News Analysis India

Tag: allahabad high court

  • Allahabad HC Rules Maintaining A List Of Gifts Received At Wedding, Know-Why? |

    The Allahabad High Court ruled that keeping a list of gifts received by the bride or bridegroom at the time of marriage, as required by Section 3(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, is critical to preventing false allegations of dowry in subsequent disputes. “Maintaining the list is also important so that both parties to the marriage and their family members do not later make false allegations about taking or giving dowry in a marriage. The arrangement made by the Dowry Prohibition Act may also help in subsequent litigation between the parties to determine whether the allegations regarding the taking or giving of dowry are covered by the exception carved out under section 3(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,” Justice Vikram D. Chauhan said.

    Section 3 of the Act imposes penalties for giving or receiving dowry, including imprisonment for not less than 5 years and a fine of not less than Rs 50,000 or the value of the dowry, whichever is higher. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 states that presents given to the bride or bridegroom at the time of marriage and not demanded are not considered ‘dowry’, provided that a list of such gifts received by either person is kept in accordance with the rules.

    Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 specifies how the list of gifts under Section 3(2) is to be maintained.

    “The Central government framed the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 in this regard, as gifts and presents serve as a token of celebration and honour in the Indian marriage system. The legislature was aware of the Indian tradition, and thus the aforementioned exception was carved out. The aforementioned list would also serve as a means of resolving dowry allegations that are later raised in matrimonial disputes, according to the court.

    The court observed that Section 8B requires the appointment of a Dowry Prohibition Officer for the purpose of implementing the Act and, as a result, requested a response from the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary as to how many Dowry Prohibition Officers have been appointed in the state and, if not, why they have not been appointed at a time when dowry cases are increasing. The next hearing in the case will be held on May 23.

  • Gyanvapi Mosque Case: Allahabad HC Upholds Varanasi Court Order Allowing Hindu Side To Offer Prayer In Vyas Tehkhana |

    The Allahabad High Court today upheld the Varanasi Court order allowing Hindu side to offer prayer in ‘Vyas Ka Tehkhana’ in the Gyanvapi Mosque. The High Court refused to put a stay on the Varanasi court’s order and the Muslim side said that they will file a caveat in the Supreme Court against the order. 

    Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who represented the Hindu side said, “Today, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the first appeal from orders of Anjuman Intezamia wherein the order of 17th and 31st January passed by Varanasi District Court was under challenge before Allahabad High Court. The crux of the matter is that the ongoing puja in the ‘Vyas Tehkhana’ of Gyanvapi complex will continue.”

    The Allahabad High Court delivered the verdict on an appeal filed by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee (AIMC) in which the Muslim side challenged the order of Varanasi District Judge allowing Hindu devotees to offer prayers inside the ‘Vyas Ka Tehkhana’ area in the Gyanvapi mosque complex. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal of Allahabad High Court delievered the judgement today after reserving the decision during the last hearing. The mosque has four ‘tahkhanas’ (cellars) in the basement, of which one is still in the possession of the Vyas family, who used to live there.

    Reacting to the judgement, Advocate Prabhash Pandey said that as per the order, Varanasi District Magistrate will continue as the Receiver of the ‘tehkhana’.

    Advocate Hari Shankar Jain, said, “It is a decision worth welcoming. The right that Hindus have to perform puja has been maintained by the High Court. Hindus were performing puja in the Vyas Tehkhana until 1993, but they were stopped unlawfully. They (the Muslim side) can move Supreme Court, but we are also ready to oppose.”

    On January 31, the Varanasi district court allowed the Hindu side to offer prayers in the southern cellar of Gyanvapi mosque. The court directed the Varanasi district magistrate to make arrangements within seven days for ‘puja’ to be performed by the Hindu side and a pujari (priest) nominated by Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust.

  • Allahabad HC Refuses To Stay Varanasi Court’s Order Allowing Puja In Gyanvapi Mosque’s Tehkhana |

    New Delhi: The Allahabad High Court on Friday rejected the plea of the Masjid Intezamia Committee of Gyanvapi mosque to stay the order of the Varanasi district court that permitted the Hindu side to perform puja in the southern cellar of the mosque. The High Court gave time to the committee till February 6 to amend its appeal and challenge the earlier order of January 17, 2024, by which the District Magistrate of Varanasi was appointed as the receiver of the Gyanvapi premises. The next hearing of the case will be on February 6.

    The bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Aggarwal observed that the committee should first question the validity of the January 17 order, following which the DM took possession of the Gyanvapi premises on January 23 and allowed the Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust to conduct puja in the basement through a priest by an interim order dated January 31.

    The committee’s lawyer, SFA Naqvi, argued that he had to approach the High Court urgently due to the January 31 order, as the DM made arrangements overnight and started the puja within nine hours. He said that he would also challenge the January 17 order, which he claimed was illegal and arbitrary.

    The Hindu side’s lawyer, Vishnu Shankar Jain, opposed the appeal and said that it was not maintainable as the original order of January 17 was not challenged. He said that the subordinate court did not grant any relief to the plaintiff, but only delegated the authority to the temple trust.

    The committee had also moved the Supreme Court on Thursday morning, but the apex court advised them to go to the High Court first.

    Puja and aarti performed in the cellar on Thursday

    Meanwhile, following the order of the Varanasi district court, the Hindu side performed puja and aarti in the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi mosque on Thursday morning. The court had directed the DM to make arrangements within seven days for the puja to be performed by the Hindu side and a priest nominated by the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust.

    The court had passed the order on the petition of Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas, the head priest of Acharya Ved Vyas Peeth temple, who sought permission to worship Shringar Gauri and other visible and invisible deities in the cellar of the mosque. Vyas belongs to the family that used to perform puja in the cellar till December 1993, when it was closed by the authorities. He claimed that his maternal grandfather, priest Somnath Vyas, was the hereditary pujari of the cellar.

    The Muslim side’s lawyer, Akhlaq Ahmed, expressed his dissatisfaction with the order and said that it ignored the Advocate Commissioner report of 2022, the ASI report, and the decision of 1937, which were in favour of the mosque. He said that the Hindu side did not produce any evidence that they had performed puja in the cellar before 1993. He also said that there was no idol of any deity in the place.

    The Gyanvapi mosque has four cellars in the basement, out of which one is still in the possession of the Vyas family, who used to reside there. The ASI survey, ordered by the same court in a related case, indicated that the mosque was built during Aurangzeb’s reign over the ruins of a Hindu temple.

  • Allahabad HC reserves order for August 3, stay on ASI survey of Gyanvapi mosque

    By PTI

    PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court on Thursday reserved till August 3 its order on a plea against the survey of Gyanvapi mosque premises by the Archeological Survey of India.

    The court also ordered the ASI to stay the survey work till then.

    Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker heard the matter in the afternoon session and reserved his verdict till August 3.

    The high court was hearing a plea against a Varanasi district court order directing the ASI to conduct a survey to determine if the Gyanvapi mosque was built upon a temple.

    The court heard the arguments from Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, which manages the mosque, and the Hindu side. Senior ASI officials were also present in the courtroom.

    The high court on Wednesday said that it would take up the matter at 3:30 pm on Thursday, but Chief Justice Diwaker started hearing the case 15 minutes in advance and reserved its order before concluding the day’s proceedings at 5 pm.

    PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court on Thursday reserved till August 3 its order on a plea against the survey of Gyanvapi mosque premises by the Archeological Survey of India.

    The court also ordered the ASI to stay the survey work till then.

    Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker heard the matter in the afternoon session and reserved his verdict till August 3.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    The high court was hearing a plea against a Varanasi district court order directing the ASI to conduct a survey to determine if the Gyanvapi mosque was built upon a temple.

    The court heard the arguments from Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, which manages the mosque, and the Hindu side. Senior ASI officials were also present in the courtroom.

    The high court on Wednesday said that it would take up the matter at 3:30 pm on Thursday, but Chief Justice Diwaker started hearing the case 15 minutes in advance and reserved its order before concluding the day’s proceedings at 5 pm.

