News Analysis India

Tag: High Court

  • From KS Hegde To Abhijit Gangopadhyay, Meet Judges Who Quit Judiciary To Join Politics |

    Calcutta High Court Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, who recently announced retirement and said that he will join the BJP, has again brought back to light former Finance Minister Arun Jaitley’s statement that pre-retirement judgements get influenced by the post-retirement jobs. Justice Gangopadhyay is not the first judge to join politics as the list has several big names. 

    KS Hegde

    Kawdoor Sadananda Hegde was born on 11 June 1909 in the village Kawdoor of Karkala Taluk in South Kanara district of the erstwhile State of Mysore. He began his legal profession in 1933 and worked as a Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor during the period 1947-51. Hegde was elected to the Rajya Sabha as a Congress Party nominee in 1952. Hegde served in the Upper House till 1957. In 1957, Hegde resigned from the Rajya Sabha when he was appointed a Judge of the Mysore High Court. He was later elevated to the Supreme Court. On 30 April 1973, Hegde tendered his resignation when one of his junior colleagues was appointed as the Chief Justice of India. In 1977, he was elected to the Sixth Lok Sabha from the Bangalore South constituency on a Janata Party ticket and was made the Speaker of the Sixth Lok Sabha. 

    Baharul Islam

    Baharul Islam, a former judge of the Supreme Court, made a significant career shift by resigning six weeks before his scheduled retirement. In 1983, he entered the political arena and contested the Lok Sabha elections as a Congress candidate from Barpeta in Assam. Before this, he had a political stint when he was elected to the Rajya Sabha on April 3, 1962, as a Congress candidate and secured another term in 1968. He resigned from the Rajya Sabha on January 20, 1972, accepting an appointment as a judge in the Gauhati High Court. Later, on December 4, 1980, he was elevated to the position of a Supreme Court judge. On January 13, 1983, Baharul Islam resigned from his position and got the Congress nomination from Barpeta for the Lok Sabha elections. However, due to unrest caused by the Assam agitation, the election in Barpeta had to be postponed. Despite this, the Congress accommodated Islam once again by making him the Rajya Sabha MP in 1983.

    VR Krishna

    Justice V R Krishna Iyer was born on 15th November 1915 a Palakkad, in the Malabar region of the then Madras State. In 1956, he was elected initially to the Madras Legislative Assembly and later, after the reorganisation of States, to the Kerala Assembly, where he was appointed as Minister in charge of important portfolios, like Home, Law, Social Welfare, etc. He was appointed as a Judge of the Kerala High Court in 1968. He was a Member of the Law Commission from 1971 to 1973. He was appointed as Judge of the Supreme Court of India in 1973.  He was conferred with the Padma Vibhushan in 1999.

    Mohammad Hidayatullah

    Justice Md. Hidayatullah was born on 17th December 1905 at Betul in the erstwhile Central Provinces and Berar. He was appointed Additional Judge of Central Provinces and Berar High Court (now Madras HC) on 24th June 1946. He was appointed as Permanent Judge of the High Court on 13th September 1946. On 3rd December 1954, he was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. On 1st December 1958, he was elevated to the Supreme Court and became the Chief Justice of India on 25th February 1968. He retired from that high office on 17th December 1970. Justice Hidayatullah was sworn in as the Acting President of India on 20th July 1969. After his retirement as the Chief Justice of India, he was unanimously elected as the Vice President of India between 1979 to 1984. During his tenure as Vice President, he also acted as the President in 1982.

    Rangnath Mishra

    Justice Ranganath Misra was appointed as a Permanent Judge of the Orissa High Court in 1969. He was elevated as an acting Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court on November 6th 1980. He then became the permanent Chief Justice on 16 January 1981. Justice Misra was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court on March 15th 1983. He became the 21st Chief Justice of India on 25 September 1990. After his retirement, he became the first Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission. He became a Member of Parliament in Rajya Sabha from the Congress Party, serving between 1998 and 2004. 

    Koka Subba Rao

    Koka Subba Rao, the former Chief Justice of India (CJI), assumed the role of CJI on June 30, 1966. In 1967, the Swatantra Party extended an invitation to him to be the United Opposition’s candidate for the presidential election in India. Subba Rao, accepting the nomination a day later, entered the presidential race. Unfortunately, he faced defeat as the Congress candidate Zakir Hussain emerged victorious in the election.

    Ranjan Gogoi

    Justice Ranjan Gogoi was born on 18th November 1954. He was appointed as Permanent Judge of Gauhati High Court on 28th February 2001 and was transferred to Punjab & Haryana High Court on 9th September 2010. He was appointed Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court on 12th February 2011. Justice Gogoi was elevated to the Supreme Court on 23rd April, 2012 and was appointed as The Chief Justice of India on 03.10.2018. He is currently a Member of the Rajya Sabha, having been nominated by then President Ram Nath Kovind on 16 March 2020.

  • Forget which came first, egg or…: Gujarat govt tells HC, ‘chicken is treated as animal under law’

    By PTI

    AHMEDABAD: Chicken and other varieties of poultry birds fall in the ‘animal’ category under the Food Safety and Standards Act, the Gujarat Government told the High Court on Friday.

    It prompted senior lawyer Percy Kavina, who is representing chicken shops that have faced action for violation of rules, to say that in that case, poultry shops will have to engage veterinary doctors to comply fully with the law.

    In January, two NGOs filed a PIL in the High Court seeking a ban on supply of poultry birds to meat shops contending that birds were illegally slaughtered in these establishments instead of being sent to slaughterhouses.

    The HC then directed the authorities to take action against unlicensed meat shops. Civic bodies across the state raided meat shops and issued closure notices to several of them for violation of rules. Several chicken shops were also shut during this drive.

    The owners of these sealed meat shops and chicken shops approached the High Court for relief.

    The bench of Justice NV Anjaria and Justice Niral Mehta was hearing these civil applications.

    During the hearing on these applications on Friday, Government Pleader Manisha Lavkumar said the definition of `animal’ under the Act also includes poultry.

    Fish is not included because they are not “slaughtered” but only taken out of the water, the lawyer said.

    Advocate Kavina said the inclusion of poultry in the larger category of meat “goes against age-old practice of how meat has been sold and consumed.” 

    When poultry birds are slaughtered in a small concealed area discreetly, it should not be banned, he said.

    If chicken is considered to be on par with meat, “chicken shop owners need to appoint a veterinarian to do the stamping (as in slaughterhouses),” he said.

    “Inclusion of poultry as an animal ignores the way poultry is sold in retail. You are insisting that poultry is meat and therefore it must be checked pre-slaughter and post-slaughter and then it should be stamped. It is impossible for small chicken sellers. He will have to keep a vet there,” said Kavina.

    AHMEDABAD: Chicken and other varieties of poultry birds fall in the ‘animal’ category under the Food Safety and Standards Act, the Gujarat Government told the High Court on Friday.

    It prompted senior lawyer Percy Kavina, who is representing chicken shops that have faced action for violation of rules, to say that in that case, poultry shops will have to engage veterinary doctors to comply fully with the law.

    In January, two NGOs filed a PIL in the High Court seeking a ban on supply of poultry birds to meat shops contending that birds were illegally slaughtered in these establishments instead of being sent to slaughterhouses.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2′); });

    The HC then directed the authorities to take action against unlicensed meat shops. Civic bodies across the state raided meat shops and issued closure notices to several of them for violation of rules. Several chicken shops were also shut during this drive.

    The owners of these sealed meat shops and chicken shops approached the High Court for relief.

    The bench of Justice NV Anjaria and Justice Niral Mehta was hearing these civil applications.

    During the hearing on these applications on Friday, Government Pleader Manisha Lavkumar said the definition of `animal’ under the Act also includes poultry.

    Fish is not included because they are not “slaughtered” but only taken out of the water, the lawyer said.

    Advocate Kavina said the inclusion of poultry in the larger category of meat “goes against age-old practice of how meat has been sold and consumed.” 

    When poultry birds are slaughtered in a small concealed area discreetly, it should not be banned, he said.

    If chicken is considered to be on par with meat, “chicken shop owners need to appoint a veterinarian to do the stamping (as in slaughterhouses),” he said.

    “Inclusion of poultry as an animal ignores the way poultry is sold in retail. You are insisting that poultry is meat and therefore it must be checked pre-slaughter and post-slaughter and then it should be stamped. It is impossible for small chicken sellers. He will have to keep a vet there,” said Kavina.

  • ‘Hold judicial colloquium and state-level conferences on anti-human trafficking’: Government to HCs

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI:  The Union Home Ministry has asked all the High Courts in the country to organise judicial colloquium and state-level conferences on anti-human trafficking. The ministry, in an official communication, to Registrar Generals of all High Courts said the complex nature of human trafficking calls for a multidimensional strategy in tackling it at domestic, regional and international levels. 

    “Impediments which the Government has come across in the past include lack of awareness, lack of training of concerned officers, failure to register cases under relevant laws and ineffective investigation etc,” it noted.

    The government said it has been engaging with the Judicial Academies of States and UTs for holding Judicial Colloguiums on Anti-Human Trafficking on a periodic basis. Notably, the MHA provides financial support of up to Rs 2 lakhs on each such occasion.

    NEW DELHI:  The Union Home Ministry has asked all the High Courts in the country to organise judicial colloquium and state-level conferences on anti-human trafficking. The ministry, in an official communication, to Registrar Generals of all High Courts said the complex nature of human trafficking calls for a multidimensional strategy in tackling it at domestic, regional and international levels. 

    “Impediments which the Government has come across in the past include lack of awareness, lack of training of concerned officers, failure to register cases under relevant laws and ineffective investigation etc,” it noted.

    The government said it has been engaging with the Judicial Academies of States and UTs for holding Judicial Colloguiums on Anti-Human Trafficking on a periodic basis. Notably, the MHA provides financial support of up to Rs 2 lakhs on each such occasion.

  • Which provision enables HC to grant bail to a convict, HC asks and directs Nalini to approach SC for relief

    By PTI

    CHENNAI: Wondering which legal provision will empower a High Court to grant bail to a convict, the Madras High Court on Tuesday directed Nalini Sriharan, one of the seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, to approach the Supreme Court to seek the relief.

    The first bench of Chief Justice M N Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy raised the question when a writ petition from Nalini came for further hearing, today.

    Originally, Nalini (now on parole granted by the Tamil Nadu government) had filed a petition praying the court to order her release even without the consent of the state Governor.

    Now that the Supreme Court had granted bail to A G Perarivalan, another convict in the same case, her counsel pleaded the bench to apply the same yardstick and grant bail to Nalini.

    Observing that the apex court is the supreme judicial body in the country and that the High Court cannot follow the same yardstick adopted by the former, the bench asked the counsel under what legal provision a High Court can grant bail to a convict.

    The bench advised the counsel to approach the Supreme Court with the bail plea. As regards the main plea of release from the case, the bench posted the matter for March 24.

    The Supreme Court had on March 9 granted bail to Perarivalan, serving life sentence in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, taking note of the submission that he has been in jail for over 30 years and his conduct inside the prison and during the period of parole has been satisfactory.

    Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated on May 21, 1991 at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu by a woman suicide bomber, identified as Dhanu, at a poll rally.

  • SC tags Centre’s request for transfer of pleas on new IT Rules with pending matter of OTT regulation

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday said the Centre’s plea seeking transfer of petitions challenging the validity of new IT Rules from different high courts to the apex court would be heard on July 16 along with a pending matter related to regulation of over-the-top (OTT) platforms.

    A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna tagged the Centre’s plea with a pending special leave petition (SLP) in which the apex court had in March this year stayed proceedings before several high courts on petitions related to regulation of OTT platforms. “We will tag it (Centre’s plea) with the SLP,” the bench said, adding, the matter would be listed before an appropriate bench on July 16.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, urged the bench to stay the proceedings pending in different high courts on pleas challenging the validity of the new Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. “We are not saying anything. We are simply tagging it with the other matter,” the bench said.

    One of the advocates, appearing in the matter, told the bench that the pending SLP is prior to the new Rules. According to the new IT Rules, social media and streaming companies will be required to take down contentious content quicker, appoint grievance redressable officers and assist in investigations.

    The new Rules also seek to regulate the functioning of online media portals and publishers, over-the-top (OTT) platforms and social media intermediaries. The Centre has moved the apex court seeking transfer of pleas challenging the validity of new IT Rules from different high courts to the top court for an authoritative pronouncement on the issue.

    Several petitions challenging the new IT Rules are pending adjudication in different high courts, including the high courts of Delhi and Madras. The top court had earlier issued notice on a separate transfer petition filed by the Centre seeking to club all petitions filed in various high courts on the issue of regulating OTT platforms.

    Several pleas challenging the validity of new IT Rules are pending adjudication in the Delhi High Court which had sought response from the Centre on these petitions.

    Some of the pleas pending before the Delhi High Court have sought striking down of specific part of the IT Rules on the ground that it allegedly violates Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution creating a “chilling effect” on media freedom, Article 14 of the Constitution by creating an unreasonable classification and by setting up a parallel adjudicatory mechanism to be overseen by the officials of executive and is ultra vires the IT Act.

    The Madras High Court had on June 23 issued notice to the Centre seeking its response on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the new IT rules. In March this year, the Kerala High Court had sought the Centre’s response on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of new IT Rules.

  • High court challenges the decision to open schools from 9th to 12th

    The order to open schools from 9th to 12th has been passed. As soon as the order is passed, this decision has been challenged in the High Court. The petition has been filed by Nazrul Khan, president of Chhattisgarh Student Parents Association, Bhilai. The petition said that the decision of the government is absolutely wrong as the corona is not over yet. Children will come in contact with each other as the school opens. The risk of children suffering corona will increase. Apart from this, it has been decided to open the school without vaccinating the children. The petitioner has also been requested by the petitioner to conduct an incident hearing on this matter today. Now it has to be seen what action will be taken by the government on this petition.

  • Free University denied appointment, High Court orders recruitment to vacant post

    Sunderlal Sharma University denied regular appointment to its employee. After hearing the petition filed in this case, the court has ordered the petitioner to be appointed to the vacant post.

    Veena Singh is a Divyang woman and Pt. Sunderlal Sharma is employed as a daily wage worker at the Open University. He has filed a petition in the High Court through his lawyer Prateek Sharma. It was told that she has been working temporarily in the university since its inception. Meanwhile, applications were invited for regular appointment in the year 2013 after the university was approved.

    Said to give priority to veteran in the ongoing advertisement. Veena Singh also applied for a regular appointment on this. But the university denied him the appointment. Also recruited his less experienced candidate. Challenging the appointment in the petition, it has been said that the petitioner is a woman as well as a disabled person. Yet he has not been appointed. The petition also alleged not to follow the reservation rules. While hearing the case, Justice P Sam Koshy sought a response from the university management.

  • In the Corona era, double fare from passengers under the guise of special train, know what the High Court said

    Public interest litigation was filed in the High Court on the issue of running a passenger train and normalizing the fare of special trains. The petition alleges two-fold fare for passengers in the name of Corona. During the hearing, the Railways has accepted in the High Court that the special train Chhattisgarh Express is being charged for five hundred kilometers instead of 330.

    Hence the AC Three fare from Nagpur to Raipur is Rs 999. Whereas the fare from Nagpur to Raipur was earlier five hundred rupees. Petitioner Sudeep Srivastava filed a public interest litigation by the Railways to charge more and start passenger trains.

    In this, petitioner Sudeep Srivastava, along with the fare in Rajdhani Express, is also being charged for the food from passengers, but food is not being given. This issue was also placed before the court during the debate. But the Railways did not respond to this. Railways did not even respond to how long the passenger train would be run for the common man. The next hearing of the case will be on 15 February.

  • Waiting for the High Court’s decision on admission to medical college

    Separate petitions filed for admission to medical college are now awaiting the decision of the High Court. About fifteen days ago, the court reserved judgment in this case. About 12 petitions have been filed in the High Court in this regard. It states that the admission of students has been canceled after the objection to the residence certificate in the medical college.

    This order of the Medical Health Operator (DME) has been challenged in the High Court in the petition. The trial lasted for several days in the couple’s bench. During this time, counsel Prafulla N Bharat and Manoj Paranjpe presented arguments on behalf of the petitioners. On January 18, after hearing all the sides of the court, the court reserved the order for judgment

  • Justice received from High Court, old management restored in MMI, members expressed happiness

    The reins of the MMI Super Multi Specialty Hospital are now back in the hands of the old members. MMI is included not only in the capital, but in the state’s renowned hospital. Recently, some members of the governing board of the hospital removed the old members from the management with the intention of capturing it, but after the order of the court, the reins of the hospital are now back in the hands of the old members. These members had worked hard to give new heights to this hospital. People will again start getting better and better super multi specialty hospital facilities at MMI Hospital, Rajdhani Raipur. The Board of Directors, which has taken this hospital to a new height, has been restored after the order of the Bilaspur High Court due to strong management and excellent treatment. Suresh Goyal, Chairman of the Goyal Group of Companies, assumed the chair of the President of MMI Trust in the presence of other members. After re-assuming the post of president, Suresh Goyal said that his priority will be that the hospital has had deficiencies in the recent past, it will be rectified and people are once again assured that they will get the best treatment in MMI.
    According to the MMI Trust and Ramavatar Aggarwal, who fought for their rights in this institution, some members forcibly took over the organization. For this, he also misled the government. After which the entire case went to the Supreme Court. From where the Bilaspur High Court was directed to settle the matter within three months. Under which the Bilaspur High Court gave its order on 4 January while hearing daily. In which all the old members were restored. It is clear from this that some members had tried to capture … but they could not succeed in their destiny.