Rajasthan High Court: Important Orders/Judgments Of 2021

As the end of year 2021 is nearing, LiveLaw brings to you a bunch of important Cases from the Rajasthan High Court. This digest includes 48 important orders and judgments, spread across 11 different headsWomen/Children Centric Cases 1. In Digital Era, Employees Working In Different States To Be Treated As 'One Work Place' For Purposes Of Sexual Harassment At Workplace: Rajasthan High Court [Sanjeev Mishra v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.] A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma made it clear that in the digital age, posting of the Complainant in a different state from the accused would not be a barrier in prosecuting the latter for sexual harassment at workplace. "In the present digital world, work place for employees working in the Bank and who have earlier worked in the same Branch and later on shifted to different branches which may be situated in different States has to be treated completely as one work place on a digital platform," the Court observed. 2. Install Smart Television Screens & Make Available Recorded Education Courses In Shelter Homes For Ladies/Children: Rajasthan High Court To State [Sangeeta v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] The Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kachhawaha directed the State Government to ensure that smart television screens are installed in all Balika Gruhs, Children Observation Homes & Nari Niketans and pre-recorded courses of education department can be provided so as to impart education to the ladies/children housed in these institutions. The direction was made taking into account the suggestions made by Amicus Curiae Dr. Nupur Bhati. She suggested the Court that smart television screens may be provided in each institution on which Pre-recorded courses of the Education Department can be played according to the age group of the ladies housed in the Institutions. 3. Rajasthan High Court Upholds Single Judge Decision Granting Maternity Leave To Woman Who Gave Birth Prior To Joining Service [State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Neeraj] Upholding the decision of the Single Judge, a Division Bench of the Court has affirmed that a female government servant was entitled to avail maternity leave if she joins within the period of confinement i.e. 15 days before to three months after the birth of child, irrespective of the fact that the child was born prior to the date of joining or before issuance of appointment in service. A Division Bench of Justices Vinit Kumar Mathur and Indrajit Mahanty rejected the argument of Additional Advocate General Pankaj Sharma that the respondent-mother was not a Government Servant at the time of delivery of the child, and therefore, would not be covered under Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Criminal Law Cases 1. Gold Smuggling With Intent To Threaten Economic Security Of Country A 'Terrorist Act' Under UAPA : Rajasthan High Court [Mohammed Aslam v. Union Of India & Anr.] A single bench of Justice Satish Kumar Sharma observed that the offence of gold smuggling with the intent to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security of the country covered under the definition of 'terrorist act' under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967(UAPA). The Court said that such an activity will come under Section 15(I)(iiia) of the Act. Section 15(I)(iiia) of UAPA mentions activities with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security of the country causing "damage to, the monetary stability of India by way of production or smuggling or circulation of high quality counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of any other material". 2. Complainant Not Entitled To Hearing In Bails Plea Under Juvenile Justice Act: Rajasthan High Court The High Court (Jodhpur Bench) has ruled that it is not obligated to provide the complainant with an opportunity of hearing while adjudicating upon a bail application of a juvenile accused under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that a holistic reading of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act indicate that the legislation does not direct the Courts to hear the complainant either at the trial stage, the appellate stage, or the revision stage, while adjudicating upon an application for bail of a juvenile accused who falls within the definition of a "child alleged to be in conflict with law" (CICL). 3. Rajasthan High Court Directs State Govt To Conduct Training Of Principal Magistrates In JJ Boards For Sensitizing Them With JJ Act The Jodhpur Bench has directed Child Rights Department of the State Government to ensure that a training programme is conducted for Principal Magistrates posted in Juvenile Justice Boards in order to sensitize them with the mandate of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. A division bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Garg and Justice Sandeep Mehta also directed Mr. Govind Beniwal, a child rights activist, to...

Rajasthan High Court: Important Orders/Judgments Of 2021

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags