A division bench of Karnataka High Court said, provide body cameras to all officers conducting arrests so that a record of the arrest may be made. Also ordered compensation be paid for hand cuffing the accused.
Suprit Ishwar Divate Vs State of Karnataka on 10 Jun 2022Tag: Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty
Noor Paul Vs Union of India and Ors on 05 Apr 2022
A division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows,
Noor Paul Vs Union of India and Ors on 05 Apr 2022(57) In our opinion, non-supply of a copy of the LOC to the subject of the LOC at the time the subject is stopped at the airport for travel abroad, non-supply of reasons for issuing LOC , and absence of a post decisional hearing to the subject of the LOC, is not just, fair and reasonable procedure. It is violative of Art.21 of the Constitution of India.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://legiteye.com/in-cwp-5492-2022-om-punj-hc-non-supply-of-copy-of-look-out-circular-to-person-travelling-abroad-is-not-fair-and-reasonable-procedure-holds-ph-hc-justices-ramachandra-rao-harminder-singh-madaa/
The National Highway Projects in the State of Bihar Vs State of Bihar on 10 May 2022
The Court-1 of Patna High Court passed the following guidelines to the State and Oil Companies…
The National Highway Projects in the State of Bihar Vs State of Bihar on 10 May 202269. In furtherance of the above discussions, we find it necessary to issue the following directions:-
i) The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, to convene a meeting of all stakeholders to examine the best and most efficient way to realize the multifarious benefits arising from the establishment of petrol pumps with equal importance being placed upon economic, social and environmental aspects. Also ensure that a sample survey for ascertaining the requirement of additional fresh Petrol Pumps/Gas Retail Outlets is carried out at the earliest.
ii) The Development Commissioner, Government of Bihar, who is already seized of the matter shall take expedient steps in furtherance of the action(s) taken thus far.
iii) The State, National Highways Authority of India and the Oil Marketing Companies consider constituting Public toilets and public conveniences at places easily identifiable and accessible by the public at large, and in this regard, signboards of “Public Toilets” or “Private Toilets” be displayed at the retail outlets. Such facilities should be easily accessible by the ladies walking or driving on the roads.
iv) The amenities constructed should be done so, keeping in mind accessibility for persons with disabilities. The State has a responsibility to provide them equitable access to basic amenities while undertaking road travel, in light of the Constitution of India and the various international Human Rights obligations.
v) All toilets be adequately staffed for taking care and maintaining the same with a proper system for the disposal of sanitary napkins.
vi) Authorities may also consider making it necessary/mandatory for all the Dhabas/ Restaurants on the highways to make available public toilets and drinking water facilities for the use of the general public. While granting permission to such establishments, authorities should consider incorporating specific conditions regarding the provision of toilets and restrooms. Also, maintain the same hygiene, failing which their registration/ permit is cancelled.
vii) The State Authorities and corresponding Central Authorities will take expedient steps to check the practice of the black-marketing or open unauthorized sale of petrol/diesel and initiate action after the proper investigation against units aiding the perpetuation of such practice.
viii) The Oil Marketing Companies to take steps to verify the continued interest or otherwise of the allottees/proposed allottees. The entire pending
process of allotment shall be finalized within the time stipulated in the minutes of the Development Commissioner, Bihar.
ix) The authorities may consider the development of a mechanism to:-
(a) institute a randomized checking system to ensure facilities and resources’ quality and proper availability.
(b) in consultation with OMCs and furtherance of the Statutory obligation take constructive steps to ensure sustainable use of resources and all other
related issues.
(c) Prepare a digital platform furnishing complete information of such places of convenience to the general public with a provision of lodging online remarks.
Doongar Singh and Ors Vs The State Of Rajasthan on 28 Nov 2017
A division bench of Supreme Court passed the following guidelines…
Doongar Singh and Ors Vs The State Of Rajasthan on 28 Nov 201713. To conclude:
(i) The trial courts must carry out the mandate of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. as reiterated in judgments of this Court, inter alia, in State of U.P. versus Shambhu Nath Singh and Others, Mohd. Khalid versus State of W.B. and Vinod Kumar versus State of Punjab.
(ii) The eye-witnesses must be examined by the prosecution as soon as possible.
(iii) Statements of eye-witnesses should invariably be recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as per procedure prescribed thereunder.
Citations : [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1391], [2017 SCALE 13 752], [2018 SCC 13 741], [2019 SCC CRI 1 410], [2017 CTC 6 883], [2018 KLT 1 629], [2018 AIC 183 5], [2018 ECRN 1 667], [2017 AIR SC SUPP 328]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/99075271/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a261fe74a9326744f39e37e
Ramapada Basak and Anr Vs State of West Bengal and Ors on 23 Jul 2021
Single judge bench of Calcutta High Court held as follows:
Ramapada Basak and Anr Vs State of West Bengal and Ors on 23 Jul 2021It is now well settled that the children and their spouses living in the senior citizen’s house are at best “licensees”. Such licence comes to an end once the senior citizens are not comfortable with their children and their families. This principle has also been followed by the Delhi High Court in in WP(C) 2761/2020 (Sandeep Gulati Vs. Divisional Commissioner), decided on 13.03.2020 and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the cases of (a) Manmohan Singh Vs. U.T. Chandigarh and Ors. (Case No. 1365/2015), (b) Samsher Singh Vs. District Magistrate, U.T. Chandigarh (Case No. 2017 CWP 6365) and (c) Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Case No. 2016(1) RCR (Civil) 324)
Two issues would come up for consideration. The first of which is the availability of alternative remedy under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The other is a right of a daughter-in-law of residence to be provided by either the husband or the father-inlaw, if directed by a competent court under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Vanitha Vs. Deputy Commissoner, Bangaluru Urban District and Ors. reported in 2020 SCConline SC 1023 has said that since both, the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as also the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are special legislations, the two must be construed harmoniously and applied suitably by a writ court hearing a plea of the senior citizens that they do not want their children to live with them. At paragraphs 35-40 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaborately dealt with the principle under the headline “E. Harmonising competing reliefs under the PWDV Act 2005 and Senior Citizens Act 2007”.
In the instant case, it is seen that no right of residence has been sought under any Statute by the daughter-in-law. Hence, this Court is of the view that there is no impediment in allowing exclusive residentiary rights to the senior citizens and to direct eviction of the son and daughter-in-law.
On the question of alternative remedy, this Court is conscious of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trademark reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 and upheld recently in the year 2021 in the case of Radha Krishan Industries Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2021 SCCOnline SC 334.
However, the right of senior citizen to exclusively reside in his own house, must be viewed from the prism of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. To compel a senior citizen to approach either a civil court (the jurisdiction of which is any way barred under Section 27 of the 2007 Act) or take recourse to a special Statute like the 2007 Act would in most cases be extremely erroneous and painful for a person in the sunset days of life. This Court is therefore of the view that the principle of alternative remedy cannot be strictly applied to Senior Citizens and a Writ Court must come to the aid of a Senior Citizen in a given case.
A nation that cannot take care of its aged, old and infirm citizens cannot be regarded as having achieved complete civilization.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9363669/
Registrar General Vs State of Meghalaya on 23 Jun 2021
A division bench of Meghalaya High Court issued the below directions, when the Administration there tried to impose mandatory vaccination upon the traders for them to run their businesses…
Guidelines passed:
Registrar General Vs State of Meghalaya on 23 Jun 2021In addition thereto, we issue the following directions so that the public at large are provided with an option of making an informed choice:-
(i) All shops/establishments/local taxis/auto-rickshaws/maxi cabs and buses should display prominently at a conspicuous place, a sign, “VACCINATED”, in the event all employees and staff of the concerned shop/establishment are vaccinated. Similarly, in the case of local taxis/auto-rickshaws/maxi cabs and buses where the concerned driver or conductor or helper(s) are vaccinated.
(ii) All shops/establishments/local taxis/auto-rickshaws/maxi cabs and buses should display prominently at a conspicuous place, a sign, “NOT VACCINATED”, in the event all the employees and staff of the concerned shop/establishment are not vaccinated. Similarly, in the case of local taxis/auto-rickshaws/maxi cabs and buses where the concerned driver or conductor or helper(s) are not vaccinated.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70432062/
Rahul S Shah Vs Jinendra Kumar Gandhi on 22 Apr 2021
Supreme Court passed these mandatory guidelines which “All Courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall follow”.
From Para 42,
Rahul S Shah Vs Jinendra Kumar Gandhi on 22 Apr 202142. All Courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below-mentioned directions:
1. In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must examine the parties to the suit under Order X in relation to third party interest and further exercise the power under Order XI Rule 14 asking parties to disclose and produce documents, upon oath, which are in possession of the parties including declaration pertaining to third party interest in such properties.
2. In appropriate cases, where the possession is not in dispute and not a question of fact for adjudication before the Court, the Court may appoint Commissioner to assess the accurate description and status of the property.
3. After examination of parties under Order X or production of documents under Order XI or receipt of commission report, the Court must add all necessary or proper parties to the suit, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also make such joinder of cause of action in the same suit.
4. Under Order XL Rule 1 of CPC, a Court Receiver can be appointed to monitor the status of the property in question as custodia legis for proper adjudication of the matter.
5. The Court must, before passing the decree, pertaining to delivery of possession of a property ensure that the decree is unambiguous so as to not only contain clear description of the property but also having regard to the status of the property.
6. In a money suit, the Court must invariably resort to Order XXI Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application.
7. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The Court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree.
8. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order XXI of CPC, must not issue notice on an application of third-party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. Further, the Court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the Court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant.
9. The Court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method like appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic materials including photographs or video with affidavits.
10. The Court must in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order XXI as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35A.
11. Under section 60 of CPC the term “…in name of the judgment- debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf” should be read liberally to incorporate any other person from whom he may have the ability to derive share, profit or property.
12. The Executing Court must dispose of the Execution Proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.
13. The Executing Court may on satisfaction of the fact that it is not possible to execute the decree without police assistance, direct the concerned Police Station to provide police assistance to such officials who are working towards execution of the decree. Further, in case an offence against the public servant while discharging his duties is brought to the knowledge of the Court, the same must be dealt stringently in accordance with law.
14. The Judicial Academies must prepare manuals and ensure continuous training through appropriate mediums to the Court personnel/staff executing the warrants, carrying out attachment and sale and any other official duties for executing orders issued by the Executing Courts
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93073896/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6085af43c07b9e7eacd85ef8
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/rahul-s-shah-versus-jinendra-kumar-gandhi-ors
Akshay Vinod Kulkarni Vs Chief Passport Officer and Anr on 03 May 2021
Single judge bench of Delhi High Court held that without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner, the Passport Office cannot suspend, impound a passport.
From Paras 11, 12 and 13,
Akshay Vinod Kulkarni Vs Chief Passport Officer and Anr on 03 May 202111. In the opinion of this court, the shocking part of the present case is that, despite long drawn correspondence the Respondents have not served the passport suspension order or the denial order to the Petitioner. He was shuttled between the RPO-Kozhikode who informed him that it was the Indian Mission in Houston which revoked his passport. It is not even the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner was heard. The passport of the petitioner has been suspended on the basis of a complaint by the wife due to matrimonial disputes for more than two and half years. The correspondence on record reveals that the Petitioner has repeatedly approached various authorities seeking revival of his passport as also for a copy of the denial order, but in vain. Even before this court the Respondents have not filed any affidavit or document on record till date, despite having more than five months to do so. The Indian Mission or the other authorities have not filed a single document to show whether it is a case of revocation of passport or suspension of passport and if so on what grounds was the action taken. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Petitioner has been unable to travel to India. It is the case of the Petitioner that his old mother, who is a widow, lives alone in Bangalore and that he wishes to travel both in the U.S.A. and in India, in relation to his job assignments. It is clear that the Petitioner is suffering immensely both personally and professionally due to the suspension/revocation of his passport. The Petitioner’s appeal has also now been dismissed, without the said orders being made available to him. The submission is that even if the suspension order is stayed, the passport does not come back into operation.
12. In the order in appeal dated 8th May, 2020, which is under challenge in the present petition, the Appellate Forum proceeds on the basis that since the email dated 5th November, 2018 was sent to the Petitioner, it is presumed that the Petitioner was aware of the suspension of his passport. Such a conclusion cannot be arrived at unless and until, the Respondent establishes on record that proper notice was issued and a reply was called for and the Petitioner did not respond to the same.
13. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents now submits that due to the pandemic, the file of this case is also not available and so he could not place any documents on record.
14. The Petitioner cannot be made to live without a passport indefinitely. This Court has given adequate time to the Respondents to file an affidavit/documents on record, however, not a single shred of paper has been placed on record. On merits, whether the suspension/revocation was justified or not would be the subject matter of final adjudication. However, the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer further especially due to the pandemic that is currently raging which may require him to travel to India to meet his mother who is in India, owing to her age etc.
Titash Banik Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 23 Dec 2016
Relying on landmark decision of a Division bench of the Apex Court here, High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the accused must be provided with a certified copy of the FIR in which the accused was accused.
Titash Banik Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 23 Dec 2016Citations: [2016 SCC ONLINE CHH 1623]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149118573/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58a563b84a93266eac2e0258
Police authorities cannot deny certified copy of FIR, except in some sensitive cases
Fakhrey Alam Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 15 Mar 2021
A Division bench of Supreme Court in this Order held as follows in regards to Default bail u/s 167 CrPC,
Fakhrey Alam Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 15 Mar 2021On the second aspect we cannot lose sight of the fact that what was envisaged by the Legislature was that the investigation should be completed in 24 hours but practically that was never found feasible. It is in these circumstances that Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. provided for time period within which the investigation should be completed, depending upon the nature of offences. Since, liberty is a Constitutional right, time periods were specified in the default of which the accused will have a right to default bail, a valuable right.
If we look at the scenario in the present case in that conspectus, the charge sheet under the provisions of law as originally filed on 04.09.2017 were required to be filed within 90 days but was actually filed within 180 days. This was on the premise of the charge under Section 18 of the UAPA Act. However, no charge sheet was filed even within 180 days under the UAPA Act, but post filing of the application for default bail, it was filed after 211 days. Thus, undoubtedly the period of 180 days to file the charge sheet qua UAPA Act had elapsed. We do not think that the State can take advantage of the fact that in one case there is one charge sheet and supplementary charge sheets are used to extend the time period in this manner by seeking to file the supplementary charge sheet qua the offences under the UAPA Act even beyond the period specified under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C beyond which default bail will be admissible, i.e, the period of 180 days. That period having expired and the charge sheet not having been filed qua those offences (albeit a supplementary charge sheet), we are of the view the appellant would be entitled to default bail in the aforesaid facts and circumstances.
We need only emphasize what is already observed in Bikramjit Singh case (supra) that default bail under first proviso of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is a fundamental right and not merely a statutory right as it is, a procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus a fundamental right is granted to an accused person to be released on bail once the conditions of the first proviso to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. are fulfilled.
In fact in the majority judgment of this Court it has been held that an oral application for grant of default bail would suffice [See. Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam]3. The consequences of the UAPA Act are drastic in punishment and in that context, it has been held not to be a mere statutory right but part of the procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Citations :
Other Sources :
