first_imgNews UpdatesHigh Courts Weekly Roundup [Feb 15 – Feb 21] Akshita Saxena21 Feb 2021 4:48 AMShare This – xSummation of important Judgments/orders this weekAllahabad High Court 1. ‘Life & Its Consumption Includes Necessary Hygiene & Sanitation’: Allahabad High Court In Plea For Construction Of Ladies’ Toilets In Police Stations [Anjali Pandey & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.] “Life and its consumption includes necessary hygiene and sanitation. In absence of adequate facilities to meet essential human requirements, life…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginAllahabad High Court 1. ‘Life & Its Consumption Includes Necessary Hygiene & Sanitation’: Allahabad High Court In Plea For Construction Of Ladies’ Toilets In Police Stations [Anjali Pandey & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.] “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 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. It has granted 5 days’ time to the State to apprise the Court about the immediate steps being taken to meet the urgent requirement of having toilets at different police stations, with complete hygiene. The matter is listed for hearing on February 22, 2021. 2. 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 UP] “It is unfortunate that the properties of religious and charitable institutions are being usurped by criminals,” a Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said while dismissing a 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. 3. 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.] A Division Bench comprising of Justices Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Shamim Ahmed 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. It therefore 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. 4. Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Upper Age Limit For UP Higher Judicial Services [Munendra Singh v. Allahabad High Court & Anr.] A Division Bench comprising of Justices Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Rohit Ranjan Agarwal dismissed a petition challenging the age criteria stipulated in an advertisement calling for applications to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services. It refused to interfere with the advertisement on noting that the same is in consonance to Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975. Rule 12 states: “A candidate for direct recruitment must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years on the first day of January next following the year in which the notice inviting applications is published; Provided that the upper age limit shall be higher by three years in case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and such other categories as may be notified by the Government from time to time.” Other developments: ‘Within What Period The Existing Vacancies In Revenue Courts Would Be Filled Up’: Allahabad High Court Asks UP GovtMirzapur Series: Allahabad High Court Stays Arrest Of Directors & Writers Of The Series Bombay High Court 1. Prosecutor Cites Sec 164 Statement Of Witness To Allege That Partho Dasgupta Was Aware Of TRP Manipulation During hearing of bail application moved by then BARC CEO Partho Dasgupta in connection with the TRP Scam case, the Public Prosecutor cited the statement of a witness, Perkham Basu (former employee with BARC) that the organisation received several complaints against Republic TV alleging that the channel used dubious methods to get number 1 viewership, but Dasgupta did not pay any heed. The employee further said that during her time as Deputy General Manager of BARC she noticed that Dasgupta was actually involved in TRP manipulation “so that a channel can make profits through advertisements.” 2. FIR Against Sushant Singh Rajput’s Sisters : Prima Facie Case Against Priyanka Singh; No Case Against Meetu Singh, Says Bombay High Court [Priyanka Singh & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.] A bench comprising Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik observed that there was a prima facie case found against Priyanka Singh, the sister of late Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput, in the FIR lodged against her at the instance of Rhea Chakraborty alleging criminal conspiracy and abetment to suicide of Sushant Singh. The Court has however quashed the proceedings against another sister of Sushant, Meetu Singh, who was also named as an accused in the FIR. The Court said that the FIR will survive as regards Priyanka Singh and Dr Tarun Kumar of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital Delhi, on whose prescription the medicines were allegedly procured for Sushant by Priyanka Singh. Also Read: Strained Relations Between Rhea Chakraborty & Sushant’s Sisters Not A Ground To Quash FIR Against Priyanka Singh : Bombay High Court 3. Bombay High Court Grants Three Weeks Transit Bail To Nikita Jacob In Greta Thunberg-Farmers Protest Tool Kit Case A single bench of Justice PD Naik granted three weeks’ transit anticipatory bail to Mumbai-based Advocate Nikita Jacob, who is faced with a non-bailable warrant issued by the Tis Hazari Court, in Delhi, in connection with the farmers’ protest “tool kit” case. The bench observed that since the police officers has searched her house, seized her laptop and phone and recorded her statement, it means Jacob has made herself available for investigation. Also Read: Activist Shantanu Muluk Granted 10 Days Transit Bail By Bombay High Court In Toolkit Case 4. Bombay High Court Issues Notice On Perarivalan’s Plea For Information On Early Release Of Sanjay Dutt A division bench of Justices KK Tated and RI Chagla issued notice to the State Information Commission on a petition filed by a convict in former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, seeking details related to the early release of actor Sanjay Dutt, who was convicted in the 1993 Bombay serial bomb blasts case. Perarivalan was sentenced to death, in 1998, for having provided two 9-volt batteries, which were used in the bomb that killed former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. He was 19-years-old at the time of his arrest. The Supreme Court commuted his sentence to life imprisonment, in 2014, citing an inordinate delay of 11 years in deciding his mercy plea. He approached the Bombay High Court last year, after all his attempts to procure document’s related to Dutt’s release under the Right to Information Act failed. His counsel, Nilesh Ukey informed the bench that his client was in “grave need” of the documents pertaining to Dutt’s release, to help him in his case, however, Maharashtra’s prison department was not ready to part with the relevant information. Other developments: TRP Scam : Mumbai Police Cites Need To Further Question Partho Dasgupta Following Arnab Chat Leaks; Bombay HC Reserves Order On Bail PleaWife’s Habit Of Chewing Tobacco Not Sufficient To Grant A Decree Of Divorce: Bombay High CourtMaking Unfounded Allegations/Complaints Against Spouse With A View To Affect His/Her Job Amounts To Causing Mental Cruelty: Bombay High CourtFight With Husband, Anger, Covid Pandemic, No Ground To Allow Withdrawal Of Councillor’s Resignation :Bombay High Court Calcutta High Court 1. Take Immediate Steps To Set Up Grievance Redressal Forum In Compliance Of S. 11 Of The Transgender Act Of 2019: Calcutta High Court To Govt. [Pallabi Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal & Ors.] The Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha directed the Chief Secretary of the West Bengal State to take immediate steps to set up a Grievance Redressal Forum and Mechanism in the State in terms of Section 11 of Transgender (Protection of Rights) Act of 2019. 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). Delhi High Court 1. Disha Ravi Toolkit Case : Delhi High Court Directs Police To Ensure Compliance With Affidavit, Ensure No Info Leakage To Media [Disha A. Ravi v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.] While hearing 21-year old climate activist Disha Ravi’s writ petition, the Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police to ensure that no leakage of information happens with regard to the investigation in the case registered in connection with the ‘toolkit’ over the farmers protests. A single bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the Delhi Police to follow the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Office Memorandum dated Apr 1, 2010 titled “Advisory on Media Policy of Police”, and to ensure compliance with their affidavit stating that there has not been and will not be any leakage from the Police’s end to the media on vital details of the case. The Delhi Police has also been directed to conduct press briefings in accordance with the law. Access full report to read OM guidelines 2. [Disha Ravi Tool Kit Case] Media Cannot Disseminate Information In Sensationalized Manner: Delhi HC To Channel Editors, Directs Disha Not To Malign Police [Disha A. Ravi v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.] A Bench of Justice Prathiba Singh held that the recent coverage of the Toolkit case definitely shows there is sensationalized reporting by the media. It thus directed editors of Times Now, India Today and News18 channel editors to ensure that proper editorial control is exercised while disseminating information to ensure investigation is not hampered. The observation was made while hearing the plea filed by Activist Disha Ravi seeking action against India Today, Times Now and News 18 for violative reporting in the Toolkit Case by allegedly running “one-sided” reports. The Bench expressed reservation as to the veracity of the media reports as it noted that the Delhi Police has categorically denied sharing of any information with media houses. “While a journalist cannot be asked to reveal their source, the same has to be authentic. The Delhi Police claims that it has not leaked anything whereas the media claims to the contrary,” the Court said in its order. It added, “While press briefings are held generally the media cannot disseminate the information in such a sensationalized manner.” 3. Delhi High Court Dismisses With Cost Plea Seeking Criminal Prosecution Of DG BSF Rakesh Asthana Under PC Act A single bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait dismissed with cost Chandigarh dentist Mohit Dhawan’s plea seeking prosecution of former Special Director CBI, and present DG BSF, Rakesh Asthana, under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act on allegations of extortion from the dentist. It noted that the various complaints referred to by Dhawan have already been closed. Before approaching the High Court, Dhawan had approached the Supreme Court seeking directions to the same effect, however, a Division Bench of Justice L Nageshwar Rao and Justice Ravindra Bhatt had dismissed his plea, as withdrawn, directing him to pursue other appropriate remedies under the law. 4. Delhi Riots- As Per CDR Details He Was Not Even In The Vicinity Of Violence Affected Area : Delhi HC Grants Bail To Riots Accused [Mohd. Danish v. State (NCT Of Delhi)] Noting that as per the CDR details of the petitioner, he was not even in the vicinity of the violence-affected area on the date of the incident, a Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait granted Regular Bail to a Cab Driver named Mohd. Danish. 5. Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Pinjra Tod Activists, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal’s Appeal Against Bail Rejection A Division Bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup J Bhambhani issued notice on and sought response from the Delhi Police in an appeal by Pinjra Tod activists, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, against the rejection of their bail application in relation to the Delhi riots case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967. In January, the Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat, Karkardooma Court had refused to grant bail to Kalita and Narwal after opining that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against them were prima face true. 6. Delhi High Court Relies On Ravish Kumar’s NDTV Video While Granting Bail To 3 Riots Accused [Junaid v. State] A video shown by journalist Ravish Kumar during a prime time show in NDTV news channel came to the rescue of three persons who were jailed in a Delhi riots case. The Delhi High Court relied on the Ravish Kumar’s video while observing that “there is no evidence whatsoever, either direct or circumstantial or forensic”, against three persons – Junaid, Chand Mohammed and Irshad- who were accused of killing one Shahid during the Delhi riots of February 2020. The petitioners were under custody since April 1, 2020. Also Read: Delhi Riots: Hard To Believe A Communal Riot Used To Cause Death Of Person Of Their Own Community: Delhi HC Grants Bail To 3 Men Arrested In Shahid Murder Case Other developments: Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Rape Accused Who Misled Court On Settlement Via Fake Affidavit Gujarat High Court 1. No Recovery Should Be Made At The Time Of Search/Inspection Under Any Circumstances: Gujarat High Court Directs GST Officials [M/S Bharat Acid & Chemicals, Proprietor Kanubhai Manilal Patel v. Union Of India] Following various complaints of coercive recovery by GST officials during the search operations, a Bench of Chief Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice IJ Vora directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs as well as the Chief Commissioner of Central/State Tax of the State of Gujarat, inter alia, to make no recovery in any mode at the time of search/inspection proceedings under Section 67 of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 under any circumstances. Access full report to read other directions 2. “Purity Of Election Process Irretrievably Sullied; SEC Can’t Be Silent Spectator”: Gujarat HC On Tearing of Congress Candidates’ Mandate Papers In Civic Polls [Sarifaben Isubbhai Mahetar v. State Election Commission] Underlining that the Election Commission is empowered to issue all necessary directions for the purpose of conducting smooth, free and fair elections, the High Court rapped the State Election Commission (SEC) over an “unruly incident”. A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ilesh J. Vora reminded the SEC of its power in a plea filed in connection with an unruly incident, wherein 32 Congress party Candidates’ mandate papers for municipality polls in Palitana town were allegedly torn in Bhavnagar district on the last day of filing nominations by “hooligans”. Jammu & Kashmir High Court 1. Jammu & Kashmir High Court Bans Constructions, Felling Of Trees In Gulmarg To ‘Preserve Its Glory’ [Mohammad Rafiq Zargar v. State of J&K & Ors.] While hearing a plea seeking restoration of prestige and pristine glory of a world-renowned tourist resort, viz. Gulmarg, a Bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul directed the authorities to make sure that no further construction is allowed within the earmarked area of Gulmarg tourist resort. Access full report to read other directions 2. Majority Of Village Population Affected By Hearing & Speech Impairment: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Seeks Action Taken Report [Court on its own Motion v. State of J&K & Ors.] A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Javed Iqbal Wani asked the Government about the steps it is taking to ameliorate the peculiar conditions of a village in Jammu, whose 80% population suffers from hearing and speech impairment. The Bench was also concerned about the social welfare of the affected population and it therefore directed the Government to file an affidavit indicating the proposed/ sanctioned (i) pensionary benefits and (ii) rehabilitation measures. 3. Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs FIR Over Online Loan Cheating Through Facebook [Vivek Sagar v. UT of J&K & Ors.] A Single Bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur allowed a criminal application seeking directions for registration of FIR in a case related to online fraudulent loan offer through Facebook. It noted that the Petitioner’s application under Section 156(3) CrPC was disposed of by the concerned Magistrate with prima facie finding that the facts disclose commission of a cognizable offence by the accused. However, the Magistrate fell short of issuing directions for registration of FIR. Other developments: Unfortunate That Some Ex-Ministers/Legislators/Officers, Etc., Are Unauthorizedly Staying In Govt. Residence: J&K High CourtConsider Establishing State Commission For Protection Of Child Rights In The UT Of Jammu & Kashmir: High Court To Govt. Jharkhand High Court 1. ‘Infructuous’- Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Re-Investigation Of Assault On Swami Agnivesh [Jai Malto & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.] A Single Bench of Justice Anand Sen dismissed a writ petition seeking reinvestigation of the case pertaining to assault on social activist late Swami Agnivesh, in Pakur District of the state, in the year 2018. It noted that the Petitioner had approached the Court with delay and now the matter is already pending before the Trial Court at Evidence stage. It observed, “If the investigation has not been done in proper manner and the informant is aggrieved by the said investigation, the informant should have protested the same at the time of filing of chargesheet. The petitioner has rushed to this Court by filing this criminal writ petition. Considering the fact that there is remedy available to the petitioner as the case is pending for leading evidences, I am not inclined to entertain this petition.” Karnataka High Court 1. Can Action Be Taken Against Advocates Who Passed Resolution To Not Represent Student Accused Of Sedition? Karnataka High Court Asks Bar Council A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum directed the Karnataka State Bar Council to inform the court on the next date of hearing whether action can be taken against advocates who are members of the Mysore City Advocates Multipurpose Cooperative Society, which had in January 2020, passed a resolution to stop members of the bar from representing Nalini Balakumar, a student who was accused of sedition for holding a ‘Free Kashmir’ placard during the anti-CAA protests at the Mysore University campus on January 8. Last year, Chief Justice Oka had slammed the Hubli Bar Association for passing a similar resolution to not represent four Kashmiri students accused of sedition. Following the rebuke from the bench, the Association withdrew the resolution. 2. Public Sector Banks Permitting Large Exposure Without Adequate Securities A Grave Concern; Revisit Lending Guidelines : Karnataka High Court [Dr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty v. Bureau Of Immigration] A single bench of Justice P S Dinesh Kumar dismissed the petition filed by founder of NMC Health, Dr Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty (B R Shetty) who has challenged the Lookout Circulars (LOCs) issued by Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank against him and the endorsement issued by Bureau of Immigration not permitting him to travel to Abu Dhabi. The Court said “It is no doubt true that a citizen of this Country has a right to travel. But I hasten to add that persons who take public money have a sacred duty to repay it too.” The court also noted that “Tangible assets, if any, mortgaged in favour of Banks and their valuation is not forthcoming. If Public Sector Banks are permitting such large exposure without adequate securities, it is a matter of great concern and it shall have serious adverse impact on the economy of this Country.” It suggested “It is time, the law makers and Reserve Bank of India re-visit the lending guidelines and the procedures and take necessary remedial measures to ensure that public money is well secured before disbursement.” 3. ‘We Hope Officers Will Show Sensitivity Towards Environmental Laws’ : Karnataka HC Allows NHAI To Withdraw Objectionable Affidavit On Costs The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) informed the Karnataka High Court that it has donated Rs 2.5 lakhs each to two organisations based in Dehradun and working in the field of Environmental as costs for filing a controversial affidavit saying that the Environment Protection Act was enacted at the instance of foreign powers. A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum accepted the compliance report filed by the authority and accordingly allowed withdrawal of the objectionable affidavit filed by it on January 4. The matter will be next heard on March 24. 4. Proposing To Bring Law To Regulate Online Gambling, Karnataka Govt Tells High Court [Sharada DR v. State of Karnataka & Anr.] The State Government informed the Karnataka High Court that it proposes to have a legislation for regulating online gambling and betting in the state. A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum granted six weeks’ time to the state government to file its statement of objections to a petition filed seeking to ban all forms of Online Gambling and Online Betting of any nature until unless an appropriate regulatory regime is established. 5. Citing SC Precedent, Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Case For Setting Up Bitcoin ATM [BV Harish v. State Of Karnataka.] A single-judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh quashed and set aside the criminal case registered against founders of Unocoin company for setting up a Bitcoin ATM in Bengaluru in the year 2018. While doing so, it cited the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Internet & Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India, (2020) 10 SCC 274 in which the apex court has set aside the circular with regard to prohibition of virtual currencies. 6. Object Of Child Vendors’ Survey To Ensure Their Right To Education; Not To Penalize Anyone : Karnataka High Court Observing that “the Object is not to penalise anybody but the object is to ensure that children who are forced to selling toys and other articles on the streets they must be imparted with education,” a Division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum directed the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority (KSLSA) to commence the data collection survey for identifying vulnerable children who are forced to sell toys, flowers etc on streets of Bengaluru. 7. No Online Liquor Sale Permissible When Excise Rules Do Not Allow It : Karnataka High Court [HIP Bar Pvt. Ltd v. State Of Karnataka] The ban on online sale of liquor will continue in the State of Karnataka as a division bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and V Srishananda dismissed an appeal filed by ‘HIP Bar Private Limited’ which challenged the order of the single judge bench which had refused to declare that the company can do business of Online Order processing and Delivery of Indian and Foreign Liquor including Beer, Wine and Low Alcoholic Beverages (“LAB”). The Bench said, “The licence issued under the Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder in no way authorizes any agent/intermediary to transport the liquor and under Rule 3 of the sale of Indian and Foreign liquor Rules, 1968 only CL-2 and CL -11(c) licensees are entitled to vend licence to public in retail. It is only a take away transaction in a sealed bottle for MRP from shop premises.” Other developments: Issue Directions To All Authorities To Stop Manual Scavenging : Karnataka High Court Directs State GovtObligation Of State To Constitute One Or More Juvenile Justice Boards In Every District : Karnataka High Court Issues DirectionsMaternity Benefits Cannot Be Denied To Contractual Employee : Karnataka High Court Directs Reinstatement Of Mother Kerala High Court 1. Gold Smuggling With A Mere Illegal Profit Motive Not A ‘Terrorist Act’ Under UAPA : Kerala High Court [Muhammed Shafi P v. NIA] While dismissing the appeals filed by the National Investigation Agency(NIA) against an order of the Special NIA Court at Kochi granting bail to ten persons who were accused in the diplomatic channel gold smuggling case, a division bench comprising Justices A Hariprasad and MR Anitha held that mere act of gold smuggling, which is covered under the Customs Act, will not amount to a “terrorist act” under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act unless the same is done with the intention to threaten the economic security of the nation. “…we are unable to hold that smuggling of gold simplicitor will fall within Section 15(1)(a) (iiia) of UA(P) Act. In other words, gold smuggling clearly covered by the provisions of the Customs Act will not fall within the definition of terrorist act in Section 15 of UA(P) Act unless evidence is brought out to show that it is done with the intent to threaten or it is likely to threaten the economic security or monetary stability of India”, the High Court observed 2. Kerala High Court Directs Govt To Take Decision On Bringing Online Gambling Under Kerala Gaming Act [Pauly Vadakkan v. State of Kerala & Ors.] A division bench comprising Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly directed the Kerala Government to take an appropriate decision on the aspect of inclusion of online gambling and online betting within the purview of the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960 – a legislation which bans gambling/betting – within a period of two weeks. The Court was considering a PIL filed by film director Pauly Vadakkan seeking action against web-portals promoting online rummy and similar gambling activities. The Court had earlier issued notice to Indian Cricket captain Virat Kohli, actors Tamanna Bhatia and Aju Varghese, who were brand ambassadors for online rummy portals. 3. Kerala High Court Quashes Ban On Compostable Plastic Carry Bags [Dr. Vasundhara Menon & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.] A Single Bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar quashed an order of the State Government, prohibiting the manufacture, stocking and sale of compostable plastic bags in the state. it noted that the impugned order was passed on a mere conjecture that non-compostable plastics are being passed off as compostable ones, without any cogent material or empirical data to back the same. It thus allowed a batch of petitions filed by various persons engaged in the business of compostable plastic, and held that the Government order is not legally sustainable. 4. Kerala High Court Orders CBI Investigation In Jesna Maria Missing Case [Abhijith KM & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.] A Single judge bench of Justice VG Arun ordered CBI investigation into the disappearance of Jesna Maria James, a second year B.Com student, from her home in Pathanamthitta district, nearly three years ago. The Court said, “I hope and wish that, with its forensic expertise and investigation skill, the CBI will be able to unravel the mystery and bring solace to Jesna’s family.” On 23rd March 2018, Jesna Maria James, a young girl of 20 years went missing from her house. According to her brother, Jesna was at home when he and his father left for work at about 7.00 a.m. But, when he returned by about 5.00 p.m in the evening, Jesna was not at home and did not reach back even by late night. Madras High Court 1. Implement State-Wide Liquor Prohibition ‘To Wipe Out Tears Of Women & Children’: Madras High Court Makes An Ardent Appeal To Govt. [M. Thaha Mohamed v. District Collector & Ors.] Underlining that the Court cannot lose sight of what is happening in the society due to drinking habits of the people, a Bench of Justices N. Kirubakaran and B. Pugalendhi made an ardent appeal to the government to implement state-wide liquor prohibition to wipe out the tears of women and children. “Though it is a difficult task, still every endeavor has to be made to discourage the people to drink and appeal to the Government to stop selling liquor”, it observed. 2. “Open To Petitioner To Switch Off TV “: Madras HC Disposes Of Plea Against Sanskrit News Telecast On Doordharsan [S. Muthukumar v. Government of India & Ors.] Noting that it is a matter for the Government to decide, a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice MM Sundresh disposed of a plea filed against Sanskrit news telecast on Doordharasan Podhigai Tamil Television Channel. It observed, “It is open to the petitioner to switch off the television and get some other form of entertainment during the period the Sanskrit news is read.” The Bench also noted that the Doordharsan channel has limited viewership and that the news read in Sanskrit hardly takes up a fraction of the entire day. 3. The Bar Must Discourage Their Clients From Raising Baseless Allegations Against The Judicial Officers: Madras High Court [A. Lakshmanan v. State] A Bench of Justice K. Murali Shankar observed that the bar must discourage their clients and the litigant from raising baseless allegations against the officers and they must desist from incorporating the same in the pleadings. The observation came in a revision petition filed alleging that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity to argue the case elaborately in physical mode 4. Madras High Court Rejects Karnan’s Defence Of ‘Severe Mental Depression’; Denies Bail In Abusive Videos Case [CS Karnan v. State] A Single Bench of Justice V. Bharathidasan refused to grant bail to CS Karnan, former High Court judge, in a case relating to uploading of abusive online videos. It rejected Karnan’s defence of mental instability and observed that the former Judge had made scathing remarks against Judicial institutions and the Judges with a predetermined mind, fully knowing the consequences of his actions. “A perusal of the transcribed text of all those video contents would clearly show that the petitioner made such abusive utterances consciously and with predetermined mind. Whenever the objectionable act of the petitioner was condemned by the well-reasoned persons, he used to react quickly and start abusing them in vulgar language,” the Bench held. 5. Merely Sitting On Hunger Strike Will Not Attract Offence Of Attempt To Suicide U/S 309 IPC: Madras High Court [P. Chandrakumar v. State & Anr.] A Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that merely going on a hunger strike will not attract the offence of ‘attempt to commit suicide’, which is punishable under Section 309 of IPC. The Supreme Court of India has observed in its ruling in the Ram Lila Maidan Incident case that a hunger strike is “a form of protest which has been accepted, both historically and legally in our constitutional jurisprudence.” 6. If Children Are Acquainted With Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw’s Life, It Would Inspire Them To Join Army & Serve The Nation: Madras High Court [Selvam v. Revenue Divisional Officer & Ors.] A Bench of Justice G. R. Swaminathan recently commemorated the martyrs who laid down their lives for the motherland at Pulwama and added, “If our children are acquainted with the life of Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, it would certainly inspire them to join the army and serve the nation.” The Bench added, “Awareness should be spread among the school going students in this regard. Motivation can come only by reading the lives of iconic figures.” Other developments: Special MP/MLA Benches To Only Hear Cases Against Them; Not Those Filed By Them, Orders Madras High Court’Infringement Of Right To Speedy Trial’: Madras High Court Directs Prosecution To Pay Rs. 1 Lakh CompensationMadras High Court Issues Notice To SII, DCGI, ICMR On Plea By Volunteer Alleging Side Effects After ‘Covishield’ TrialPlea Seeking Printing Of Nethaji Subash Chandra Bose’s Picture On Indian Currency Notes- “Consider The Request”: Madras HC To UOI Orissa High Court 1. Lawyer Not Wearing Neck-Band During Virtual Hearing: Orissa High Court Imposes Rs. 500 Fine To ‘Restore Dignity Of The Profession’ A Bench of Justice S. K. Panigrahi imposed Rs. 500 fine on an advocate who was not wearing a Neck Band while arguing before the Court in virtual mode. While imposing the penalty, the Court observed, “The profession is solemn in nature and its profundity is complemented by its attire. Being an Advocate, he is expected to appear before the Court in a dignified manner with proper dress, even if it is a virtual mode.” Punjab & Haryana High Court 1. While Declining Bail To Juvenile Take Into Account Social Investigation Report & Not Merely Police Report: P&H High Court Directs JJ Boards [X v. State of Punjab] A Bench of Justice Jaishree Thakur directed the Juvenile Justice Boards across the States of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory, Chandigarh decision to grant/ decline bail to a juvenile shall be founded on the basis of Social Investigation Report submitted by the Probation Officer and any other material available before the Board and not merely on the basis of records of the case and report filed under Section 173 CrPC of the investigation officer. It may be noted that as per Section 13 (1) (ii) of the JJ Act, 2015, the Probation Officer has to be informed as soon as the child is apprehended and to prepare a social investigation report. The JJ Board calls for a Social Investigation Report, which has been defined in Rule 2 (xvii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016. This report becomes vital for the inquiry to be done by the Board while passing such orders in relation to such child as it deems fit under sections 17and 18 of this Act. Other developments: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Govt Nod To Transfer Panchayat Land To Pvt DeveloperPunjab & Haryana High Court Imposes Cost On Runaway Couple For Manipulation Of Aadhar Card Details Rajasthan High Court 1. ‘Aashram’ Row: Rajasthan High Court Grants Protection Against Coercive Action To Filmmaker-Producer Prakash Jha [Prakash Tejnath Jha v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr.] A Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg granted Bollywood filmmaker Prakash Jha protection against coercive against in connection with an FIR registered against him, allegedly for hurting Dalit sentiments by the objectionable depiction of the community in his web series ‘Aashram’, and for commission of offences under Sections 3(1)(R)(S)(U) of SC/ST Act and Section 67 of I.T. Act. Telangana High Court 1. Telangana High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance Of Day Light Murder Of Lawyer Couple A Division Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of Telangana High Court took suo motu cognizance on the murder of a lawyer couple near Hyderabad on Wednesday. A lawyer couple from Telangana, who had earlier complained of harassment in connection to the public interest litigations filed by them, was murdered in broad daylight Advocates Gattu Vaman Rao and his wife PV Nagamani were returning to Hyderabad after attending a court case in Manthani, when their vehicle was intercepted and they were stabbed multiple times by some unidentified men. The couple was rushed to a nearby hospital where they succumbed to the injuries. The couple had filed a PIL against alleged custodial death of one Seelam Rangaiah in Manthani. In a letter addressed to the High Court Chief Justice, the couple had alleged that Rangaiah was brought to the Manthani Police Station and was kept under lock-up for four days. During this period, he was allegedly subjected to custodial torture. Subsequently, unable to bear the police atrocities, it was claimed that Mr. Rangaiah died in the lock-up under suspicious circumstances on 26.05.2020 at 4:00 a.m. Advocate Nagamani prayed before the Court to issue directions for registration of an FIR and also conduct a judicial enquiry into the death of Sheelam Rangaiah. In September 2020, the couple had moved an application before the Court, alleging that they are being threatened by the Police Department.Next Storylast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *