created Ruckus In Court [Re: Asok Pande…Alleged contemnor]

The High Court witnessed unfortunate scenes when one Asok Pande, a practicing lawyer, came to the Court room in a civil dress with an unbuttoned shirt and used abusive language against the judges and said that the Judges were behaving like 'goondas' Thereafter, initiating a Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings against him, the Bench of Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, prima facie, found him guilty of committing ex facie contempt of Court.

15.Names Of Senior Advocates Shouldn't Be Mentioned In The Cause List: Allahabad High Court Directs Registry

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday directed its registry to not mention the name of the Senior Advocates in the Cause lists.

The Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal was hearing a criminal revision plea, when G.S. Chauhan, counsel for the revisionist submitted that arguing counsel in the matter, Anil Srivastava had been designated as a senior Advocate.

16.Advocates Requiring Firearm Licence For Safety A Dangerous Practice, Not In Noble Profession's Interest: Allahabad High Court [Ram Milan v. State of U.P. and Others]

While dealing with a lawyer's plea challenging the firearm licence authority's decision to reject his application, the Court observed that a general trend to have a firearm licence by an Advocate without any good reason is not appreciable and it is not in the interest of the noble profession of Advocate.

The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery further opined that if an Advocate requires a firearm licence for his personal and professional safety, it would be a very dangerous practice.

Also Read: "Didn't Impersonate Himself As Lawyer": Allahabad HC Stays Arrest Of Law Intern Who Stood In For His Senior Before Tribunal

17."Can't Sit & Watch Lawyers' Unruly Behaviour": Allahabad High Court Orders Enquiry Into Lucknow District Court Violence Incident [Piyush Shrivastava (In Person) & Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. & Ors]]

Stressing that the court can't sit and watch the unprofessional and unruly behavior of the lawyers as a mute spectator, the High Court ordered an inquiry into the violent behavior of the lawyers outside the Lucknow District Court campus on October 30. The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed and Justice Rakesh Srivastava also observed that the Court is duty bound to ensure that the citizens do not face any difficulty in accessing justice.

18."Pending Contempt References Against Advocates Demoralize Judicial Officers": Allahabad High Court Bats For Their Expeditious Disposal [ Piyush Shrivastava (In Person) & Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. & Ors.]

"Pending (Contempt) references (against Advocates) tend to demoralize the Judicial Officers, who are supposed to work fearlessly, and the erring lawyers continue to indulge in their notorious activities including misbehavior with the Judges working at the district level," the Allahabad High Court on Monday observed as it called for expeditious disposal of such references.

The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed and Justice Rakesh Srivastava observed thus while dealing with a case related to the violent behavior of the lawyers outside the Lucknow District Court campus that took place on October 30.

Service matters

1.Allahabad High Court Reiterates That Married Daughters Are Eligible For Compassionate Appointment; No Amendment In Statute Book Required [Manjul Srivastava v. State of UP & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court has made it clear that marital status of a daughter alone cannot be the ground for rejecting her application for compassionate appointment in terms of the UP Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

A Single Bench of Justice JJ Munir pointed out that a Division bench of the High Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of UP & Ors., Writ C No. 60881/2015, has already held that exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of expression, 'family' in Rule 2(c) of the 1974 Rules is unconstitutional. It also struck down the word 'unmarried' in Rule 2(c) (iii) of the said Rules, as being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

2.Employees Of District Rural Development Agency Not Govt Employees But Rules For Compassionate Appointment Are Applicable To Them: Allahabad High Court [FB] [Kalyani Mehrotra v. State of UP & Ors.]

A Full Bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha, Chandra Dhari Singh and Manish Mathur held that the provisions of compassionate appointment as contained under the UP Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in 36 Harness Rules, 1974 are applicable upon employees of the District Rural Development Agency.

It held thus in view of paragraph 2(9) of the Government Order dated March 17, 1994, which provides that in respect of matters of employment of DRDA employees, for which there is no specific provision in the said Government Order, such employees would ordinarily be governed by provisions as are applicable upon employees of the State Government.

3.Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Suspension Of Covid Positive Employee; Says Suspension Order Can't Be Passed During Pendency Of Preliminary Inquiry [Gaurav Bansal v. State of UP & Ors.]

A Single Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar quashed an order passed by the concerned authorities of UP Government, suspending the services of one Gaurav Bansal who failed to resume office after completion of his casual leave period, on account of contracting Covid-19.

The suspension order has been set aside on the ground that the preliminary inquiry into the Petitioner's conduct is still pending.

4.Dismissal Order Passed Solely On Ground Of Maintaining Live-In Relationship Outside Marriage- Allahabad HC Directs Reinstatement To Service

The High Court reinstated a man back into his service by setting aside a dismissal order passed against him solely on the ground that he was maintaining a live in relationship outside his marriage.

Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed the order while dealing with a petition challenging the order dated 31st January 2020 by way of which the petitioner was dismissed from service.

The petitioner had also challenged orders dismissing the appeal and revision thereof of the said dismissal order. It was thus the case of the petitioner that the impugned dismissal order was passed against him solely on the ground that he was maintaining a relationship with a woman despite being in a valid marriage and that he was living with her as a husband.

5."Appointment Secured By Forging Caste Certificate": Allahabad High Court Upholds Termination Of Govt Teacher's Services [Munni Rani v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education & Ors]

The Court upheld the order of the District Basic Education Officer terminating the services of a woman Government Teacher who was found to have forged and fabricated a caste certificate for securing her appointment.

Observing that in her application, a woman Government Teacher had mentioned her caste to be 'Ansari', but she had submitted the caste certificate of her belonging to Scheduled Caste category while securing an appointment, the Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh upheld her termination order.

Judiciary related

1.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.

2.'District Judiciary Should Restrain From Passing Orders That May Bring Disrepute': Allahabad High Court Stays FIR Against CMO Running Covid Vaccination Service [Dr. Hargovind Singh v. State of UP & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Justices Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajit Singh stayed an FIR lodged against a Chief Medical Officer, who is running vaccination services, at the instance of a Judicial Officer, for allegedly issuing a false medical certificate.

It urged all the judges of the District Courts throughout the State of to be "more careful" and restrain themselves from passing such orders which may bring disrepute to the judicial system in the State more particularly during the ongoing period of pandemic.

The Division Bench found the Trial Court's action to be perverse on two counts: (i) The Trial Judge, without any basis, declared the medical report to be false; (ii) The Trial Judge's insistence on personal appearance of the MLA was in teeth of High Court's advisory in view of the pandemic.

3.Plea Praying That No Case Of Petitioner Be Listed Before A Particular Judge: Allahabad High Court Dismisses It With 20K Cost [Arun Mishra v. Allahabad High Court]

A Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Anil Kumar Ojha dismissed a plea with 20,000/- cost in which the petitioner had prayed that no case filed by him be listed before a Court comprising a particular Judge. It observed that the prayer made by the petitioner was completely misconceived.

The Court noted that the petition had been filed with a 'strange prayer' by impleading the High Court as a party respondent. The prayer was that certain writ petitions be listed before a Court not comprising a particular Judge. "It is well settled that the master of the roster is The Chief Justice. It is the prerogative of The Chief Justice as to before which Judge or Judges the matter is to be listed," the Court said.

4.Non-Availability Of A Judge At Headquarters Seriously Invades Citizen's Liberty: Allahabad High Court

Expressing its displeasure over the non-availability of Judgeship at the Aligarh District Court to hear the matters, the High Court entertained a bail plea filed by an applicant who approached the High Court in the first instance.

Noting that the Bail plea could not be filed before the lower court in Aligarh District as it was closed due to COVID, the Bench of Non-Availability remarked that however adverse the circumstances, the doors of justice ought not to become totally inaccessible.

5."No 'Printed Proforma' While Passing Judicial Orders": Allahabad High Court Asks District Judges In UP To Inform Judicial Officers [Pankaj Jaiswal v. State of UP & Anr.]

A Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed directed the Registrar General to issue a circular/ memorandum to all the District Judges in the State of Uttar Pradesh intimating them to inform all the Judicial Officer not to use "Printed Proforma" in passing the Judicial Orders.

The Court directed thus while observing that the conduct of the judicial officers in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable and deserves to be deprecated.

Also Read: Place Affidavits/Applications On Record Within 72 Hours Of Their Receipt: Allahabad High Court Asks Registry To Issue Circular

6.A UP Town Without Some Courtrooms Since 2012: Allahabad High Court Directs UP Govt & HC To Construct & Start Same Within 6 Months [Shahjad Ali Ansari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law & Others]

Noting that the question of opening of Courts at Lalganj Town in the Pratapgarh district has been lingering on, the Allahabad High Court recently directed the Uttar Pradesh Government and High Court administration to ensure that the Courts start functioning within 6 months.

The Bench of Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also directed the respondents to ensure that construction work of the Court-rooms is completed within the time prescribed above and officers, including assisting staff, are posted so that the judicial work does not suffer.

7.High Court Can't Refer Legal Issues To Supreme Court Either For Its Guidance Or Indulgence: Allahabad High Court (Sanjiv Gupta v. State Of U.P. And Anr.)

The High Court observed that there is no provision under any law for the High Court to refer legal issues to the Supreme Court either for its guidance or for any kind of indulgence. The Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal was hearing a criminal revision seeking relief that the matter be sent the case to the Supreme Court of India for appropriate action.

8.Allahabad High Court Berates Its Registry For Not Listing Pleas Challenging Uttar Pradesh 'Anti Love Jihad' Law As Scheduled [Saurabh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another]

The High Court berated its registry for not listing two pleas challenging the Uttar Pradesh 'Anti-Love' Jihad [U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act] which were scheduled to be heard today.

The Court castigated the registry while hearing a plea filed by one Saurabh Kumar, challenging the law when the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Piyush Agrawal noted that two other pleas, filed earlier on similar lines, were not listed as scheduled.

9.Passing Of Adverse Orders No Basis To Infer Personal Bias Of A Judge: Allahabad High Court Dismisses A Transfer Plea [Neha Bhardawaj v. Pankaj Bhardwaj]

The Court observed that adverse orders are no basis to infer the personal bias of a Judge. The Court further noted that if this ground were to be permitted for allowing a transfer plea, the wheels of justice would come to a standstill.

The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir observed thus while dismissing a plea seeking transfer of a Hindu Marriage Petition from the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad to some other court.

10."Inaction Being Defended By Lame Excuses": Allahabad HC 'Dissatisfied' With UP Govt On 'Serious' Issues Related To Courts Functioning In UP [In Re v. Zila Adhivakta Sangh Allahabad]

In a strongly worded order, the Court expressed its dissatisfaction over the manner in which the officers of the State are progressing on the serious issues pertaining to the functioning of the Courts in the State of U.P.

A Seven-judge bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Justice Pritinker Diwaker, Justice Naheed Ara Moonis, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Sunita Agarwal, Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani, and Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta was hearing a suo moto case pertaining to the functioning of Courts in Uttar Pradesh.

11.Allahabad HC Imposes 21K Fine On District Judge For Rejecting Resignation Of A Court Clerk Who Joined Indian Railways [Khoob Singh v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And 2 Others]

The High Court imposed a fine of Rs 21,000/- on a District Judge, who rejected the resignation of a court clerk as his resignation was not preceded by a three months' notice. On account of his failure to give a three months' notice under Rule 4 of the Government Service Rules, 2000, he was also subjected to a disciplinary inquiry.

Observing that subjecting him to a disciplinary inquiry would amount to mental harassment, the Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar imposed the fine on the District Judge of Jalaun Suneet Kumar and also directed him to accept the employee's resignation.

12.How Long Will It Take To Provide Security, Biometric & CCTV Camera Arrangements Across All Judgeships: Allahabad HC Asks UP Govt

The High Court asked the Uttar Pradesh Government as to how long would it take to provide the arrangements with regard to security, biometric, and CCTV cameras in respect of all the Judgeships in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Essentially, the query was raised by the Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Samit Gopal in a suo moto PIL titled In Re Suo Moto Relating To Security And Protection In All Court Campuses In The State Of U.P., initiated after the incident of open firing in Bijnor district court.

13.[S. 66A IT Act] Police Can't Lodge FIR, Courts Can't Take Cognizance Of Chargesheet: Allahabad HC Directs DGP, UP Courts [Harsh Kadam @ Hitendra Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home And Anr.]

The Court issued a direction to all the District Courts in Uttar Pradesh and to the Director-General of Police, U.P that no FIR be lodged under Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 and no court to take cognizance on the charge sheet filed under the said section.

The order came from the Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan as it noted that Section 66A of the IT Act, 2008 has already been struck down by the Apex court in the case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 1.

Motor Accident/Compensation

1.Where Motor Accident Caused Trauma To Claimant's Heirs And There Is Nexus Between Accident And Death, Heirs Entitled to Compensation: Allahabad HC [(Deceased) Satish Chand Sharma & Ors. v. Manoj & Anr.]

In an appeal from a motor accident claim, a Division Bench of Justices Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajit Singh underscored the importance of ensuring the claimant(s) received the compensation they were entitled to in the event of a dispute between the owner of the vehicle that caused the accident and the insurer.

To this end, it emphasised that even the heirs of the claimant, once their status as heirs was established, would be entitled to claim compensation due to the original claimant. Relying on Surpal Singh Ladhubha Gohil v Raliyatbahen Mohanbhai Savlia it was stated,

"The facts go to show that the claimant was under the constant treatment of doctors till the claimant survived therefore, it can safely be held that the accident caused lot of trauma both to the claimant as well his heirs. There is nexus between the death of the deceased and accidental injury. There is sufficient evidence to the effect that death of the deceased was due to development which took place due to resultant multiple injuries caused by the accident which would show that injuries were the root cause of the death. Therefore, heirs are entitled to compensation."

Cases on Police Brutality/Atrocity

1.Police Raid - "Abusing, Misbehaving With Kins With Intent To Outrage Woman's Modesty Can't Be Justified": Allahabad High Court

The Court observed that there could be no justification for Police in abusing, misbehaving, and assaulting the family members and outraging the modesty of the woman during a raid.

The Bench of Justice Abdul Moin observed thus in a case, wherein it was alleged by a man (Shujaat Ullah) seeking pre-arrest bail that the police personnel had abused, misbehaved, and assaulted the family member of the applicant with intent to outrage the modesty of the applicant's wife and had also destroyed the household articles.

2."Sorry State Of Affairs & Police Atrocities": Allahabad HC Seeks DGP's Personal Affidavit On Alleged Attack On Ex-Army Man By UP Police

Dealing with a plea filed by an ex-soldier of the Indian Army alleging that he was humiliated and brutally tortured by the Uttar Pradesh Police, the High Court, after taking into account the injury reports and FIR filed by him, observed: "...prima facie, (it) shows a very sorry state of affairs and police atrocities...It, prima facie, indicates a breach of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by the accused police officers/ police personnel."

Stressing that the matter is serious and requires serious consideration of the Court, the Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Gautam Chowdhary directed the State DGP to file a counter affidavit by means of his personal affidavit, indicating the action taken in the matter.

3."Custodial Deaths A Concern For Civilized Society": Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Cop Booked For Mercilessly Assaulting Man In Custody [Sher Ali v. State of U.P]

"Custodial violence, custodial torture and custodial deaths have always been a concern for civilized society," observed Allahabad High Court today as it denied bail to a policeman who has been booked for causing custodial death of a man in the year 1997.

Denying him bail, the Bench of Justice Samit Gopal further noted that the judicial verdicts of the Apex Court and other Courts have shown their concern and anguish in such matters.

4.Custodial Death Of 24-Yr-Old Man- "Prima Facie IPS Rank Officials Involved In Murder/Death": Allahabad High Court Transfers Probe To CBI (Ajay Kumar Yadav Respondent:- State of U.P. and Another)

The High Court transferred a probe into the alleged custodial death of a 24-year-old man to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as it prima facie found that officers of the I.P.S. rank have some involvement in the murder/death of the deceased.

The Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Piyush Agrawal transferred the probe while underscoring that if the investigation is neither effective nor purposeful nor objective nor fair, the courts may, if considered necessary, order fair investigation, further investigation or reinvestigation as the case may be to discover the truth so as to prevent miscarriage of justice.

5."Harassment Of Common Man By Public Authorities Socially Abhorring": Allahabad HC Orders Fair Probe In Ex-Army Man Torture Case [Resham Singh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others]

The High Court ordered a fair investigation, immediate action in the case of an ex-soldier of the Indian Army, who had alleged that he was humiliated and brutally tortured by the Uttar Pradesh Police in May this year. He was allegedly forcefully taken to a Police Station, where he was disrobed and then tied up on a cot and brutally beaten up by the police officials for two continuous hours using "Dandas".

The Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Piyush Agrawal underscored that the harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible and that it may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous.

Also Read: Jaunpur Custodial Death- Allahabad HC Finds Fault With CBI's Probe, Chides It For Failure To Arrest Accused Police Officers

Cases on Economic Offences

1.Act Against 'Hardened Criminals' Who Cheat In Name Of Lucky Draw, Reward & Loan: Allahabad HC Asks DGP To Issue Circular [Kuldeep v. State of U.P.]

The Allahabad High Court last week called out the Uttar Pradesh Police to take widespread action to book 'hardened criminals' who call up citizens and make them cough up money by offering alluring schemes for the provision of loans or TV show rewards or lottery bonanzas.

The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir directed the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow to immediately issue circulars to the District Police Heads to come down heavily on such cheats and frauds and bring them to book.

2.Economic Offenders Have Huge Proceeds Of Crime, May Use It To Affect Probe, Win Over Witnesses: Allahabad HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused [Pankaj Grover v. Directorate of Enforcement]

The High Court recently rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by the erstwhile sleeping Director of M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt. Ltd who was accused in the National Rural Health Mission Scheme Scam. The Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, while rejecting the application filed under Section 438 CrPC noted that a criminal of economic offences has a larger amount of proceed of crime, which he may use and affect the investigation and win over witnesses.

3.Online Fraud : How To Make Banks & Police Accountable? Allahabad HC Asks Union, State & RBI [Neeraj Mandal @ Rakesh v. State of U.P]

Expressing concern over the spreading nationwide network of cyber thugs, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday observed that cyber thugs are eating up the entire country like termites and are responsible for the weakening of the economic condition in the country.

The Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav further observed that it was necessary to fix the accountability in such matters so that the money of the people, who have been victims of cyber fraud, is not lost.

NI Act Related Case

1.138 NI Act- High Court Can Nullify An Order Of Conviction Even After The Revisional Stage On the Basis Of Settlement Between Parties: Allahabad HC [Rishi Mohan Srivastava v. State Of UP]

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that High Court can nullify an order of conviction passed by it in a Criminal Revision in a Cheque bouncing case, by using the power under Section 482 CrPC noticing subsequent compromise of the case by the contesting parties. The Court has permitted the compounding of an offence committed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act while hearing a petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.

"Merely because the litigation has reached to a revisional stage or that even beyond that stage, the nature and character of the offence would not change automatically and it would be wrong to hold that at revisional stage, the nature of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act should be treated as if the same is falling under table-II of Section 320 IPC", said the Court.

2.Complaint U/S 138 NI Act- "Accused Can Be Summoned Even On The Basis Of Affidavit Filed By Complainant": Allahabad HC [Virendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another]

The High Court observed that in a cheque bounce case for insufficient funds (Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act), even on the basis of affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant, an accused can be summoned by the Court.

The Bench of Justice Sameer Jain further held that in such cases, there is no need for the Magistrate to record statements of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and that there won't be any illegality if the accused is summoned on the basis of an affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant.

Environment/Pollution related cases

1.Ganga Is Nation's Lifeline But Is One Of The Most Polluted Rivers In The World, Imperative To Revive, Make It Pollution Free: Allahabad HC [M/S Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director v. U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow Thru. General Manager & Ors.]

Referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's statement after getting elected from Varanasi Parliamentary seat in May, 2014 in which he said that it is his destiny to serve Maa Ganga, the High Court observed that every effort should be made to revive the river and make it pollution-free.

The Bench of Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also traced River Ganga's history to Hindu Mythology and noted that the future of the nation to a large extent will be depending on health and well-being of the river.

2.Despite Good Intention Of State & Central Govts To Keep It Clean, River Ganga Is Still Polluted: Allahabad High Court (Mahant Madhu Mangal Sharan Daas Shukla v. Union Of India And 11 Ors)

The High Court observed that despite the good intention of the State government as well as Central Government to keep Ganga clean, and diversion of huge amount for this purpose, the polluted water still exists.

The Bench Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Anil Kumar Ojha was hearing a plea seeking to highlight the problem of sewerage and trade effluent flowing into the Ganga river.

Also read: Discharge Of Sewage Water Into Ganga & Yamuna Rivers: Allahabad HC Forms Committee, Orders Testing Of Samples In IITs

3.NCR Pollution: Allahabad HC Issues Contempt Notice To DMs Of Two UP Districts Over Failure To Shut Down Brick Kilns [Sohanveer v. Shri Chandra Prakash Singh]

The High Court issued a contempt notice against the District Magistrates of two districts of Uttar Pradesh, Gautam Budh Nagar and Bulandshahr in relation to non-compliance with the Court's order to shut down all brick kilns in the NCR to control pollution.

The Bench of Justice Abdul Moin issued notice to Chandra Prakash Singh, District Magistrate Bulandshahr and Suhas Lalinakere Yathiraj, District Magistrate Gautam Budh Nagar over their failure to shut down all brick kilns in their respective districts.

Education/Students related cases

1.Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Student On Internship Accused Of Violating COVID Vaccine Clinical Trial Rules [Sudhakar Yadav v. State of UP]

A Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav granted Bail to a student who has been accused of violating the COVID Vaccine clinical trial rules and involved in administering vaccines allegedly without having the required documents/papers/permission. The Applicant had filed his bail plea in a case under Sections 420 IPC and Section 15(2), 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act.

2.Don't Deploy Teachers For Non-Educational Purposes In Teeth Of RTE Act: Allahabad High Court Directs UP Govt. To Issue Directions

The High Court asked the Uttar Pradesh Government authorities to instruct the concerned District Magistrates and District Basic Education Officer of different districts that Teachers shall not be assigned work in teeth of the RTE Act [Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009]. Justice Vivek Chaudhary was hearing the plea filed by 3 primary teachers who submitted that authorities of State and Parishad are appointing them as Booth Level Officer and that various other works were being assigned to them which are not required to be performed by teachers.

3.Running Hostel By Charitable Institution Engaged In Imparting Education Not Separate Business Activity, Eligible For IT Exemption : Allahabad HC

A division bench comprising of Justice Deepak Verma and Justice Sunita Agarwal held that the activity of running hostel by a charitable institution engaged in the business of imparting education is not a seperate business activity and as such the surplus income cannot be treated as profit or gains arising out of a seperate business or commercial activity.

It observed, "Having held that the activity of running the hostel is not a separate business activity and surplus income from the hostel fee cannot be treated as profit and gains of a separate business or commercial activity of the trust, it is held that the exemption under Section 11(1) of the Act cannot be disallowed to the assessee."

4.Explain The Purpose Of Forming Separate Panel of Lawyers When CSC Available: Allahabad High Court Summons DG, Basic Education (Sanjay Sinha v. State of UP & Anr.)

Calling it "strange", the Justice Saral Srivastava sought the response of the Director-General, Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow on his decision to form a separate panel of lawyers, even when the department is being represented by the Chief Standing Counsel. The Court was hearing a petition filed by one Sanjay Singh, challenging his suspension from the post of Secretary Board of Basic Education.

Summoning the Director-General, Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow to explain as to under which provision of law he has formed a separate panel from the office of Chief Standing Counsel, the Court also directed him to file a personal affidavit and explain the purpose of forming a separate panel from the panel of Standing Counsel formed by the State Government.

5.Allahabad HC Asks University To Provide Sports Quota For LLM Course By Referring To India's 'Exceptional' Performance In Olympic [Juhi Dubey v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others]

Referring to the exceptional performance of Indian Squad in Olympic-2020, the Allahabad High Court on Thursday directed the Registrar, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur to consider providing sports quota for the LL.M. Course offered by it.

The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery was hearing the plea of one Juhi Dubey, a University and State Level Cricketer, who was not granted the benefit of sports quota for admission in LL.M., i.e., the Post Graduate Course on the ground that no such quota exists.

6.Stop 'Fraudulent' Practice Of Recovering Late Fee Imposed On Colleges By Universities From Students: Allahabad HC Directs UP Govt [Ram Avatar Kalyani Devi Kanya Mahavidyalay Thru Manager &Ors]

The High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to take appropriate steps to stop the fraudulent practice being adopted by the colleges of recovering, late fees, penalties imposed upon them by the universities, from their students. The Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary pointed towards the fraud being played by a large number of colleges by recovering late fees and penalties from their students even though the same is imposed by the Universities upon the colleges, and not on the students.

7.RTE Act- Can Teachers Be Given Election Duties Before Poll Notification Is Out?: Allahabad HC Refers Question To Larger Bench [Chandani Devi & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.]

In view of Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, the High Court recently referred the question regarding allotment of election duties (before or after the issuance of election notification) to teachers on teaching days/during teaching hours to a larger bench. The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir referred the question to the larger bench in view of the fact that there are contrary judgments of the Allahabad High Court on the issue.

8.Transparency Must In Management Of Educational Institutions Run By Charitable, Religious Organizations: Allahabad High Court [Bishoph Subodh C. Mondal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.]

While dealing with a plea that alleged that the affairs of the Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow are wholly mismanaged, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that the affairs of the educational institutions, particularly, run by the charitable/religious organizations, such as the church and the society, should be conducted in a proper and transparent manner.

Essentially, the Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh was dealing with a plea filed by Bishop Subodh C. Mondal wherein it was alleged that the Properties of the church/society have been sold off by the persons, who have been/are at the hem of the affairs of the society.

It was also submitted that there are a number of litigations, which are pending before the Deputy Registrar, Chits, Firms and Societies, Civil Court, and the High Court regarding mismanagement of affairs of the society (Lucknow Christian College).

Suo Moto/PIL/Letter Plea Cases

1.Allahabad HC Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of Noise Pollution By Modified Silencers Specifically On 'Bullets' (Suo moto (PIL) v. State of UP & Ors.)

Comparing the menace of noise pollution with the legend of Hydra, the High Court today took suo moto cognizance of Noise pollution generated through modified silencers specifically Bullet Bikes and the other two wheelers.

Justice Abdul Moin observed that the problem of noise pollution is like the hydra where anyone who attempted to behead the Hydra found that as soon as one head was cut off, two more heads would emerge from the fresh wound, so much so that the destruction of the Hydra became one of the 12 Labours of Hercules.

2.Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea By Lawyer Seeking Home Delivery of Liquor [Gopal Krishna Pandey v. State of U.P. & Anr.]

A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma dismissed a PIL which sought a direction to the State for framing necessary policy for home delivery of liquor. It noted that the petitioner did not cite reasons like avoiding overcrowding rather it relied on argument of increase in revenue of the State.

"Petitioner has shown its concern to increase the revenue of the State and other aspect which includes purchase of liquor even by those who may be shy in making purchase from the shop. The reasons given is not to avoid overcrowding or to maintain social distancing to follow the Covid-19 protocol rather it is for different reasons then observed by the Apex Court", said the Bench.

3.Minor Girl Allegedly Dies By Suicide In Govt Shelter Home: Allahabad High Court Seeks Details On Letter Plea Seeking CBI probe [Swadesh & Prayag Legal Aid Clinic & Ors v. State Of UP & Ors.]

A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV sought details from the Uttar Pradesh Government of death of a 17-year-old minor while she was in a Nari Niketan in Prayagraj district, a government shelter home for women. It was dealing with a letter petition seeking CBI probe into this matter, and the same has now been registered as a public interest litigation petition.

The letter petition by Swadesh & Prayag legal Aid Clinic society and 4 other filed through Advocate Gaurav, had brought to the notice of the court the alleged custodial death of the minor girl. The Nari Niketan has claimed that the Girl committed suicide on August 7, 2021 by hanging herself at Nari Niketan.

4.Lawyers' 'Unruly Behaviour' During Awadh Bar Association Election: Allahabad High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance [In Re: Unruly behaviour and breach of protocol during Awadh Bar Association Elections' 2021]

The High Court took suo motu cognizance of the unruly behavior of the lawyers during the election of Awadh Bar Association which was scheduled for August 14. The Bench of Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh called upon Senior Registrar to submit his report with respect to security and unlawful activities, which had taken place inside the premises of the High Court during the election.

Cases That Were In News

1.Allahabad High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Dr. Kafeel Khan Over Anti-CAA Speech At AMU [Dr. Kafeel Khan v. State of UP & Anr.]

In a huge relief to Dr. Kafeel Khan, Justice Gautam Chaudhary quashed the entire criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR & pending against him over his speech given about CAA and NRC at a protest meeting at Aligarh Muslim University in December 2019.

"…Before taking cognizance of the offense under IPC, prior prosecution sanction has not been taken by the Central Government or the State Government or the District Magistrate and the learned Magistrate did not properly comply with the relevant provisions while passing the order of cognizance," the Court said.

Also Read: Allahabad HC Stays Dr. Kafeel's 2nd Suspension Order Based On Allegations Of Forcibly Treating Patient, Criticizing Govt. Policy

2.Hathras Gang Rape Case : Allahabad High Court Refuses To Stay/Transfer Ongoing Trial [Suo-Moto Inre: Right To Decent & Dignified Last Rites]

A Bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh and Justice Rajan Roy refused to stay/transfer the criminal trial proceedings in the Hathras Gang Rape case pending before the Special Court (SC/ST Act), Hathras. It further said that the requisite security which was ordered by the Court to ensure non-disruption of the trial by any person and for facilitating a free and fair trial, will continue to be in place.

3.Cow Should Be Declared National Animal; Cow Protection Be Made Fundamental Right Of Hindus : Allahabad High Court (Javed v. State of Uttar Pradesh)

Observing that cow should be declared as national animal and cow protection should be kept as a fundamental right of Hindus the High Court denied bail to one Javed who has been accused of slaughtering a cow. "We know that when a country's culture and its faith gets hurt, the country becomes weak," noted the Court.

Denying him bail, the Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav noted that the applicant had, after committing theft of the cow, had killed it, beheaded it and its meat was also kept along with it.

Also Read: Scientists Believe Cow Is The Only Animal That Inhales & Exhales Oxygen; No Fundamental Right To Eat Cow-Beef : Allahabad High Court

4.Gyanvapi Mosque Dispute: Allahabad High Court Stays Varanasi Court's ASI Survey Order & Other Proceedings (U.P Sunni Central Waqf Board vs. Ancient Idol Of Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar And 5 Others)

The High Court stayed the Suit, including the Varanasi lower court order in the Gyanvapi-Kashi land dispute case, wherein it had directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a survey of the Mosque complex.

The Bench of Justice Prakash Padia today observed that the Varanasi court should not have proceeded and decided the application filed for survey by Archaeological Survey of India in view of the fact that the verdict in the petitions were pending before the High Court.

5."Affairs Of Private Temple": Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Against Razing Of Temples Within 'Maa Vindhyawasini Devi' Premises

The Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Petition seeking a direction to the Uttar Pradesh Government and other authorities to prevent razing of certain temples within the campus of Maa Vindhyawasini Devi Temple, Vindhyachal in District Mirzapur of Uttar Pradesh.

In the PIL, a direction from the Court was sought not to damage/demolish certain temples within the campus of Maa Vindhyavasini Devi Temple.

6.Hathras Gang Rape Case: Allahabad HC Seeks Details Of Scheme For Relief & Rehabilitation Of Atrocity Victims Under SC/ST Act [Suo-Moto Inre: Right To Decent & Dignified Last Rites/Cremation]

The High Court asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to specify details of the Scheme as envisaged under Sub Section 11 of Section 15-A of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Rule 14 of The SC/ST Rules, 1995. This particular subsection makes it the duty of the concerned State to specify an appropriate scheme to ensure the implementation of certain rights and entitlements of victims and witnesses in accessing justice.

7.Who Will Police The Police?' Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To 2 UP Cops In Bikru Encounter Conspiracy Case [Vinay Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

The High Court denied bail to two UP Police officials, SO Vinay Kumar Tiwari & Beat Officer Krishna Kumar Sharma, who are facing conspiring charges in connection with the ambush in Bikru village on July 3, 2020, in which eight policemen were gunned down by Gangster Vikas Dubey. The Court started with the famous statement made by Justice VR Krishna Iyer "Who will police the police" 40 years ago in a judgment.

8.Trend Of Political Parties Welcoming Gangsters, Giving Them Election Tickets Needs To Be Stopped: Allahabad High Court [Vinay Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

Expressing concerns over the trend of welcoming, giving election tickets to the Gangsters/Criminal by the Political parties, the High Court observed that if this practice isn't stopped, such criminals and gangsters would become "Bhasmasur" and will give a serious dent to the country and democratic setup.

The Bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava made these observations as it denied bail to two UP Police officials, SO Vinay Kumar Tiwari & Beat Officer Krishna Kumar Sharma, who are facing conspiring charges in connection with the ambush in Bikru village on July 3, 2020, in which eight policemen were gunned down by Gangster Vikas Dubey.

9.Bikru Encounter- "Dare Devil Manner Of Incident Leaves Much To Be Said": Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Gangster Vikas Dubey's Maid [Smt. Rekha Agnihotri v. State of U.P]

The High Court denied bail to the maid of Slain Gangster Vikas Dubey, Rekha Agnihotri for allegedly aiding and instigating her husband and other accused persons in the killing of eight policemen in Kanpur's infamous Bikru encounter last year. She allegedly instigated Vikas Dubey's men to do the policemen to death and she is stated to have been atop a house adjoining Vikas Dubey's, during the entire course of the brutal assault.

10. Gareeb Nawaz Masjid Demolition- Allahabad HC Seeks UP Govt Response On Plea For Quashing Of FIR Over 'The Wire' Report

The High Court sought the reply of the Uttar Pradesh Government on a plea filed by 2 Journalists [Seraj Ali and Mukul Singh Chauhan] and the news portal 'The Wire' seeking quashing of FIR registered against them for their report on Gareeb Nawaz Masjid Demolition. The FIR in question was registered against them for their report on the alleged Gareeb Nawaz Mosque illegal demolition (Ramsanehighat, Barabanki) issue in Uttar Pradesh under Sections 153, 153-A, 505(1)(b), 120-B, 34 IPC.

11.Ram Janmabhoomi Road Widening: Allahabad HC Grants Liberty To Affected Shopkeepers To Approach DM For Rehab/Compensation [Kaushalya Devi & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors]

The High Court disposed of a plea filed by shopkeepers seeking rehabilitation/accommodation and compensation for loss of their shops/business due to the proposed Ram Janmabhoomi Road Widening project, by granting them the liberty to approach District Magistrate, Ayodhya with their grievance.

It was contended in the plea filed by the shopkeepers that the proposed construction of a new road from the main road to Sri Ram Janma Bhoomi via Shringar Hat Hanuman Gadhi would cause them commercial hardship.

12.Kashi Vishwanath Temple: Plea In Allahabad High Court Challenges 'Sugam Darshan' Calling It 'System Of Collecting Money'

A PIL plea has been moved in the Allahabad High Court challenging the 'Sugam Darshan' system in the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Banaras, UP, which provides for 'VIP' (Very Important Person) mode of 'darshan' on payment of some amount.

The plea has been moved by one Gajendra Singh Yadav, a law student averring that this system allows any person to become 'VIP' on payment of some amount and thereby discriminates against similarly situated people with not so much money.

13.Respecting Constitutional Dignitaries Including President, PM Is Citizens' 'Bounden Duty': Allahabad HC Grants Bail In PM's 'Objectionable' Pic Case [Mohd. Afaaq Kuraisi v. State of U.P.]

Stressing that it is the bounden duty of every citizen of the country to respect all the Constitutional dignitaries including the President and Prime Minster of 'this great nation', the High Court granted bail to one Mohd. Afaaq Kuraisi booked for posting objectionable image of Prime Minister, Narendra Modi on a WhatsApp group.

Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan also observed that it is to be known to one and all that the Prime Minster of this country or any Constitutional dignitary could not be confined to a particular class or religion as he is representing each and every citizen of this country.

Also Read: Allahabad HC Temporarily Stays Transfer Of A Radio Inspector Accused Of Posting Objectionable Material Against UP CM On WhatsApp

14."UCC Is Long Due; Can't Be Made Voluntary": Allahabad HC Calls Upon Central Govt To Implement The Mandate Of Article 44

Dealing with a batch of petitions (17 in number), pertaining to an interfaith marriage contracted by the petitioners and seeking protection from the Court, the High Court called upon the Central Government to implement the mandate of Article 44 of the Constitution of India [Uniform Civil Code]. The Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar observed that the issue of UCC, though Constitutional, rakes political overturns whenever raised or debated in the public domain and called for its implementation in the wake of a multiplicity of marriage and family laws in place.

15.Mirzapur Web-Series: Allahabad High Court Quashes FIR Against Makers, Directors & Writers

The High Court quashed the First Information Report (FIR) registered against Web Series Mirzapur's producers Farhan Akhtar and Ritesh Sidhwani in a case registered against them alleging that the series showed Uttar Pradesh in a "bad light".

A Bench of Justice MC Tripathi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also quashed the FIR against 'Mirzapur Series' Directors and Writers namely Karan Anshuman, Gurmeet Singh, Puneet Krishna, and Vineet Krishna.

16.'Brutal Murder' Of Journalist Vikram Joshi: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea Of The Lone Accused [Sahnoor @ Chhotu v. State of U.P.]

The Court recently denied bail to the lone accused in the Journalist Vikram Joshi Murder case. Joshi was shot in the head, in front of his two minor daughters in July 2020 in Uttar Pradesh's Ghaziabad district.

Denying him bail, the Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi noted that the facts and circumstances of the case showed the involvement of the applicant alone in committing the brutal murder of Joshi, a journalist.

17.Allahabad HC Praises PM Modi's COVID Vaccine Campaign, Urges Him To Postpone Polls In View Of Omicron Threat

The Allahabad High Court today urged the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi to postpone the upcoming elections in view of the rising threat of Omiron. The Court also praised the efforts of PM Modi for taking up the campaign of providing Free Corona vaccination to the people of the country.

The Bench of Justice Shekhar Yadav, who was dealing with a bail order, also urged the Election Commission to immediately issue direction to stop political parties from organizing political rallies, meetings etc.

NDPS Cases

1.Confession To NDPS Officer Inadmissible : Allahabad HC Grants Bail In Case Of 628 Kg Ganja [Rajveer Singh v. Union of India]

The High Court granted bail to a man booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) in a case involving the alleged recovery of 628 Kilograms of Ganja. The Court noted that the case against the accused was based only upon the statement given by the co-accused implicating him and also upon a statement given by the accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh granted bail to the accused

2.NDPS Case- 'False Implication' Is A Stereo Typed Defence Of Accused Who Are Found In Possession Of Contraband: Allahabad HC [Shridam Adhikari v. Union of India through Directorate of Revenue Intelligence]

Referring to the cases registered under the NDPS Act in general, the High Court observed that the plea of 'false implication' is a stereotyped defence, which is raised in every case where the accused are found in possession of contraband. This assertion came from the bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh while dealing with the bail pleas of 4 NDPS Act accused booked under section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for possessing 650.740 kgs of Ganja.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Arrested For Allegedly Possessing 349 Kilogram Of Ganja

Next Story