  • SC refuses urgent mentioning against Allahabad HC order summoning makers of ‘Adipurush’

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to hear the urgent mentioning of a plea against an order of the Allahabad High Court, which had directed the makers of the controversial movie “Adipurush” to appear before it on July 27.

    “Adipurush”, a retelling of the epic Ramayana, has come under attack for its dialogues and use of colloquial language.

    A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud asked the counsel appearing for the makers of the movie to mention it on Thursday.

    The high court on June 30 had directed the makers of the movie to appear before it on July 27 and told the central government to form a committee to give its views on the film. It was hearing separate petitions of Kuldeep Tiwari and Naveen Dhawan seeking a ban on the movie.

    The high court had ordered director Om Raut, producer Bhushan Kumar, and dialogue writer Manoj Muntashir to appear before it on July 27.

    It has also directed the central government to constitute a five-member committee to give its view on the film as to whether it had hurt the feelings of the public. In an order, it had also directed the government to review the decision of granting of certificate to the movie.

    The high court had said the secretary of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and chairman of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) will file their personal affidavits apprising it as to whether the guidelines for certification of the film for public exhibition has been followed in letter and spirit.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to hear the urgent mentioning of a plea against an order of the Allahabad High Court, which had directed the makers of the controversial movie “Adipurush” to appear before it on July 27.

    “Adipurush”, a retelling of the epic Ramayana, has come under attack for its dialogues and use of colloquial language.

    A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud asked the counsel appearing for the makers of the movie to mention it on Thursday.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    The high court on June 30 had directed the makers of the movie to appear before it on July 27 and told the central government to form a committee to give its views on the film. It was hearing separate petitions of Kuldeep Tiwari and Naveen Dhawan seeking a ban on the movie.

    The high court had ordered director Om Raut, producer Bhushan Kumar, and dialogue writer Manoj Muntashir to appear before it on July 27.

    It has also directed the central government to constitute a five-member committee to give its view on the film as to whether it had hurt the feelings of the public. In an order, it had also directed the government to review the decision of granting of certificate to the movie.

    The high court had said the secretary of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and chairman of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) will file their personal affidavits apprising it as to whether the guidelines for certification of the film for public exhibition has been followed in letter and spirit.

  • Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute: Allahabad HC asks Mathura court to transfer all petitions to it

    Express News Service

    LUCKNOW: In a turn of events, the Allahabad High Court, on Friday, transferred all the suits related to the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah mosque dispute pending in the lower court of Mathura, to itself.

    The High Court directed the Mathura lower court to transfer all cases along with the relevant records to High Court within the next two weeks.

    The High Court, on May 3, had reserved the order over a petition seeking transfer of the case, in which the Hindus had claimed the right over the land on which the Shahi Masjid Idgah is built, to the High Court from Mathura lower court.

    The single judge bench of Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, allowed the transfer application moved by the Hindus including Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman at Katra Keshav Dev Khewat, Mathura, through lawyer Ranjana Agnihotri and seven others.

    “The instant transfer application is allowed…Let the District Judge, Mathura prepare a list of all such cases of similar nature involving the subject matter and touching upon its periphery, expressly or by implication include particulars of such cases and these suits/cases along with the record, as above, shall be duly forwarded to this Court within two weeks and the same shall stand transferred to this court in the exercise of suo motu powers of this Court,” the Court ordered.

    The respondents in the case include the Management Committee of Shahi Masjid Idgah, Shri Krishna Janmbhoomi Trust, Katra Keshav Dev, and Shri Krishna Jamna Sthan Sewa Sansthan.

    The transfer plea filed by advocates Vishnu Shankar Jain, Prabhash Pandey and Pradeep Kumar Sharma claimed that the issues involved in the suits pending before the Mathura court concerned crores of devotees of Lord Krishna and the matter was of national importance, hence it should be heard in the High Court.

    The petitioners had also claimed in the application seeking transfer of the cases that the suits pending before the Mathura court could conveniently be heard in the High Court as there were substantial questions of law involved and also those related to the interpretation of the Constitution of India.

    The petitioners had highlighted that following the initial suit being filed before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Mathura, a number of suits were filed copying the initial plea’s contents verbatim. All those suits were of similar nature and the subject matter as well as relief sought in these cases was similar.

    While hearing the petition, the High Court referred to Section 24(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to note that as per the said provision, the suit pending in the subordinate court could be withdrawn and transferred to Court to which the application was made and that it was the High Court which was competent to hear and dispose of the same.

    Advocates Punit Kumar Gupta, Birendra Prasad Maurya, Devid Kumar Singh, Kamlesh Narayan Pandey, Nasiruzzaman, Prateek Rai, Radheshyam Yadav and Varun Singh represented the respondents.

    LUCKNOW: In a turn of events, the Allahabad High Court, on Friday, transferred all the suits related to the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah mosque dispute pending in the lower court of Mathura, to itself.

    The High Court directed the Mathura lower court to transfer all cases along with the relevant records to High Court within the next two weeks.

    The High Court, on May 3, had reserved the order over a petition seeking transfer of the case, in which the Hindus had claimed the right over the land on which the Shahi Masjid Idgah is built, to the High Court from Mathura lower court.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    The single judge bench of Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, allowed the transfer application moved by the Hindus including Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman at Katra Keshav Dev Khewat, Mathura, through lawyer Ranjana Agnihotri and seven others.

    “The instant transfer application is allowed…Let the District Judge, Mathura prepare a list of all such cases of similar nature involving the subject matter and touching upon its periphery, expressly or by implication include particulars of such cases and these suits/cases along with the record, as above, shall be duly forwarded to this Court within two weeks and the same shall stand transferred to this court in the exercise of suo motu powers of this Court,” the Court ordered.

    The respondents in the case include the Management Committee of Shahi Masjid Idgah, Shri Krishna Janmbhoomi Trust, Katra Keshav Dev, and Shri Krishna Jamna Sthan Sewa Sansthan.

    The transfer plea filed by advocates Vishnu Shankar Jain, Prabhash Pandey and Pradeep Kumar Sharma claimed that the issues involved in the suits pending before the Mathura court concerned crores of devotees of Lord Krishna and the matter was of national importance, hence it should be heard in the High Court.

    The petitioners had also claimed in the application seeking transfer of the cases that the suits pending before the Mathura court could conveniently be heard in the High Court as there were substantial questions of law involved and also those related to the interpretation of the Constitution of India.

    The petitioners had highlighted that following the initial suit being filed before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Mathura, a number of suits were filed copying the initial plea’s contents verbatim. All those suits were of similar nature and the subject matter as well as relief sought in these cases was similar.

    While hearing the petition, the High Court referred to Section 24(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to note that as per the said provision, the suit pending in the subordinate court could be withdrawn and transferred to Court to which the application was made and that it was the High Court which was competent to hear and dispose of the same.

    Advocates Punit Kumar Gupta, Birendra Prasad Maurya, Devid Kumar Singh, Kamlesh Narayan Pandey, Nasiruzzaman, Prateek Rai, Radheshyam Yadav and Varun Singh represented the respondents.

  • HC refuses to quash criminal proceedings against man for objectionable comment against Lord Shiva

    Express News Service

    LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of posting an objectionable comment on social media site Facebook against Lord Shiva, observing that such offences which had a tendency to promote hatred between classes of people or communities should be put down with an iron fist.

    Dismissing a petition filed by Asif of Aligarh district, Justice JJ Munir observed: “Offences of the kind that have a tendency to promote hatred between classes of people or communities have to be put down with a heavy hand. These offences cannot be permitted to flourish in society by adopting a soft-pedalling approach at the cost of widespread damage to the community.”

    The allegation against the applicant was that he had posted objectionable comments on his Facebook account regarding Lord Shiva, by using objectionable language which had hurt religious sentiments of the Hindu community. There have been further comments fomenting communal hatred by the other co-accused in the comments section of the FB account.

    ALSO READ | Supreme Court to hear Gyanvapi mosque plea on April 14

    After investigation, the police had submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant on the basis of material collected. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate-II, Aligarh took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the applicant on January 3, 2023. However, the applicant challenged the summons and also the resultant proceedings through the present application filed under Section 482 (inherent powers of High Court) of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

    During the court proceedings, the counsel for the applicant took the plea that the comments posted on the applicant’s Facebook were merely forwards by another person and that they were not the applicant’s authorship.

    Rejecting the plea, the court said, “If there is a comment which has the tendency to promote enmity between different groups on the ground of religion, then posting it on one’s facebook would certainly constitute an offence. The words employed in the post clearly are ones made with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a particular section of the community or a class of citizens of the country. Even if the said comments have been endorsed by the applicant by posting them on his Facebook, it does not matter whether he is the author or the exponent of the comments.”

    Dismissing the application, the court in its order dated April 6, said, “In the opinion of this court, there is absolutely no good ground to quash the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of CrPC. Hence, this application is accordingly dismissed.”

    LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of posting an objectionable comment on social media site Facebook against Lord Shiva, observing that such offences which had a tendency to promote hatred between classes of people or communities should be put down with an iron fist.

    Dismissing a petition filed by Asif of Aligarh district, Justice JJ Munir observed: “Offences of the kind that have a tendency to promote hatred between classes of people or communities have to be put down with a heavy hand. These offences cannot be permitted to flourish in society by adopting a soft-pedalling approach at the cost of widespread damage to the community.”

    The allegation against the applicant was that he had posted objectionable comments on his Facebook account regarding Lord Shiva, by using objectionable language which had hurt religious sentiments of the Hindu community. There have been further comments fomenting communal hatred by the other co-accused in the comments section of the FB account.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    ALSO READ | Supreme Court to hear Gyanvapi mosque plea on April 14

    After investigation, the police had submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant on the basis of material collected. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate-II, Aligarh took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the applicant on January 3, 2023. However, the applicant challenged the summons and also the resultant proceedings through the present application filed under Section 482 (inherent powers of High Court) of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

    During the court proceedings, the counsel for the applicant took the plea that the comments posted on the applicant’s Facebook were merely forwards by another person and that they were not the applicant’s authorship.

    Rejecting the plea, the court said, “If there is a comment which has the tendency to promote enmity between different groups on the ground of religion, then posting it on one’s facebook would certainly constitute an offence. The words employed in the post clearly are ones made with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a particular section of the community or a class of citizens of the country. Even if the said comments have been endorsed by the applicant by posting them on his Facebook, it does not matter whether he is the author or the exponent of the comments.”

    Dismissing the application, the court in its order dated April 6, said, “In the opinion of this court, there is absolutely no good ground to quash the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of CrPC. Hence, this application is accordingly dismissed.”

  • Difficult for a woman to live alone after live-in relationship ends : Allahabad High Court

    Express News Service

    LUCKNOW: With the increasing cases of the killing of women engaged in live-in relationships, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that it was difficult for a woman to live alone after such a relationship ended as Indian society, still at large did not accept and recognize such relationships.

    The Court gave this observation on February 14, this year while hearing a bail application of a man who was arrested for not fulfilling his promise to marry the woman who had been his live-in partner.

    While granting bail to the applicant Aditya Raj Verma, the single judge bench, comprising Justice Siddharth, noted that the woman in a live-in relationship was left with no option but to lodge a case against her partner in such a situation.

    “…this is one case where the disastrous consequences of live-in relationship have come on the scene. It is difficult for a woman to live alone after breaking off a live-in relationship. The Indian society at large does not recognise such a relationship. The woman, therefore, is left with no option but to lodge first information report against her live-in partner, like in the present case,” the order said.

    As per the prosecution, the couple were in a live-in relationship for over a year. The woman was earlier married to another man with whom she had two sons. Later, she went with the applicant and started a live-in relationship. Consequently, she became pregnant but the applicant refused to marry her.

    The woman got an FIR lodged against the applicant alleging that he used to send her objectionable photographs to her ex-husband following which he also refused to accept her.

    As a result, the applicant was booked under Sections 376 (rape) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Counsel for the applicant argued that the woman was a major and she entered into a live-in relationship with the accused willingly. She was capable of understanding the consequence of such a relationship and there was no allegation that the relationship started with the promise of marriage, he added.

    It was further argued that the accused was falsely implicated in the case and that he was in jail since November 22, last year, even without any criminal history.

    However, after hearing all the sides, and given the nature of the offence, the evidence, the complicity of the accused and other grounds, the Court granted bail to the applicant.

    LUCKNOW: With the increasing cases of the killing of women engaged in live-in relationships, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that it was difficult for a woman to live alone after such a relationship ended as Indian society, still at large did not accept and recognize such relationships.

    The Court gave this observation on February 14, this year while hearing a bail application of a man who was arrested for not fulfilling his promise to marry the woman who had been his live-in partner.

    While granting bail to the applicant Aditya Raj Verma, the single judge bench, comprising Justice Siddharth, noted that the woman in a live-in relationship was left with no option but to lodge a case against her partner in such a situation.

    “…this is one case where the disastrous consequences of live-in relationship have come on the scene. It is difficult for a woman to live alone after breaking off a live-in relationship. The Indian society at large does not recognise such a relationship. The woman, therefore, is left with no option but to lodge first information report against her live-in partner, like in the present case,” the order said.

    As per the prosecution, the couple were in a live-in relationship for over a year. The woman was earlier married to another man with whom she had two sons. Later, she went with the applicant and started a live-in relationship. Consequently, she became pregnant but the applicant refused to marry her.

    The woman got an FIR lodged against the applicant alleging that he used to send her objectionable photographs to her ex-husband following which he also refused to accept her.

    As a result, the applicant was booked under Sections 376 (rape) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Counsel for the applicant argued that the woman was a major and she entered into a live-in relationship with the accused willingly. She was capable of understanding the consequence of such a relationship and there was no allegation that the relationship started with the promise of marriage, he added.

    It was further argued that the accused was falsely implicated in the case and that he was in jail since November 22, last year, even without any criminal history.

    However, after hearing all the sides, and given the nature of the offence, the evidence, the complicity of the accused and other grounds, the Court granted bail to the applicant.

  • Madras, Allahabad High Courts get four advocates as additional judges

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: The Central government on Thursday notified the elevation of four advocates as additional judges of Allahabad and Madras High Court. Prashant Kumar, Manjive Shukla and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal were appointed as additional judges of Allahabad HC, while Venkatachari Lakshminarayanan additional judge of Madras HC.

    Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju while taking to Twitter said, “As per relevant provisions under the Constitution of India, the following Advocates have been appointed as Additional Judges of Allahabad High Court and Madras High Court. I extend my best wishes to all of them.”

    Venkatachari’s name was recommended by the Supreme Court collegium in its meeting dated January 17, 2023 along with the elevation of advocates Victoria Gowri, Pillaipakkam Bahukutumbi Balaji, Ramaswamy Neelakandan and Kandhasami Kulandaivelu Ramakrishnan.

    The government had cleared Gowri’s name on February 6, 2023, but kept back Venkatachari’s name, which was cleared on Thursday. Names of Prashant Kumar, Manjive Shukla and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal were recommended by the SC collegium also on January 17, 2023, along with other six names.

    The Madras High Court has been working at a strength of 57 judges against a sanctioned strength of 75. With the addition of Justice Lakshminarayanan, the number of Madras HC judges will rise to 58. Rijiju recently said that the government was committed to filling up vacancies expeditiously. He also said that while the process was continuous, integrated and collaborative, it, however, required consultation and approval from various constitutional authorities.

    NEW DELHI: The Central government on Thursday notified the elevation of four advocates as additional judges of Allahabad and Madras High Court. Prashant Kumar, Manjive Shukla and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal were appointed as additional judges of Allahabad HC, while Venkatachari Lakshminarayanan additional judge of Madras HC.

    Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju while taking to Twitter said, “As per relevant provisions under the Constitution of India, the following Advocates have been appointed as Additional Judges of Allahabad High Court and Madras High Court. I extend my best wishes to all of them.”

    Venkatachari’s name was recommended by the Supreme Court collegium in its meeting dated January 17, 2023 along with the elevation of advocates Victoria Gowri, Pillaipakkam Bahukutumbi Balaji, Ramaswamy Neelakandan and Kandhasami Kulandaivelu Ramakrishnan.

    The government had cleared Gowri’s name on February 6, 2023, but kept back Venkatachari’s name, which was cleared on Thursday. Names of Prashant Kumar, Manjive Shukla and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal were recommended by the SC collegium also on January 17, 2023, along with other six names.

    The Madras High Court has been working at a strength of 57 judges against a sanctioned strength of 75. With the addition of Justice Lakshminarayanan, the number of Madras HC judges will rise to 58. Rijiju recently said that the government was committed to filling up vacancies expeditiously. He also said that while the process was continuous, integrated and collaborative, it, however, required consultation and approval from various constitutional authorities.

  • UP govt issues GO asking schools to comply with Allahabad HC order over fee adjustment

    By Express News Service

    LUCKNOW: Yogi Adityanath government released a government order (GO) directing all the private schools to adjust 15 per cent excess fees which they charged during the Covid period (2020-21) in the current academic session in compliance with the order of Allahabad High Court.

    The GO said that the amount should be returned to those students, who had left the schools. Releasing the GO, Special Secretary, Rupesh Kumar said that if any student/guardian/parent-teacher association was aggrieved by non-compliance of the above instructions, they should approach the District Fee Regulatory Committee with a complaint under Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Self-Financed Independent Schools (Fee Regulation) Act, 2018. “The committee will take appropriate decision on their complaint,” said the officer.

    The special secretary said the government had issued an order, dated April 27, 2020, asking all school boards operating in the state not to increase fees. “But if the schools charged 15 per cent of the calculated amount of the excess fee in the academic session 2020-21, it should now be adjusted,” said the order.

    Significantly, the Allahabad High Court, on January 6, 2023, had directed all schools in Uttar Pradesh to provide a 15 per cent rebate to the students on the total fees charged during the Covid period in 2020-21.

    However, the Unaided Private Schools Association of UP had claimed that most of the member schools had given huge concessions to students during the pandemic times. “If there are complaints by parents against any school violating it, that school should be questioned,” said Anil Agarwal, president of the Association.

    Parents welcomed the High Court and state government orders of the 15 per cent fee adjustment, saying it would give some relief to parents who were hard-pressed as their income was hit due to job loss or salary cuts during the pandemic.

    LUCKNOW: Yogi Adityanath government released a government order (GO) directing all the private schools to adjust 15 per cent excess fees which they charged during the Covid period (2020-21) in the current academic session in compliance with the order of Allahabad High Court.

    The GO said that the amount should be returned to those students, who had left the schools. Releasing the GO, Special Secretary, Rupesh Kumar said that if any student/guardian/parent-teacher association was aggrieved by non-compliance of the above instructions, they should approach the District Fee Regulatory Committee with a complaint under Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Self-Financed Independent Schools (Fee Regulation) Act, 2018. “The committee will take appropriate decision on their complaint,” said the officer.

    The special secretary said the government had issued an order, dated April 27, 2020, asking all school boards operating in the state not to increase fees. “But if the schools charged 15 per cent of the calculated amount of the excess fee in the academic session 2020-21, it should now be adjusted,” said the order.

    Significantly, the Allahabad High Court, on January 6, 2023, had directed all schools in Uttar Pradesh to provide a 15 per cent rebate to the students on the total fees charged during the Covid period in 2020-21.

    However, the Unaided Private Schools Association of UP had claimed that most of the member schools had given huge concessions to students during the pandemic times. “If there are complaints by parents against any school violating it, that school should be questioned,” said Anil Agarwal, president of the Association.

    Parents welcomed the High Court and state government orders of the 15 per cent fee adjustment, saying it would give some relief to parents who were hard-pressed as their income was hit due to job loss or salary cuts during the pandemic.