Top HC judgments of 2021

  1. "Name Mentioned In Suicide Note Must Be Probed With All The Seriousness": Punjab & Haryana High Court [Sudha @ Babli v. State of Haryana] The Court has recently observed that if the person dying by suicide names some other person being responsible to force him/her to take the extreme step, his/her such statement is required to be taken up with all the seriousness. The Bench of Justice H. S. Madaan further observed: "Why should a person leaving this mortal world by ending his life himself would blame an innocent person holding him responsible for his death, is difficult to understand."

  2. Punjab And Haryana High Court Orders Inquiry Into Tweets Against Court, Judge [Vishali Kapoor And Ors Vs State Of Punjab And Another] The High Court this week ordered an inquiry into a series of tweets allegedly made against the court. The Bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh has set a three-week deadline for its Registrar-Vigilance to enquire into the tweets enquired.

  3. Writ Of Habeas Corpus Can Be Issued For Restoration of Custody of Minor to the Parent Wrongfully Deprived Of It: Punjab And Haryana High Court [Kiran V. Bhaskar v State of Haryana] Holding that habeas corpus can be issued for restoration of custody of minor to the parent wrongfully deprived of it, the High Court recently granted relief to a father who had filed a petition alleging illegal custody by his wife and her parents. The High Court went on to rely on the Supreme Court's observation in Yashita Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan and others wherein it had rejected the contention that a writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable if the child is in the custody of another parent and held that the court can invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for the best interest of the child.

  4. Why Shouldn't Interrogation Of Accused In Appropriate Cases Be Videographed?: P&H High Court Asks Punjab, Haryana DGPs [Kaushal vs State of Haryana and others] The High Court asked the Director-General of Police (DGPs) of Punjab and Haryana State as to why the court should, not in appropriate cases, direct that interrogation of the accused be conducted under videography so as to eradicate the chances of the accused being tortured by the police.

  5. 'Institutions Can't Be Permitted To Indulge In Profiteering': Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds GO Directing Private Schools In Chandigarh To Publish Balance Sheets On Their Websites [Independent Schools' Association Chandigarh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.] A Division Bench comprising of Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash upheld an April 2018 notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs, requiring private unaided educational institutions in Chandigarh to inter alia publish their balance sheets/ income and expenditure account on their websites. It held, "if the financial statement of the private institutions is uploaded on the website of the institutes, the same will ensure in maintaining transparency and will be an aid in achieving the goal of ensuring that no Institute is indulging in profiteering and charging of capitation fee." It also rejected the arguments set forth by the Independent Schools Association, Chandigarh and the Kabir Education Society— which had challenged the notification vide two separate writ petitions— that disclosing of the financial details on the website will amount to unwarranted invasion of privacy of schools.

  6. SC/ST Act Misuse- Don't Register FIR At 3rd Party's Instance Sans Opinion Of District Attorney (Legal): P&H HC Directs Punjab DGP [Bhagwant Singh Randhawa and another v. State of Punjab] The High Court recently directed the Director-General of Police, Punjab to not register FIR under the SC&ST Act at the instance of a third party unless an opinion is sought from the District Attorney (Legal) that the complainant falls within the definition of the victim as per the SC&ST Act. The Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan made the obtaining of legal opinion mandatory while observing that so-called social activists are misusing the provisions of the SC&ST Act

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chargesheet Vs final report / A, B, C Summary report

Maharashtra police rules as defined in  Bombay Police Manual, 1959, Volume III [referred as The Manual below],   defines two types of police reports which can be submitted to the magistrate by police u/s 173(2) of CrPC. It is the report of police investigation filed at the end of investigation.. a. Charge-sheets (Rule 218 of The Manual) and  b. Final Reports (Rule 219 of Police Manual).  Final report is explained under Rule 219 of The Manual. Rule 219 of The Manual: 219. Final Reports .- (1) When there is no sufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the Police Station Officer or the investigating officer will release the accused person on bail, if he is in custody. (2) The Police Station Officer will then submit a final report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognisance of an offence on a Police report through the Superintendent of Police or the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, as the case may be, in the following three class...
Read more

Judgment Analysis : Yashita Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan (with translation in Punjabi)

Judgment Name : YASHITA SAHU Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS  Citation Code :   (2020) 3 SCC 67 Judgment link :  https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/28083/28083_2019_15_1501_19699_Judgement_20-Jan-2020.pdf Court : Supreme Court of India Case Type : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  127 OF 2020 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 7390 OF 2019) Judge : Hon'ble Justice Sh. Deepak Gupta  (author of judgment) Hon'ble Justice Sh. Aniruddha Bose Summary: This judgment talks about  1) Court treats the child as "human" which is shocking (sarcasm :|) and talks about the human rights of a child to get love and affection from both Parent. It talks about the rights of a parent as well as the rights of a child to get "s ufficient visitation rights" . 2) If any court denies the visitation to a parent, a strong reason should also be assigned and can be justified only unde...
Read more

Ad-interim vs interim orders (Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC)

  Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 39 are repository of the power to grant injunction.  An order of injunction is always passed under Rule 1 or Rule 2 Order 39 save and except rare orders passed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  Rule 1 and Rule 2 of Order 39 do not use the words "interim or ad interim". These are the words coined by the lawyers and the courts merely to indicate the stage at which orders are passed.  Interim order usually remains in force for whole of the period of the suit unless varied under Rule 4 or set aside in appeal.  Ad interim order operates only till the hearing of the application for injunction.  Usually, ad interim order is passed ex parte though it can also be passed when otherwise is present.  It is possible that in a given case at the time of institution of a suit, the plaintiff does not make an application for an order of interim injunction as he feels no necessity in which case only summons of the suit is issu...
Read more