text:
Review: Supreme Court directs states not to reject claims for compensation of COVID-19 deaths on technical grounds
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 26, 2022
In this roundup of Court Judgements, we look at the Supreme Court’s observations & directions on the rejection of claims for compensation of COVID-19 deaths on technical grounds, courts being concerned with the decision-making process, and not the decision itself, daughter’s entitlement in the inheritance of the self-acquired property or that obtained through family inheritance when a Hindu father dies without a will.
SC: Directs States to not reject claims for compensation of COVID-19 deaths on technical grounds
When considering the case, Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs. Union of India which monitors the disbursal of ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 50,000 for COVID-19 death, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices M.R.Shah and Sanjiv Khanna directed the States to not reject claims on technical grounds. Furthermore, the bench also said that wherever applications are rejected, it is the duty of the States to inform why it did so to the concerned claimant and give them the opportunity to rectify the application. The Bench noted that Maharashtra had rejected 49,113 claims, Tamil Nadu rejected 10,138 claims, Gujarat had rejected 4,234 claims, Andhra Pradesh had rejected around 6,400 and Telangana had rejected 1,459 claims.
The Bench taking note of the non-compliance of Bihar and Andhra Pradesh with the past orders issued show-cause notices to the Chief Secretaries of the two States. Kerala, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Telangana, and Jharkhand were also pulled by the Court for their low number of disbursals of compensation claims. In Bihar, out of approximately 13,250 deaths reported, only 11,095 claims have been received. This is low compared to most states where the number of claims is substantially higher than the number of reported deaths. The bench noted that Bihar’s low numbers could be because of two reasons- either the State has not been able to reach kin and family members of the COVID-19 victims in the state or because the people are not aware that they are entitled to receive the ex-gratia compensation. The Bench asked the State to put in more efforts to reach the families of victims.
In Andhra Pradesh, the Bench noted that the State had received 41,292 claims, out of which 34,819 were found to be eligible. Further, out of the eligible Claimants, only 23,835 had received the payment of compensation and 10,984 Claimants are now to be paid, out of which 5,141 claims are cleared and the actual payment shall be made within a period of three days from the date of the order. The Chief Secretary of the State tendered an apology and stated that there was no intention to not comply with the directions issued by this Court and to not pay the compensation to the eligible claimants. He assured the Court that in future, the administration would be more vigilant.
The Court also directed the States to reach out to those children who lost both their parents/surviving parents and whose particulars are already available on the Bal Swaraj Portal so that the compensation can be paid to them. It noted that the orphans may not be able to submit applications to claim compensation and hence asked the State to reach out to them. As per Bal Swaraj Portal, there were approximately 10,000 children had lost both their parents.
The matter will be heard next on 04 February 2022.
SC: Courts are concerned with the decision-making process, and not the decision itself
In Sushil Kumar vs. the State of Haryana and Ors.,  an appeal was filed by a police constable against the final judgement and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The constable filed a writ petition in 2011 stating that he should have been promoted in 2004 itself and the delay in promoting is illegal and arbitrary. In 2001, the Superintendent of Police (SP) had recommended his name for promotion on grounds of bravery displayed by the constable. However, the Inspector General of Police dropped his name when forwarding names to the Central Departmental Promotion Committee. Later, in 2007, the constable’s name was yet again forwarded by the SP and passed by the IG, and he was granted promotion with effect from 2008. In his petition, he sought retrospective promotion with effect from 2004. The High Court dismissed the plea citing that selection is not a matter of right.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices K.M.Joseph and PS Narasimha cited that the matters relating to the promotion of Constables to the rank of Head Constables are governed under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable in Haryana, and that the recommendation of the SP at the initial stage is alone, not sufficient to claim a right for promotion. Furthermore, the bench stated that the merits and accolades of the candidates recommended for promotion varies every year on a comparative merit scale, and so the scrutiny is dynamic.
The Bench upheld the High Court’s judgement praising the Single Judge and Division Bench for not getting into individual comparative merit. The Bench further observed that the Courts are concerned with the decision-making process, and not the decision itself, in judicial proceedings.
SC: Daughter is entitled to inherit the self-acquired property or that obtained through family inheritance when a Hindu father dies without a will
Arunachala Gounder (Dead) vs. Ponnusamy, involved a dispute over the property of Marappa Gounder who passed away in 1949. Marappa Gounder had a daughter Kupayee Ammal who died issueless in 1967.  Marappa Gounder had a brother who had 5 children- a son and four daughters.  One of the daughters, Thangammal filed suit claiming a one-fifth share in the suit property as she was one of the heirs of Marappa Gounder’s brother.
The Trial Court concluded that Marappa Gounder had died before the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 because of which Thangammal and her sisters were not the heirs and not entitled to the one-fifth share of the property. In 1994, the Trial Court dismissed Thangammal’s plea. She then filed an appeal at the Madras High Court, which also dismissed the appeal in 2009.
According to the Supreme Court, the primary issue for consideration, in this case, was regarding the right of the sole daughter to inherit the self-acquired property of her father, in the absence of a will before the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or in other words, the case was whether a suit property will go to the daughter upon the death of her father intestate (father not having written a will) by inheritance or will it go to the father’s brother’s son by survivorship.
Three questions before the Apex Court were the following.
To address the issues, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari referred to the customary Hindu Law, the sources of the property law, ancient Hindu explanations of inheritance, and judicial pronouncements. The Bench observed that the right of a widow or daughter to inherit the self-acquired property or share received in the partition of a coparcenary property of a Hindu male dying without a will is well recognized not only under the old customary Hindu Law but also various judicial pronouncements. Further, it added that the self-acquired property or a family property of a Hindu male who dies without a will, will be devolved by inheritance and not survivorship, and the daughter is entitled to the same.
Thus, in this case, Kupayee Ammal, daughter of Marappa Gounder will inherit the suit property.
With respect to the third question, if a female Hindu dies issueless without leaving a will, then the property inherited by her from her parents would go to the heirs of her father whereas the property inherited from her husband or father-in-law would go to the heirs of the husband. If a female Hindu dies leaving behind her husband or any issue, then Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act is applicable under which all her property, including that which she acquired from her parents, will go to her husband and children.
In this case, the properties upon the death of Kupayee Ammal in 1967, if the 1956 Act is applied entitles Marappa Gounder’s brother’s daughter, Thangammal to 1/5th Share in each of the suit properties.
SC: Reiterates that the High Court cannot issue direction to the State to form a new policy
In Krishan Lal & Ors. vs. Vini Mahajan Secretary & Anr., the Apex Court was considering the grievance of the petitioner that the directions given in the order were passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 27 August 2014 have not been complied with. They stated that they were entitled to the same relief granted in the case of Dr. Naresh Kumar Kataria and Ors vs. State of Punjab and Ors in which the Court was dealing with pay parity and granted the benefit of notional fixation to the petitioners with liberty to the petitioners to represent regarding grant of actual benefits. Further, the relief given to Dr. Naresh Kumar Kataria was based on the applicable policy of the concerned Animal Husbandry Department whereas here the claim of the petitioner was processed as per the policy of the concerned Health Department. The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar re-iterated that the High Court cannot issue direction to the State to form a new policy.
Featured Image: Important Court Judgements

created: January 26, 2022


text:
Supreme Court Directs States/UTs to issue Ration Cards,Voter IDs to Sex Workers
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
December 22, 2021
In this roundup of court judgements, we look at Constitutional Courts’ remarks & directions about the issuance of ration cards and voter IDs to sex workers, status reports filed by States for ex-gratia payment to COVID-19 victim families, UP government policy on providing compensation to the family members of UP Panchayat polls workers, and unequal treatment of wives as a valid ground for divorce for Muslim Women.
Supreme Court: Directs Issuance of Ration Cards, Voter IDs to Sex Workers
In the case of Budhadev Karmaskar vs. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court directed the State Governments and Union Territories to immediately commence the process of issuance of ration cards/voters identity cards to sex workers, as per the list that is maintained by NACO (National AIDS Control Organisation).
Almost a decade back, on 19 July 2011, a committee was appointed by the Supreme Court to advise on issues relating to the prevention of trafficking, rehabilitation of sex workers (who wish to quit sex work) and the conditions conducive for sex workers to live with dignity in accordance with Article 21. On the basis of the Committee’s reports, the apex court passed several orders issuing directions to Central Government and the State Governments, including facilitation of sex workers’ access to voter identity cards, ration cards, etc.
The submissions by the Committee indicated that it is very difficult for sex workers to acquire proof of identity cards such as ration cards or voters identity cards owing to the lack of proof of residence. Resultantly, they are denied access to the schemes meant for rehabilitation and welfare.
Further, during the COVID-19 lockdowns, it was directed the States and Union Territories to continue the distribution of dry rations to sex workers without insisting on ration cards and other proof of residence and profession.
The bench of Justices LN Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna noted that these directions to provide sex workers with ration cards & voter identity cards almost a decade back were not complied with. It was also submitted that dry ration was distributed for a few months and thereafter stopped.
In the light of this, the bench directed the following:
Directions were also issued to file state/UT-wise status reports relating to the issuance of ration cards, voters identity cards and Aadhar cards within a period of four weeks from the date of order and keep the name of the sex workers confidential.
Supreme Court: Reviewed status reports filed by States for ex gratia payment to a family member of a person who died due to COVID-19.
In the case Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court reviewed status reports filed by states and issued further directions for paying compensation/ex-gratia to the claimants/ family member of the person who has died due to COVID-19.
In pursuance of the apex court’s earlier orders, a status report with particulars was filed by 10 States, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu.
For Andhra Pradesh, against 14,471 deaths officially recorded, approximately 36,205 claims have been received. Against 36,205 claims received, the State has paid compensation/ex gratia to 11,464 claimants only.
For Gujarat, against 10,094 recorded deaths, the State has received 40,467 claims out of which 26,836 claimants have been paid. The compensation/ex-gratia to the remaining claimants is to be paid within a period of one week from the date of the order.
For Punjab, even though 16,234 deaths were registered, only 5,431 claims have been received and only 2,840 claimants have been paid the compensation.
For West Bengal, against 19,630 registered deaths, payments have been made only to 3,355 claimants. However, the applications received were very less i.e., 5,445.
For Tamil Nadu, against 36,481 registered deaths, the State received 31,850 claims. Payments have been made to the 17,448 claimants and the remaining claimants are to receive the payment within a period of one week from the date of the order.
For Maharashtra, against the total registered deaths of 1,41,025, approximately 8,000 claimants have received the payment. The payment to the remaining claimants/family member is to be made within a period of one week from the date of the order.
For Kerala, against the total registered deaths of 40,855, about 10,778 claim forms have been received and actual payment has been made to only 548 claimants.
In light of this, the apex court issued the following directions.
States like Rajasthan, Assam and Telangana did not furnish similar information during the hearing. However, they informed the apex court that the process to pay the claimants was ongoing and they will follow the instructions accordingly. They have been granted time till the next hearing to submit information on the number of claims and payments made.
Other states like Delhi, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, and others have not filed status reports on the number of COVID-19 registered deaths, claims received, and claims sanctioned/paid.
Allahabad HC: Revisit the policy to compensate family members only if COVID-19 death occurred within 30 days.
In the case Kusum Lata Yadav vs. the State Of U.P., the Allahabad high court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to revisit its policy to provide compensation to the family members of UP Panchayat polls workers who died within 30 days of contracting COVID-19 while on duty.
The high court was hearing a petition filed by Kusum Lata Yadav, regarding the compensation for the death of her husband (a UP panchayat poll worker) due to contracting COVID-19. The compensation payment was being denied to her because of the ceiling contained in Clause 12 of the Government Order (dated June 2021), which restricts payment of compensation only if the death has occurred within 30 days.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed that the restriction of death within 30 days of COVID-19, contained in Clause 12 of the Government Order (dated June 2021), does not appear to be based on any rational classification. Therefore, the authorities were asked to re-visit the issue.
In conclusion, the high court sought a counter-affidavit from the UP Government regarding the above observation by an officer not below the rank of Special Secretary, within six weeks. The matter has been posted for further hearing on 17 February 2022.
Kerala HC: Unequal treatment of wives a valid ground for divorce for Muslim Women.
In the case Ramla vs. Abdul Rahuf, the Kerala High Court ruled that the refusal of a Muslim man to perform his marital obligations to his first wife after a second marriage is a valid ground for divorce.
The high court was hearing an appeal filed by a Muslim woman aggrieved by an order of a Family Court which denied her a decree of divorce. During his time abroad, the petitioner’s husband contracted a marriage with another woman. She filed for divorce on the grounds under Sections 2(ii), 2(iv) and 2(viii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939.
The Family Court dismissed the petition as the appellant’s wife failed to make out a case under Sections 2(ii), 2(iv) and 2(viii) (f) of the Act.
The high court noted that while there was evidence of maintenance being provided on certain occasions, the Family Court carried on with the assumption that providing maintenance is sufficient to prove that the husband performed marital obligations.
The bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas held that staying away from the first wife for five years itself shows that the husband has not treated the wives equally.
The high court emphasized that refusal to cohabit and perform marital obligations with the previous wife is tantamount to the violation of the Quranic injunctions (as also highlighted in 2(viii) (f) of the Act).
In conclusion, the high court found this to be a valid ground for divorce to be granted. The appeal was thereby allowed, and the trial court decision was set aside.
Featured Image: Important Court Judgements

source: news-factly

created: December 22, 2021

license: Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

author: Sai Krishna Muthyanolla


text:
Review: Supreme Court directs States & UTs to take up vaccination of inmates of Mental Health institutions
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
September 8, 2021
In this roundup of court judgements, we look at the Supreme court’s directions relating to Mentally ill persons in institutions & hospitals, discharge of persons in a case relating to Delhi-riots and the directions by Madhya Pradesh high court regarding open-spaces.
Supreme Court: Directs States & UTs to take up vaccination of inmates of Mental Health institutions
On 01 September 2021, Supreme Court has issued multiple directions regarding the rehabilitation and vaccination of mentally ill persons who are lodged in various hospitals and mental health care institutions. The court was hearing a contempt petition in the case of Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Dinesh Kumar & Ors.
In this regard, the Supreme Court directed all the States & Union territories to have a time-bound schedule to vaccinate all such mentally ill patients along with healthcare professionals & staff associated with these institutions within a month. The court further directed the States & UTs to file a progress report of the steps taken towards this effort, with the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment by 15 October 2021.
This Supreme Court Bench issued these directions while adjudicating a plea regarding the rehabilitation of mentally ill patients who were in various hospitals & mental asylums.
In an earlier order, the court directed the State of Maharashtra to discontinue the practice of shifting mentally ill patients from medical establishments to beggar homes, which was contrary to the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
The Bench has further directed all the States & UTs to set up an online dashboard within 4 weeks, which contains information on the availability of mental healthcare institutions, the facilities, occupancy rates, region-wise distribution of halfway homes, etc, and to ensure that the data is updated on a real-time basis.
The court reviewed the information on the progress submitted by the States of Maharashtra & Uttar Pradesh and noted that steps taken do not qualify as compliant and stated that steps ought to be taken in setting up halfway homes.
It has directed all the States & UTs to expeditiously establish halfway homes within a period of 6 months and directed the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment to conduct monthly review meetings with the States & UTs and review the progress.
The court reiterated that the efforts of State governments need to be towards rehabilitation and not just relocation of the mentally ill patients. It has directed the Centre to file a status report a week before the next hearing, which is scheduled during the last week of December 2021.
Delhi Court: Discharges Shal Alam & two others in Delhi Riots cases citing lack of proper investigation
A Delhi court discharged the three accused persons in a Delhi Riots case on 02 September 2021. In its order, the court observed that it appears that the effort to the police was limited to filing a charge sheet and there was no real effort in the investigation to trace eye-witness, real accused persons and technical evidence.
It further stated that that the approach by the investigating agency was a wastage of time & money of the taxpayer. The court highlighted that the pain & suffering of the victims is not addressed as the case remains unsolved.
Those discharged include – former AAP Councillor Tahir Hussain’s brother Shah Alam, Rashid Saifi & Shadab as per FIR 93/2020.  The FIR was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 380, 545, 436, 435, and 120-B of IPC, based on complaints alleging that a shop was burnt, attacked, and looted during the Delhi Riots.
The court observed that the accused persons were not specifically named in the FIR and no role was assigned to them. The court further noted that there was no independent eyewitness being recorded with respect to the witness.
The court noted the lapse on part of the investigation and took cognizance of the accused who have been languishing in prisons in the last 1.5 years because the trial has not been initiated.
Madhya Pradesh HC: Public Parks should not be used for any other purposes
In the case of Preeti Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, the petitioner sought the direction of the court to stop the construction of a community hall in a public park in the residential colony of Burhanpur city of Madhya Pradesh.
After hearing the case, the Madhya Pradesh High court directed the demolition of the specified community hall and upheld the importance of having open spaces to maintain ecological balance. The construction of the community hall was stalled as per the directions of an earlier order by the court. The Court further took cognizance of illegal constructions which have encroached the public space and issued orders to remove them.
The court referred to Supreme Court’s Judgment in Bangalore Medical Trust vs B.S. Mudappa & Ors (1991).  In that judgement, emphasis was laid upon the preservation of Public Parks, in opposition to the construction of a nursing home.
The MP High court further referred to Section 279 of the M.P Municipalities Act, 1961, which makes the Municipal council responsible to provide places of recreation, which also includes open spaces, parks, playgrounds, etc.
Section 282 of this act states that, after making the reservation, any construction cannot be allowed except with the permission from State Government. Accordingly, the court observed that once the Public Park is dedicated to the citizens, it is being held by the municipality in trust. Using such public space for any other purpose would be a breach of trust on the part of the municipal body.
In its observations, the High Court stated that the environmental factors need to be the key for all the local bodies as well as the Courts while interpreting any town planning laws. Any action thus taken up by the authorities should not be at the cost of ecological considerations.
Centre tells the Delhi High court that IT Rules 2021 do not have to affect Free Speech
In an affidavit filed by the Central Government before the Delhi High court, the government stated that IT Rules-2021 do not affect free speech in the country and are only aimed at bringing regulation over the online news & social media platforms.
The Central government claimed that deterring fake news and bringing in self-regulation along with a ‘co-regulatory’ mechanism is the main intent behind these Rules. The affidavit comes in wake of multiple appeals filed by various digital houses – The Wire, The Quint, Alt News along with news agency PTI.
In its affidavit, the Centre has highlighted the various reasons for it to construe that the pleas are fallacious and liable to be dismissed. The government made the following submissions in its affidavit.
It remains to be seen if the Delhi High Court agrees with these assertions or rules otherwise.

created: September 8, 2021


text:
Supreme Court issues directions illegal adoption of children who lost parents due to COVID-19
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
June 16, 2021
In this roundup of court judgements, we look at Constitutional Courts’ remarks & directions on frivolous use of offences under UAPA, the welfare of children who lost parents due to COVID-19, prohibition of attempts to “cure” or change the orientation of LGBTQIA+ people, and protection of live-in couples.
Delhi HC: Cautioned the police against the frivolous use of the offences under UAPA and reiterated that right to protest is a constitutionally guaranteed right
In the Delhi riots conspiracy case against student leaders Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, the Delhi High Court has found that offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) relating to terrorist activities (Sections 15,17 and 18) are not made out prima facie and hence they are entitled to grant of bail under the ordinary principles under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the context of Northeast Delhi communal riots which took place in the last week of February 2020, the Delhi Police had filed a charge sheet against the three student leaders alleging that the protests organized by them against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) from December 2019 were part of a “larger conspiracy”.
The court noted that the essential aim and intent of the activities, in which the appellants have alleged to have been involved, was to orchestrate and participate in a protest across the city of Delhi to oppose the enactment of the CAA. The Court further noted that while the protest was monitored by law enforcement agencies, the CAA protests were not outlawed or banned. The student organizations, which the accused were leading, are not banned organizations.
Reiterating that the right to peaceful protest is a constitutional right flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the court held that the allegations of making inflammatory speeches, organizing chakka jams, and other such actions that are not uncommon to protests and will not amount to a ‘terrorist act’ under the UAPA. The court noted that the mere use of alarming and hyperbolic verbiage in the charge sheet did not reveal any prima facie offence as the charge sheet did not contain any elemental factual ingredients that are a must to the offences defined under Section 15, 17 or 18 UAPA.
The court, therefore, cautioned the police against the frivolous use of the offences under UAPA against acts which are otherwise covered under ordinary penal laws, and remarked that “Foisting extremely grave and serious penal provisions engrafted in sections 15, 17 and 18 UAPA frivolously upon people, would undermine the intent and purpose of the Parliament in enacting a law that is meant to address threats to the very existence of our Nation.”
Supreme Court: Issues direction regarding education, illegal adoption and welfare of children who lost parents due to COVID-19 pandemic
In a suo moto proceeding regarding the problems of children during COVID-19, the supreme court directed the State and UT governments to ensure that there is no break in the education of children who have lost either one or both parents due to the pandemic.
The apex court noted that as per data collected by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) till June 2021,  a total of 30,071 children have become orphans or have lost one parent or abandoned due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, 3,621 children have become orphans, 26,176 children have lost one parent and 274 children have been abandoned. The court ordered that after the identification of the children who have become orphans or lost one parent, prompt action has to be taken to provide for the basic needs of the children.
In view of this, the court issued the following directions:
Madras HC: Prohibits attempts to “cure” or change the sexual orientation of people belonging to LGBTQIA+ community
In the case of S. Sushama and another v Commissioner of Police and others, the high court directed the Union and State government to take steps in order to prohibit attempts by physical and health professionals to “cure” or change the sexual orientation of people belonging to LGBTQIA+ community.
The high court highlighted that the practice of conversion therapy (a group of therapies directed at “correcting” non-heterosexual and non-cisgender people), in any form or method, is unfortunate and needs to be appropriately criminalized. The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that such pseudoscience is peddled to worried and anxious parents of LGBTQIA+ children even today by quacks and self-serving doctors.
The Court has directed that action should be initiated against the concerned professional involving themselves in any form or method of conversion “therapy”, including withdrawal of license to practice.
Our previous review covered the salient features of the judgement, wherein the high court issued a slew of guidelines to ensure that LGBTQIA+ persons are not harassed by police in missing complaints lodged by their parents.
Some of the significant directions issued by the high court in the present case for the sensitization of police, judiciary, educational institutions, and health care professionals regarding LGBTQIA+ issues are as follows:
1. Educational institutions
2. Judiciary
3. Police and Prison authorities
4. Physical and Mental Health Professionals
Supreme Court: Orders protection of live-in couples who were denied relief by P&H high court
While hearing an appeal against the judgement and order of Punjab & Haryana high court which refused to grant protection for live-in couples, the supreme court directed the Superintendent of Police to grant protection to petitioners in view of the apprehensions/ threats in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by the observations of the High Court.
The P&H high court dismissed the prayer of protection by a live-in couple who approached the court after they faced opposition to their relationship and held that live-in relationships are “morally and socially not acceptable”. The court also observed that the couple approaching the Court so as to obtain a seal of approval on their “morally and socially not acceptable” relationship.
In the present case, the supreme court ordered protection for the couple and granted them the liberty to supplement their representations to the Superintendent of Police.
Featured  Image: Important Court Judgements


text:
Supreme Court notes that Citizens have a right to know the judicial proceedings of open court.
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
May 12, 2021
In this roundup of Court judgements, we look at Constitutional Courts’ remarks on the concept of an Open Court, the overburdened condition of frontline workers, and the paucity of oxygen supply at hospitals due to which several lives are being lost.
Supreme Court: Citizens have a right to know the judicial proceedings of Open Court.
In the case Election Commission of India v MR Vijaya Bhaskar, the Supreme Court held that the concept of an Open Court requires that information relating to a Court proceeding, including oral remarks by the bench, must be available in the public domain.
The core issue involved in the case was regarding the authority of a judge to conduct judicial proceedings and to engage in a dialogue during the course of a hearing and the freedom of the media to report not just judgments, but also judicial proceedings or remarks made during these proceedings.
The petition arises from an order of the Madras High Court (dated 30 April 2021) where the bench made certain remarks, attributing responsibility to the Election Commission of India (ECI) for the present surge in the number of cases of COVID-19, due to their failure to implement appropriate COVID-19 safety measures and protocol during the elections. At issue are the oral remarks made by the High Court, which the ECI alleges are baseless. The ECI claims that these remarks tarnished its image, which is an independent constitutional authority.
During the course of the hearing, it is alleged that the High Court orally observed that the ECI is “the institution that is singularly responsible for the second wave of COVID-19” and that the EC “should be put up for murder charges”. These remarks, though not part of the order of the High Court, were reported in print, electronic, and tele-media.
The Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the ECI made the following submissions:
Hence, the ECI has raised the prayer – seeking a restraint on the media on reporting court proceedings.
After examining the submissions, the supreme court noted that the concept of an open court requires that information relating to a court proceeding must be available in the public domain. Courts must be open both in the physical and metaphorical sense, except for in-camera proceedings in the exceptional category of cases. Arguments addressed before the court, the response of opposing counsel, and issues raised by the court are matters on which citizens have a legitimate right to be informed. Transparency in the functioning of democratic institutions is crucial to establish public faith in them.
The judgement emphasised that the Constitution guarantees the media the freedom to inform, distill and convey information and to express ideas and opinions on all matters of interest. Freedom of speech and expression extends to reporting the proceedings of judicial institutions as well.
Having stated that, the judgement also mentions the need for judges to exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks in open court, which may be susceptible to misinterpretation. Judicial language is a window to a conscience sensitive to the constitutional ethos.
In conclusion, the apex court held that oral remarks are not a part of the official judicial record, and therefore, the question of expunging them does not arise. The formal opinion of a judicial institution is reflected through its judgments and orders, and not its oral observations during the hearing. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the court found no substance in the prayer of the EC for restraining the media from reporting on court proceedings.
Himachal HC: Frontline workers should work on rotation basis or else the health system is likely to collapse.
In the case of Dr. Vishal Koundal v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., the high court held that it is imperative that the frontline workers are made to work on a rotation basis or else the health system is likely to collapse with the sudden and drastic surge in COVID-19 cases.
The high court was hearing an appeal filed by a doctor challenging his deputation to a COVID-19 makeshift Hospital in Palakwah, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. According to the petitioner, he had met with an accident in the year 2018 after which he had suffered Lumber, Spine, and Sacrum injuries and was therefore unable to serve at the place of deputation. However, the court found no merit in the aforesaid claim as the petitioner was fit enough to render services at Civil Hospital, Dehra, which incidentally, happens to be his Home Tehsil. Therefore, the court held that there is no reason why he cannot serve at the COVID-19 makeshift hospital, Palakwah, District Una.
While adjudicating on this matter, the court also observed that it is imperative that the front-line workers are made to work on a rotation basis, or else the health system is likely to collapse with the sudden and drastic surge in COVID-19 cases.
The court disposed the petition stating that a government servant is an integral part of the governance system and, at times, serves as the face of the government.
High courts make strong remarks and warn of stern action on Oxygen paucity.
Several high courts in the country were grappling with similar issues of Oxygen paucity in hospitals that are facing a drastic surge in the number of COVID-19 patients. With news reports highlighting the unfortunate death of numerous critical patients due to lack of Oxygen supply, the courts expressed the following views and made the following orders.
Allahabad HC: Non-supply of Oxygen criminal act, not less than genocide
In view of viral news and social media posts regarding death of COVID-19 patients due to lack of oxygen in the districts of Meerut and Lucknow, the Allahabad High Court stated that authorities responsible for procurement and supply of the gas are committing criminal acts akin to genocide. The news items that the Bench was referring to pertain to death of five patients in ICU of a new trauma centre of Medical College in Meerut. There were also reports of two hospitals, in Lucknow and in Meerut, that took their hands off the admitted COVID-19 patients because the oxygen supply was not made even after demand.
In its previous order, the High Court specifically observed that supply of Oxygen must be ensured at all hospitals so that no one dies for want of Oxygen. Not only the supply is not being ensured, but the Bench also noted that people are being harassed, and made to beg for Oxygen cylinders to save the life of their near and dear ones, both at the end of district administration and police administration.
The court has therefore asked the District Magistrate, Lucknow, and District Magistrate, Meerut to enquire into the matter of such news items within 48 hours and submit their reports on the next date fixed respectively. They were also directed to appear before the Court online on the next date fixed.
Delhi HC: Issues show-cause notice to Centre for contempt for failure to ensure Oxygen supply to Delhi as per order
The Delhi high court came down heavily on the Centre for its failure to supply 700MT per day liquid medical Oxygen to Delhi Government in line with the directions passed by the Supreme Court. In an order passed on 30 April 2021, the supreme court had directed the Central Government to rectify the Oxygen deficit of NCT of Delhi on or before midnight of 03 May 2021. The direction was passed based on an assurance of the Solicitor General that the Oxygen needs of Delhi will be met. In the given order, it was the responsibility of the Centre to provide 700 MT of oxygen supply and that in case of any failure, it will be held for contempt.
The high court has directed the presence of Central Government officers Sumita Dawra and Piyush Goyal, who are handling Oxygen allocation to states, to explain the failure to comply with the High Court and Supreme Court’s order to supply the required Oxygen to the Delhi Government to treat critical COVID patients.
Jharkhand HC: Warns officials of contempt over non-compliance with court orders
In view of the current COVID-19 crisis and overload on existing medical infrastructure,  the Jharkhand High Court rapped the State Government for its failure to make Sadar hospital functional with 500 beds. In May 2017, the court had directed the State Government to complete the construction of 200 beds in Sadar Hospital and make it operational by the end of July 2017 and the rest portion of 300 beds with all facilities to be completed by the end of December 2018.
The court was informed that efforts have been taken to create 240 Oxygen-supported beds through the cylinder, however, due to the non-installation of liquid Oxygen plant, the required number of beds were not made functional.
Taking note of the State’s failure to construct the required number of beds, the Bench of Chief Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad sternly remarked, “In the considered view, the order passed by this Court dated 11.05.2017 has not been complied with even after lapse of about five years, therefore, the officers are in contempt.”
Featured Image: Important Court Judgements


text:
Supreme Court notes that membership of five or more is an essential condition for unlawful assembly
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 12, 2022
In this roundup of court judgements, we look at Constitutional Courts’ remarks & directions about SC/ST belonging to one state claiming benefits in another state, membership of five or more being an essential condition for unlawful assembly, allowing termination of 28-week pregnancy due to foetal abnormalities, directions to CBSE to consider ‘best of two’ exams for final results, compensation to be paid immediately if a person is deprived of possession of his property on account of the acquisition of land.
Supreme Court: An SC/ST belonging to one state cannot claim the benefits admissible to such community in another state to which they have migrated
In Bhadar Ram (D) vs. Jassa Ram, the Supreme Court held that a Scheduled Caste (SC) belonging to or being an ordinarily and permanent resident of the State of Punjab cannot claim the benefit of an SC in the State of Rajasthan for purchasing land. The observation was made by the Apex Court when hearing a dispute with respect to a piece of land in Rajasthan that was allotted to Chunilal, an SC landless person and father of the respondent, Jassa Ram. According to the respondent, in 1972, Chunilal had borrowed Rs. 5,000 from Puran Singh who belonged to Jat High Caste. Puran Singh had fraudulently made Chunilal sign the sale deed in favour of the Appellant, Bhadar Ram, who was an SC from Punjab.
Chunilal later filed suit for ejectment against Puran Singh and Bhadar Ram since he was the allottee of land and sale deed was void and ineffective, and that it violated Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955 and Section 13 of Rajasthan Colonization Act of 1954. The Trial Court held that the sale deed violated the said legislation and so, Puran Singh was liable to be evicted. It was observed that Bhadar Ram was the Benami holder for Puran Singh. The land was in possession of Puran Singh.
Dissatisfied with the decree, Bhadar Ram took the case to the Board of Revenue, where he was granted the benefit of compounding upon payment of compounding fees under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. Chunilal, who was not satisfied with the Board’s decision filed a writ petition in the High Court, which held that the appellant (Bhadar Ram) being the resident and SC belonging to Punjab, could not take the benefit of his being SC in Rajasthan.
Bhadar Ram then appealed to the Supreme Court of India. The Bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna noted that Bhadar Ram claimed to be a resident of Rajasthan just because his grandfather and father had land in the state. The Bench invoked the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and stated that holding land in Rajasthan does not lead to the conclusion that the person belongs to that State (using the definition of ‘Ordinarily Resident’). Further, there was no evidence of his birth in Rajasthan.
It noted that Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act puts restriction on the sale, gift, or bequest by a person belonging to SC in favour of a person who doesn’t belong to SC, to protect SCs belonging to the State. The Bench added that the social condition of the community varied from State to State and so, it would not be appropriate to generalize any Caste or Tribe as SC/ST at the national level.
The bench referred to the decisions in ‘Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs and STs in the state of Maharashtra & Another vs. Union of India & Another (1994)’, ‘Marri Chandra Shekar Rao vs. Dean, Geth G.S. Medical College & Others (1990)’, and subsequent judgements, and dismissed the appeal as the land transaction violated Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 and Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
Supreme Court: Membership of five or more is an essential condition for unlawful assembly
Complaints were lodged against Mahendra Singh, Roop Singh, Khilan Singh, Bhujbal and 10 to 12 more persons and 17 other persons alleging that in 2004, the complainants had gone to a village to lift the engine of a tractor and while they were returning, a gang of 20 persons had come there with lathi and farsa and started abusing and assaulting them. In 2018, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the Trial Court’s conviction of the persons involved in the assault for an offence under Section 325 read with Section 149 of IPC, and sentenced them to one-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, and in default, an imprisonment for one month.
Mahendra Singh and others (Mahendra vs. State Of MP) then appealed to the SC claiming that the charge sheet was originally filed against 20 persons and all of them faced trial and 17 out of 20 accused persons were acquitted by the Trial Court and that the remaining three accused were convicted under Section 325 and Section 149 of IPC. Further, they stated that Section 141 required that unlawful assembly requires a minimum of five or more persons.
The SC bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka said that it is an essential condition of an unlawful assembly that its membership must be five or more. Further, it may not be necessary that five or more persons necessarily be brought before the Court and convicted. Less than five persons may also be charged under Section 149 in the condition that the persons before the Court and others being persons not identified and unarmed (more than five persons in total) constitute an unlawful assembly.
The Bench, noting that the co-accused persons faced trial and were acquitted, stated the following:
The bench allowed the appeal, quashing the Trial Court and HC’s conviction.
Delhi HC: Allows termination of 28-week pregnancy due to foetal abnormalities
In Sangeeta Thapa vs. Government of NCT Of Delhi & Ors., the petitioner, a 28-year-old pregnant woman, sought medical termination of her 28-week pregnancy since the foetus was suffering from a rare condition such that the child was not likely to survive beyond one year with continued medical assistance, as per medical opinion. This would take a toll on her physical and mental health.
The Court noted that plain reading of Section 3(2)(b)(i), 3(2)(b)(ii) and 3(2B) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act states that medical termination of pregnancies can in certain situations be allowed, even where the duration of the pregnancy exceeds 24 weeks.
Referring to recent judgements, Pratibha Gaur vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2021), XYZ vs. Union of India, (2019), and Priyanka Shukla vs. Union of India, (2019), the Court stated that if the petitioner is forced to continue with the pregnancy, the petitioner will be put through extreme amounts of mental, emotional, and even financial distress. The Court thus granted permission to the petitioner to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy.
Supreme Court: Directs CSBE to Give ‘Better of Two’ option to students instead of treating improvement exam marks as final
Clause 28 of the CBSE Policy allows students to appear in improvement exams to those who aren’t satisfied with the assessment. However, the policy stated that the marks scored in the improvement exam will be considered as final. This scheme has been inserted without any justification by CBSE, in place of earlier scheme where better of the two marks would be considered for the final result declaration.
In Sukriti & Ors vs. CBSE & Ors, SC bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar quashed this policy and directed CBSE to provide options to the candidate to accept the better of the two marks obtained in the subject for the final declaration of his/her results.
Supreme Court: Compensation should be paid immediately if a person is deprived of possession of his property on account of the acquisition of land
In Gayabai Digambar Puri (Died) vs. Executive Engineer, the issue was whether the liability to pay interest commences from the date of taking possession or only from the date of the award. The reference court directed that the interest be paid from 4 April 1997 when possession was taken until 3 April 1998 for the first year at the rate of 9% per annum and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum from 4 April 1998 till the date of payment, 8 September 2004.
The High Court overturned the judgement. The SC bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar in the current appeal restored the Reference Court’s directions and stated, “the normal rule is that if on account of the acquisition of land, a person is deprived of possession of his property, he should be paid compensation immediately and if the same is not paid to him forthwith, he would be entitled to interest on the compensation amount from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of payment”. Thus, the High Court order was modified accordingly.
Featured Image: Important Court Judgements

created: January 12, 2022


text:
Review: Supreme Court notes that Ordinary Law and Order situation doesn’t call for the application of Preventive Detention Act
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
June 29, 2022
In this week’s review of Court Judgments, we look at Supreme Court’s observation that ordinary law and order situation doesn’t call for the application of the Preventive Detention Act, SC’s displeasure at Posting Anticipatory Bail Plea after 2 Months, Allahabad HC’s directions that no Arrest or coercive action during the two months’ cooling-off period after FIR registration under section 498A of IPC, etc.
Supreme Court: Ordinary Law and Order situation doesn’t call for the application of the Preventive Detention Act
In Shaik Nazneen vs. The State of Telangana, the Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the division bench of the Telangana High Court that upheld the application of the Preventive Detention Act on the petitioner’s aide. The apex court held that normal law and order situations should be dealt with the ordinary law of the land and unnecessary invocation of the Preventive Detention Act is uncalled for.
The apex court was hearing an appeal petition filed by the petitioner against the preventive detention order upheld by the High Court on her husband. The petitioner’s husband was involved in a series of chain-snatching offences and was arrested multiple times. However, only four cases were considered as the ground for detention as the jurisdiction of other cases was different. These four cases were committed in a span of two months and the detenu obtained bail in all these cases under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
The detention was enforced under Section 3(1) of ‘The Telangana Prevention of dangerous activities of boot-leggers, dacoits, drug-offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders, land-grabbers, spurious seed offenders, insecticide offenders, fertiliser offenders, food adulteration offenders, fake document offenders, scheduled commodities offenders, forest offenders, gaming offenders, sexual crime offenders, explosive substances offenders, arms offenders, cyber-crime offenders, and white collar or financial offenders act, 1986.’ As the offences committed by the detenu fell under chapter XVII of the IPC and since he was a habitual offender, the detenu was categorized as ‘goonda’ under Section 2 of the above act, hence inviting the applicability of preventive detention under the above-mentioned act.
The apex court held that maintenance of public order is vital under section 3(1) of the above act. However, the allegations and the progress of case history against the filed cases reveal that this is an ‘ordinary law and order’ problem and not a ‘public order’ problem. Additionally, the apex court held that the Preventive Detention Law gives the government extraordinary powers that can only be used in rare circumstances since they have a significant negative impact on an individual’s independence and liberty. As a result, they cannot be used regularly. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, seeking shelter under the preventive detention statute is not the appropriate course of action, the court held.
The court relied on Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar, where the court distinguished between ‘public order’ and ‘ordinary law and order’. Additionally, the court highlighted the repeated and unjustified use of the Preventive Detention Law in the State of Telangana, as observed in the Mallada K. Sri Ram vs. The State of Telangana & Ors. Accordingly, the judgement of the High court is set aside.
Supreme Court: Posting Anticipatory Bail Plea after 2 Months Can’t Be Appreciated
The Supreme Court in Sanjay vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & ANR, held that in matters involving personal liberty, the court is expected to pass orders at the earliest depending on the merits of the case.
The apex court was hearing a special leave petition to appeal (Criminal) against the judicial decision of the Delhi High Court, which posted the hearing of the anticipatory bail after two months without the grant of any interim protection. The bench of Justices C.T. Ravi Kumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia looked at the grievance of the petitioner in the filed SLP.
Accordingly, the bench affirmed that in matters relating to personal liberty, the courts must pass orders at the earliest based on the merits of the case and in accordance with the law. It further asserted that posting an anticipatory bail petition after a couple of months, at any rate, is not appreciated. It requested the Delhi High Court to consider the merits of the case and decide further. Till such time, the petitioner was provided with interim relief from arrest.
Supreme Court: ‘No Probability of Reformation, Danger to Society’, SC says while upholding the death penalty to a man for the rape and murder of an 8-year-old disabled girl.
In Manoj Pratap Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan, the apex court upheld the conviction and the sentence awarded to the appellants and dismissed the appeals accordingly.
The apex court was hearing an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan. Initially, the trial court convicted the appellant and found no appropriate justification to adopt a lenient view for this gruesome crime and awarded punishments of varying nature, including the death penalty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court upheld the conviction and the sentence under section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The trial court considered this as a ‘rarest of the rare’ case and held that the death sentence is the only justice in this case. When appealed against this decision in the Rajasthan High Court, it upheld the sentence and confirmed the death sentence. The counsel for the state in High Court relied on Kamta Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Machhi Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab, Vasanta Sampat Dupare vs. State of Maharashtra and Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab for guidelines regarding the upholding of death sentences.
The apex court highlighted the judgement in the Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab that upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty. It does not violate any principles under the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 21 in both letter and spirit. Looking at all the evidence and the previous criminal jurisprudence, the apex court upheld the death sentence and noted that remission of the sentence does not appear to be justified.
Allahabad HC: No Arrest or coercive action during the two months’ cooling-off period after FIR registration, Allahabad High Court, while issuing safeguards against the misuse of Section 498A
In Mukesh Bansal vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi was hearing a revision petition against the decision of the sessions court which rejected the discharge applications by the petitioners in an offence under section 498A of the IPC.
The wife of one of the petitioners filed an FIR against the husband and her in-laws for allegedly causing domestic violence by demanding additional dowry and solicitation of sexual favours including cruel acts of sex. The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hapur had rejected the discharge petitions earlier.
The Hon’ble High Court while deciding on the matter made a slew of observations on the language of FIR.
The court observed that the “language of FIR should be a decent one and no amount of atrocities would justify her to use such type of castic expressions.” The court further noted that the wife was unable to substantiate the allegations. The High court observed that the judgement of the session court was well short of standards enumerated in the Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of Bihar and Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation.
The High Court also commented on the misuse of 498A, which if continued would completely evaporate the traditional fragrance of our age-old institution like marriage. It relied on the observations made in the Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another vs. Union of India, to propose some safeguards against the misuse of section 498A of the IPC. The following are some of the important safeguards provided by the High Court.
The Court again reiterated that no arrest or coercive action should be taken on the petitioners without exhausting the ‘cooling period’.
Calcutta High Court: No Illegality, upholding the State Govt’s doorstep Ration Delivery Scheme
The Calcutta High Court, in Sk.Manowar Ali & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. upheld the state government’s doorstep ration delivery scheme and held that the conditions for repugnancy are not satisfied to hold any inconsistencies between the state and central laws.
The High Court was hearing a plea challenging West Bengal’s Duare Ration Scheme, which made amendments to West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013. The petitioners claim that this amendment is unconstitutional and ultra-vires to the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner argued that all the aspects relating to the essential commodities like the production, distribution and supply are authorized by the Union Government and unless it delegates such authority to the State Government, the State Governments have no authority. In this case, there was no such delegation of power.
The respondent through their counsel argued that the above scheme is an administrative decision under section 12(1) of the NFSA 2013, and Article 162 of the Indian Constitution. The counsel further contended that it is the responsibility of the state to ensure actual implementation and monitoring of the central government schemes and reading Section 12 (1), 24 (1), 24 (2)(b) and 24(3) of NFSA, 2013 provide the scope for the state governments to undertake initiatives to achieve this stated objective.
The counsel submitted the conditions to be satisfied for any repugnancy between the state and central laws.
The respondent contended that no such condition is satisfied. Upon hearing the arguments, the court held that section 24(2) of the NFSA Act obliges the state governments to ensure adequate implementation of the scheme and any such initiatives taken to ensure this does not fall foul of any provisions of NFSA. It also held that no conditions for holding the repugnancy between state and central acts are satisfied in this case. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed, and the scheme is deemed constitutionally valid.
Featured Image: Important Court Judgements


text:
Supreme Court notes that undue favour to a party under the guise of passing judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
May 11, 2022
In this week’s review of Court Judgements, we look at the observations & directions of the Supreme Court about judicial dishonesty & misconduct, vaccine mandates, about how mere suppression of material information irrespective of whether there was a conviction or acquittal doesn’t mean that the employer can arbitrarily terminate an employee.
SC: Undue favour to a party under the guise of passing judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct
In Muzaffar Hussain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the appellant was a former official of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services. The departmental query of the Allahabad High Court noted that he had decided cases of land acquisition matters violating the laid principles and had increased the compensation of the cases multiple times more than the investments made by the subsequent purchasers of the land, favouring them though they had no right to receive the compensation. In 2006, the state of UP punished him with curtailment of his pensionary benefits by 90%. The petitioner challenged this in the High Court which reduced the punishment to 70% and refused to interfere with the findings. The petitioner then filed an appeal at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi dismissed the appeal observing that the appellant had given judgement by violating the cardinal principles of law, equity, and against all judicial norms and propriety by favouring the purchasers who had no right to receive the compensation. The Bench stated that displaying undue favour to a party under the guise of passing judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct.
It added that the judgement should be passed by the judges taking into consideration the facts on record and the laws that are applicable to the case. In this case, for example, the Bench noted that there was adequate evidence to support the misconduct of the appellant bypassing judicial orders without abiding by the legal provisions to favour a party. The Bench also added that in case the judge delivers the judgement for extraneous reasons, it means that they are not discharging their duty as per law. Quoting “a judge, like Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion”, the SC Bench stated that “the public servants are like fish in the water, none can say when and how a fish drank the water”.
SC: No one should be forced to take vaccine
In Jacob Puliyel vs. Union of India, the petitioner was a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group of Immunization. He filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of vaccine mandates as it was a violation of the rights of citizens. He also asked the Supreme Court to direct the Indian government to release detailed data on phase-wise vaccine trials and approvals in addition to the post-vaccination data on infection, hospitalization, and deaths due to infection, and adverse events.
Some of the important points put forth by the bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai in their 115-page judgement are given below:
Article 21 of the Constitution protects the bodily integrity of individuals and so, no individual can be forced to get vaccinated. Persons who are not keen to get the vaccination because of personal beliefs or preferences cannot be forced to do so. However, if there is the possibility that such persons may contribute to spreading the infection, or to mutation of the virus, then the government may impose limitations on individual rights.
On the assessment of vaccine mandates imposed by states, the Bench noted that there was duality- the Union government has clearly stated that vaccination is voluntary whereas State governments have imposed restrictions on unvaccinated persons’ access to public places and resources. It also added that no substantial data was produced on record to show that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 virus from the unvaccinated persons is higher than from vaccinated persons because of which the restrictions on unvaccinated individuals imposed by State Governments / Union Territories through the mandates were proportionate. The Bench also suggested that the vaccine mandates imposed by States/UTs should be reviewed considering the rapidly evolving situation presented by the pandemic.
With respect to the Union government’s vaccination policy, the Bench opined that it was satisfied with the current vaccination policy of the Union since it was based on relevant considerations and that it was not unreasonable or manifestly arbitrary.
Noting that the results of Phase-III clinical trials of the vaccines Covishield and Covaxin have been published following the GCP guidelines and the WHO’s Statement on Clinical Trials, the court said that the approval was not given in haste. The Bench stated that lack of transparency could not be entertained and added that all relevant data required should be made public under the extant statutory regime without delay. Furthermore, it directed the Union to publish reports on Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) from the public and doctors such that it is accessible to the public. However, data of the individuals who are reporting the same should not be compromised. Regarding vaccines for children, the Bench stated that it was not possible for it to criticise the opinion of experts and the vaccination indeed follows the global standards and practices and asked the government to ensure that key findings and results of the relevant phases of clinical trials of vaccines approved for children should be made public at the earliest.
SC: Mere suppression of material information irrespective of whether there was a conviction or acquittal doesn’t mean that the employer can arbitrarily terminate an employee
In Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India, the appellant approached the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi High Court that approved the order to discharge him during the training as a constable in the Railway Protection Force for not disclosing a criminal case.
The Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 state the following:
The Supreme Court Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna observed that no criminal case was instituted or pending against him on the date when the application form was filled, and so the appellant had not suppressed any information or submitted a false declaration at that stage. It also noted the nature of the allegations made in the criminal case and observed that the matter was of trivial nature not involving moral turpitude. Moreover, he was given a clean acquittal.
Referring to the judgment in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, the Court stated that mere suppression of material/false information irrespective of whether there was a conviction or acquittal recorded doesn’t mean that the employer can arbitrarily terminate an employee. However, the employer must consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available in line with the objective criteria and relevant servant rules, to determine whether the employee can continue the service. Dismissing the High Court’s order, the SC Bench directed that the appellant be reinstated in service.
SC: The bail of a rape accused was cancelled since posters and hoardings were installed and his bail was welcomed in celebrated mood which displayed his power
The case, Ms P vs. State of Madhya Pradesh was regarding the bail of the accused in a rape case. The complainant had alleged that the accused had repeatedly committed sexual intercourse with her for over three years under the garb of a false promise to marry her. The accused, who was also a student leader studying law was granted bail by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The complainant then approached the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of bail since the accused was greeted in a celebration with posters reading “Bhaiyaa is Back” and “Welcome to Role Janeman”. There were images of the celebration on social media and some hoardings with his photographs were displayed prominently in the city and strategically placed in the localities where the complainant and her family resided and worked.
The SC Bench comprising of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli directed the accused to surrender within a week noting that posters with such captions to welcome the accused of a rape case can result in imprisonment for up to 10 years, will amplify the celebratory mood of the accused and his supporters and evoked fear in the complainant that the fair trial may be affected, as there was a likelihood of his influencing the material witnesses. It also noted that the photographs and captions on social media indicated the superior position and power wielded by him and his family in the society could be harmful for the complainant.
The Court also listed the circumstances for cancellation of bail-
Directions for awarding marks for experience has been modified by the SC
In Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India, the petitioner submitted that lawyers who have had the experience of 10 to 19 years are being allotted the same 10 marks by High Courts. These marks are considered for designation as senior advocates. She suggested that for 10 years of experience, 10 marks can be granted and then for every additional year of service, the lawyer may be rewarded with one mark. This was accepted by the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat, and PS Narasimha to modify the 2017 guidelines which gave 10 marks to all the lawyers with 10 to 20 years of experience. It clarified the following:


text:
Review: Supreme Court Rules Breaking up and Advising Girlfriend to Marry as per Parent’s Advice is not Abetment to Suicide.
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 21, 2024
In this edition of the Court judgements review, we look at SC’s order terming the electoral bonds scheme and all related amendments as unconstitutional, SC’s order that dependents of a deceased person involved in a road traffic accident should not receive double benefits, that elder sister cannot be legal guardian of younger sister unless authorized by competent court, and that breaking up and advising girlfriend to marry as per parent’s advice is not abetment to suicide.
SC: Electoral bonds scheme makes funding anonymous which violates the right to information of citizens
Electoral bonds are a financial instrument introduced in India to facilitate transparent political funding. They were first announced in the Union Budget of 2017-18 and subsequently notified by the government. The primary purpose of electoral bonds is to ensure that political funding is made through legal and transparent channels, reducing the use of black money in elections. However, in 2017, a case was filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms and others challenging the constitutionality of the scheme.
A Supreme Court Bench of five judges; Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra delivered a 232-page-long verdict in the case, Association for Democratic Reforms & Another vs Union of India & Others unanimously striking down the scheme. Some of the reasons cited by the Bench for the same are listed below:
The Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to share in the public domain, the details of the buyers of the electoral bonds and the amounts received by political parties since 12 April 2019, once the State Bank of India shares those details with the ECI. The court also stated that the donors can’t claim surprise since they know about the case.
SC: Dependents of a deceased person involved in a road traffic accident should not receive double benefits
In Krishna & Others vs. Tek Chand & Others, the family of a deceased Haryana State Roadways driver, seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, had their claim rejected by the Tribunal. The rejection was based on the family’s eligibility for Rs. 31 lakhs under the Haryana government’s compassionate assistance policy, which exceeded their compensation entitlement. The High Court upheld this decision, resulting in the family being entitled to receive Rs. 3 lakhs after deducting the government policy amount from the total compensation claimed. The appellants, dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, filed a Special Leave Appeal with the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih relied on a 2016 judgment that held that an employer’s ex-gratia payment to the deceased employee’s family should be deducted from the compensation. The court added that when someone dies in a car accident due to someone else’s fault, their family gets compensation for their loss. It added that this compensation shouldn’t be given twice or be more than what’s fair. It means if someone dies in a car accident, their family shouldn’t get more money than the family of someone who died from an illness or another cause, according to the rules of the Haryana Government. The court thus declined the petition.
SC: Elder sister cannot be legal guardian of younger sister unless authorized by competent court
The case, Rita Dwivedi vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, involves three sisters. One of them filed a Habeas Corpus petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Chandigarh. She’s asking the court to produce Vibha Dwivedi. The petitioner claims that Vibha Dwivedi was taken to Canada illegally by Archana Sharma along with her husband. Since the High Court dismissed the petition, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar held that an elder sister does not have a legal right to exercise guardianship except when there is an order by a competent Court. The bench dismissed the petitioner’s case, stating that they did not believe that filing a writ petition for Habeas Corpus relief was the appropriate legal action to address the petitioner’s concerns. Nevertheless, the court allowed the petitioner to approach the appropriate court to seek guardianship if the facts of the case justify such legal action.
SC: Breaking up and advising girlfriend to marry as per parent’s advice is not abetment to suicide
In the case, Prabhu vs. the State Rep by the Inspector of Police & Another, a young woman in Tamil Nadu committed suicide following her boyfriend’s advice that she marry according to her parents’ wishes. The girl became distressed when the boyfriend’s family began searching for a potential bride. Following her death, the police filed an FIR against the boyfriend for abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court refused to dismiss the case, following which he appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and K V Viswanathan observed that to prove ‘instigation’ of suicide, it needs to be demonstrated that the accused, through their actions or lack of action over time, created situations where the person who died had no choice but to commit suicide. The words spoken by the accused should imply that the person was left with no other option. Further, to be held responsible for abetting suicide, the person must have directly or indirectly incited the act and played an active role in facilitating it.
The Bench concluded that the appellant cannot be accused of abetting the suicide of the deceased girl as he did not play an active role through instigation or any act that facilitated the suicide. It noted that broken relationships and heartbreaks are part of everyday life and breaking up the relationship by advising her to marry in accordance with the advice of her parents was not abetment. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the pending criminal proceedings against the accused were quashed.
Allahabad HC: True love between two individuals cannot be controlled by law or State action
A series of cases including Pradeep Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh involved three boys who were facing criminal proceedings for separate FIRs filed against them before the Allahabad High Court. The charges were related to the alleged offence of kidnapping, with the accusation being that they enticed away the daughters and got married to them, as per the girls’ relatives.
When dealing with the requests to quash the legal actions put forth by the husbands (boys), the High Court Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi observed that in all the cases, the boys and girls had a prior understanding and were in a romantic relationship. The court also mentioned that the girls, in each case, left their homes independently. Since they were of legal age or very close to it, they had the right to choose their life partners and marry on their own accord.
It further added that continuing the criminal case against the husbands was unnecessary and caused distress for the couple, taking into consideration the victims’ statements and the circumstances. Furthermore, these cases involve young couples who, despite being of legal age, face obstacles from their parents instead of support for their marriage. The court added that it grapples with the dilemma of applying the law rigorously or considering the real-life consequences for couples who genuinely love each other. Stating that true love between two individuals, one or both of whom may be minors or minors on the verge of majority, cannot be controlled through rigours of law or State action. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the husbands.
Punjab & Haryana HC: Prisoner may be allowed to attend important family events
In Nishan Singh vs. State of Punjab, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the issue of denying prisoners the opportunity to attend significant family events. The case deals with a plea by a convict under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, seeking parole to participate in the ‘bhog ceremony’ of his recently deceased father. The petitioner argued that such denial would cause irreversible injustice to him and his family.
The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara emphasized that a prisoner should not be deprived of attending important family occasions solely because immediate family members are not dependent on the prisoner. The court acknowledged the prisoner’s longing for family support and participation in essential functions, even if this carries the risk of social repercussions. The court, considering the petitioner’s plea and the broader principle involved, granted parole with certain terms and conditions. The petitioner was directed to surrender after the ‘bhog ceremony.’

created: February 21, 2024


text:
Review of Court Judgments:SC rules women are entitled to safe abortion
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 7, 2022
In this week’s review of Court Judgments, we look at the Supreme Court’s significant judgement regarding the right of unmarried women to opt for termination of pregnancy, and also its acquittal of a man earlier convicted of rape & murder of a child, Delhi High Court’s observation regarding eligibility to Parental Consortium in case of accidental death, Bombay High court’s observation regarding State’s obligation to protect citizens from wildlife attacks and also about granting of anticipatory bail in a case where the evidence does not yet link the accused to the murder.
Supreme Court: All women entitled to safe & legal abortion, distinction between married and unmarried women unconstitutional.
In the case, X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi, the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment that there should not be any distinction between married and unmarried women in seeking an abortion of pregnancy in the 20-24 weeks terms arising out of a consensual relationship. It stated that all women are entitled to safe & legal abortion.
With this judgement, the Apex court has ruled that excluding unmarried women who conceive out of live-in relationships from the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules (MTPR) is unconstitutional. The issue before the supreme court was whether this exclusion under Rule 3B of MTPR was valid. Justice Chandrachud, presiding over the case, stated that extending the benefits of MTPR only to married women would encourage the societal stereotype that only married women would indulge in sexual intercourse.
The court further added that the rights of reproductive autonomy give an unmarried woman similar rights as a married woman.
As per the case details, a 25-year-old unmarried woman approached the Delhi High Court seeking termination of her pregnancy of 23 weeks. She stated that her pregnancy was the result of a consensual relationship. However, she could not give birth to the child as she is an unmarried woman, and her partner has refused to marry her.
The Delhi High Court refused to provide relief to her and noted that unmarried women, whose pregnancy was the result of a consensual relationship, were not covered under any clause of MTPR, 2003.
Rule 3B of MTPR mentions the categories of women who are covered under it. These categories were included as part of the amendment made in 2021. The categories include – Survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest, minors, change of marital status during ongoing pregnancy, women with physical disabilities, mentally ill women, foetal malformation, and women with pregnancy in humanitarian settings or disaster or emergency situations.
The woman approached the Supreme court, which passed an ad-interim order allowing her to abort the pregnancy subject to the decision of the medical board constituted by AIIMS Delhi.
The Supreme court bench comprising of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna and J.B. Pardiwala was of the view that the Delhi High court took a restricted view in interpreting the rules.
The bench was of the opinion that there must be a purposive interpretation and took cognizance of the amendment, which substituted the word ‘partner’ instead of ‘husband’. The bench observed that the law must be interpreted keeping in mind the changing social norms. When MTP Act was enacted in 1971, it was largely related to married women, but with the changing societal norms, the law also needs to adapt and recognise legally non-traditional family structures.
Delhi HC: ‘Parental Consortium’ available to all children irrespective of whether they were dependent on deceased or not.
Justice Gaurang Kanth, of Delhi High Court, in the case Kanti Devi & Ors vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors., observed that in cases of Motor accident deaths, the parental consortium is available for all children irrespective of their dependency on the deceased.
As per the case details, a plea was filed with the Delhi High court challenging an order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. As per the order, compensation was awarded to 4 dependants of the deceased, who died in a motor accident.
The Insurance company was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 9.83 lakhs along with interest to 4 dependents of the deceased. The deceased was 44 years of age at the time of the accident and was survived by 7 children. The Tribunal considered only 4 children who were minors to be eligible for the parental consortium. It ignored two married daughters and a major son.
A plea was filed in Delhi High Court to enhance the compensation and include all 7 children of the deceased. The plea was based on Supreme Court’s ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
The parental consortium is granted to the child on the premature death of a parent for the loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance, and training.
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court Judgment in Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and observed that all the children of the deceased were entitled to the consortium under the head Parental Consortium. The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 9.83 lakhs to Rs. 15.08 lakhs.
Bombay HC: State’s obligation to protect citizens from wild animal attacks.
The Bombay High court said that while it is State’s responsibility to protect wild animals, it is also obligatory for the state to protect the citizens from any injuries by the wild animals.
A division bench comprising of Justice G. S. Patel and Justice Gauri Godse, made the observation in the case, Anuja Arun Redij vs. State of Maharashtra. A writ petition was filed by a woman challenging the State’s refusal to compensate her for the death of her husband, who was attacked by a wild boar. The petitioner’s husband died in a road accident caused by a wild boar attack. As per the FIR filed and panchnama conducted by the police, the wild boar attacked and collided with the two-wheeler of the victim, which resulted in a fatal accident.
Her application for compensation of Rs.10 lakh was rejected by the Regional Forest Officer, stating that the information was not given within 48 hours of the incident and that the panchnama was not conducted in the presence of the forest officer.
She approached the Court after the state minister for forest did not respond to the representation. The petition stated that there was no dispute about the accident, and it was unfair to not grant compensation based on technical reasons. The State in its argument presented that the death was caused by head injuries in the road accident and not the wild boar attack.
The Division Bench observed that there was no other cause of the accident except for the boar, as per panchnama and stated that the reason for refusing the application is unjustified. It observed that while, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 makes it an obligation for the State to protect wild animals, it is also its obligation to protect the lives of citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It ordered the state to pay the compensation along with additional compensation for the litigation charges.
Supreme Court: Acquits man convicted for alleged rape & murder of Minor girl, as the death sentence was imposed without any evidence
A Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, AS Bopanna and Ramasubramanian, acquitted a man who was sentenced to death for allegedly raping and murdering a six-year-old girl.
The court observed that there were contradictions in the prosecution witnesses which were completely overlooked by both the Trial Court and the High Court. The case against the accused was that he took his niece aged about 6 years on the pretext of showing her a dance and song performance on the occasion of Holi and thereafter raped and killed her.
The sessions court convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376 of the IPC and awarded the death penalty. His appeal in the Allahabad High Court was dismissed and the court confirmed the death sentence.
The appeal in the Supreme Court raised contentions regarding – the trustworthiness of testimonies and the contradictions, the consequences of delay by Police in forwarding the FIR to the court, the failure of the prosecution to produce any forensic or medical evidence, the manner of questioning and the findings recorded.
The Supreme court observed that the stand of the accused since the beginning was that he was implicated in the case falsely at the behest of a locally powerful person. The bench also noted several contradictions regarding – the place where the police first saw the body, the person who took the dead body, the place to which the dead body was taken, different versions regarding place, date and time of conduct of inquest, etc. The court observed that these contradictions render the evidence of prosecution witnesses completely untrustworthy.
It also highlighted the delay of 5 days in transmitting the FIR to the jurisdictional court. The bench also observed that the accused is so poor that he could not afford the engage a lawyer even in the Supreme Court. The services of an amicus were provided only after repeated requests. The bench criticised the prosecution for not conducting the investigation properly.
Bombay HC: Custodial interrogation is not imperative merely because offence is murder.
In the case, Santosh s/o Ananada Mane @ Chhotu vs. The State of Maharashtra, the court observed that the custodial interrogation of an accused is not mandatory merely because he’s been booked in a murder case.
As per the case details, a complaint was filed by Manoj Kumar Dubey in May 2019 after he learned that his brother Sanjay was assaulted with swords and Hockey sticks. He rushed to the spot and learned that Santosh Mane and three others had assaulted Sanjay. He also claimed that this brother had earlier spoken about a prevailing enmity and how the police were not acting against Mane.
The accused in the complaint, Mane approached the Bombay High Court seeking pre-arrest bail. The application of bail was on the ground of the completion of the investigation, the limited role of the conspiracy being attributed to him and the chargesheet being filed also against the co-accused.
Justice Dangre, presiding over the case observed that Mane was not one of the three assailants as per the chargesheet and in the CCTV footage. The police allege that the deceased was assaulted at the behest of Mane. However, the chargesheet does not specify the exact role of Mane.
The Judge observed that the material in the chargesheet falls short of establishing a connection between the deceased and Mane. Therefore, the applicant of the bail i.e., Mane deserves protection from arrest.
Featured Image: Review of Court Judgments

created: October 7, 2022