Important Decisions Of Orissa High Court In 2022

The year 2022 has come to an end. The preceding 365 days were quite significant for the Orissa High Court in terms of the jurisprudence it developed on manifold aspects of law, starting from important questions touching upon constitutional provisions to several facets of criminal, civil, election and family laws. Live Law has reported as many as 167 judgments and orders delivered by the court over the year. Here are some of the important decisions rendered by the court.Orissa High Court Upholds Validity Of Odisha Universities (Amendment) Act, 2020Case Title: Kunja Bihari Panda & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 7The Court while upholding the constitutional validity of the Odisha Universities (Amendment) Act, 2020 held that in the absence of legislation by the central government under Entry 25 List III, the subordinate legislation under Entry 66 List I will have to yield to the plenary jurisdiction of the State Government under List III Entry 25 of the seventh schedule. While dismissing the petition, a Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice A.K. Mohapatra further held that mere recantation of the expression ‘manifest arbitrariness’ to assail the validity of the OUA Act will not satisfy the high threshold that the said expression requires. The arbitrariness must be ‘demonstrable’ and the petitioners failed to persuade the Court about the ‘manifest arbitrariness’ of the impugned provisions of the OUA Act. Right Of Accused To Recall Witness U/S 311 CrPC Can't Always Be Denied In Lieu Of Prosecutrix's Right U/S 33(5) POCSO Act: Orissa High CourtCase Title: Pidika Sambaru v. State of Odisha & Anr.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 21A Single Judge Bench of Justice S.K. Panigrahi ruled that the right of an accused to recall witnesses under Section 311 CrPC cannot be denied only because there exists a right of prosecutrix under Section 33(5) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO Act"). The said provision requires the Special Court to ensure that the child (prosecutrix) is not called repeatedly to testify in the court. While allowing the revision petition, it was held that the provisions of Section 33 laid down a general principle which must guide the trial Court and is similar to Section 309 Cr.P.C, being in the nature of laws to ensure speedy trial. However, by virtue of Sections 4 and 5 of Cr.P.C, Section 311 Cr.P.C shall prevail as no specific procedure is provided under POCSO Act for recall of a witness. Section 42A of POCSO Act clarifies that the Act is not in derogation of any other Law.Bar U/S 362 CrPC Is Not Absolute; Court Has Inherent Jurisdiction To Recall Order For Securing The Ends Of Justice: Orissa High CourtCase Title: Siba Bisoi & Ors. v. State of OdishaCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 30The High Court held that bar under Section 362, Cr.P.C. is not absolute and the same cannot be strictly applied to 'recall of orders' which are obtained through playing fraud upon the Court. While recalling an order which was obtained through misrepresentation of dates, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held,"The position that emerges from a reference to the case laws noted above is that the bar under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. is not absolute and in any case, does not apply in case of recall of the order. There is no dispute that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised if any of the three conditions exist, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, to prevent abuse of the process of Court or to secure the ends of justice."COVID-19 Deaths | Orissa High Court Directs The State To Pay Compensation For Negligence By State-Run Medical FacilityCase Title: Gyanadutta Chouhan v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of OdishaCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 34In a significant decision, the High Court held liable a State-run medical facility, i.e. Veer Surendra Sai Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (VIMSAR), for medical negligence which caused death of two COVID-19 patients. While issuing directions for payment of ex-gratia and compensation to the victims and their kins, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice R.K. Pattanik observed,“The Court in the present instance is dealing with violation of the right to health of the victims guaranteed and protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. After the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, 1989 AIR 2039 and Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37, no person can be denied adequate standard of medical care in Government health institutions. The excuse of lack of resources was never accepted by the Supreme Court of India."Accordingly, the Court proceeded on to direct the following:On or before 15th April 2022, the State shall pay Rs.50,000/- as ex gratia amount to the...

Important Decisions Of Orissa High Court In 2022

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags