Chhattisgarh And Jharkhand High Courts: 50 Important Judgments Of 2021

As we step into the year 2022, LiveLaw brings to you a bunch of important decisions from the Chhattisgarh & Jharkhand High Courts of 2021. This digest includes 50 important orders and judgments.Chhattisgarh High Court 1. When A Man Marries A Woman Knowing Fully That She Was Not Legally Divorced From Her Earlier Marriage Can't Plead Invalidity Of Marriage In 125 Proceedings: Chhattisgarh HC [Teras Dongare v. Avinash Dongare] A Single Bench of Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant held that a man, who marries a woman knowing fully well that her earlier marriage has not ended in a valid divorce, is estopped from raising plea of invalidity of marriage in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC. The observation was made in a revision filed against the order passed by a Family Court, denying maintenance to the Applicant-wife on the ground that she has not obtained a valid divorce from her first husband and hence, she is not a legally wedded wife of the Respondent (second husband). 2. Chhattisgarh High Court Rejects Challenge Against Civil Judge (Entry Level) Exam, 2020 [Prafull Kumar Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.] A Single Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy dismissed a batch of 52 writ petitions challenging the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examination, 2020 conducted by the State Public Service Commission. It returned a finding that the alleged procedural lapses in conducting the exam could not be said to have had a prejudicial effect on the candidates. The Bench further opined that merely because 9 questions were deleted from the final answer key does not mean that the interest of students is affected. It held that deletion of questions and distribution of marks to all candidates on pro rata basis will not vitiate the examination. 3. Phone Tapping Violates Article 21 Unless Permitted By Procedure Established By Law: Chhattisgarh High Court [Toman Lal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.] Setting aside a dismissal order passed against a constable and a head constable who allegedly wanted to favour the criminal and the phone conversation to that effect was recorded, a Bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri observed that telephone tapping would infract Article 21 of the constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law. The Court categorically observed that in PUCL v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 568, the Supreme Court had issued certain directions/ guidelines for telephone tapping as otherwise, it had held that it would offend Articles 19(1)(a) & 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Participation In Political Campaign By Members Of Child Welfare Committee Not Misuse Of Power Under JJ Act: Chhattisgarh High Court [Madhu Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.] A Single Bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri held that merely because a person, who is a member of a Child Welfare Committee, participates in an election campaign in favour of a candidate, does not mean that such person has indulged in "misuse of power" conferred under by the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 5. Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes FIRs Against BJP Leaders Sambit Patra, Tajinder Bagga For Alleged Defamation Of Congress [Dr. Sambit Patra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.] A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal quashed the FIRs registered against BJP National Spokesperson Dr. Sambit Patra and Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga. The FIRs against Sambit Patra was lodged after a complaint about his tweet about Congress Party and for making derogatory remarks against Congress party and its leaders. FIR against Bagga was in relation to complaint about making defamatory statement in Twitter against former PMs Jawaharlal Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi. Two FIRs were lodged against Patra, one under Sections 499, 500, 501 & 505(1) of the IPC and another under Sections 298, 153A & 505(2) of the IPC. FIR against Bagga was under Sections 153A, 505 of the IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 6. 'Need Concerted Action By All Stakeholders': Chhattisgarh High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance On COVID Medical Needs [Suo Moto PIL v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.] A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice PR Ramachandra Menon and Justice Parth Prateem Sahu took suo moto cognizance of the tsunamic second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic and the inadequacy in medical infrastructure to tackle the same. It asked the State authorities about the plight of plight of patients, who were reportedly administered Oxygen support while they were lying on the hospital floor due to shortage of beds. It has also directed the State Government to file a proper requisition through the Nodal Officer of the State to the Nodal Officer of the Railways forthwith, for allotment of the Special Medical Coaches based on the SOP issued by the Health Ministry last year. 7. COVID-19- "Take Prudent Step To Ensure No Patient...

Chhattisgarh And Jharkhand High Courts: 50 Important Judgments Of 2021

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags