A division bench of the Karnataka High Court recently noted “No Court is bound by such a decision taken to withdraw from the prosecution.” The matter was heard while issuing notice to the respondents in PUCL v. State of Karnataka (W.P. 13781/2020).

 A Cabinet order was passed by the Karnataka government on the 31^st of August 2020 which directed that 61 pending cases against elected representatives of the Government be dropped. Parties to these suits include ministers of the State Government such as BC Patil, CT Ravi, Anand Singh and JC Madhuswamy. The People’s Union for Civil Liberties in Karnataka filed a motion challenging the validity of this order. The petitioners contended that such an order was against the rule of law.

The Government order dated 31.08.2020 mentioned that permission was granted for withdrawal of 61 cases under S.321 of the CrPC. S.321 deals with withdrawal from prosecution by the Public Prosecutor, which results in dismissal of the charges or acquittal of the accused. The bench found that action under S.321 could only be taken with the Court’s permission.

They looked into the Supreme Court’s verdict in S.K. Shukla & Ors. v. State of UP, where it was held that “Before an application is made under Section 321, the Public Prosecutor has to apply his mind to the facts of the case independently without being subject to any outside influence. The Government may suggest to the Public Prosecutor that a particular case may not be proceeded with, but nobody can compel him to do so.

“If the Government gives instructions to a Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of a case, the latter after applying his mind to the facts of the case may either agree with instructions and file a petition stating grounds of withdrawal or disagree therewith having found a good case for prosecution and refuse to file the withdrawal petition.The courts are also free to assess whether the prima face case is made or not. The court, if satisfied, can also reject the prayer.”

The bench held that Courts were duty-bound in assessing whether a prima facie case exists, irrespective of any order to the contrary. However, they stated that they could not stay the order before the respondents had a chance to reply. Notice was taken on behalf of the State by the Additional Advocate General.

They also issued instructions to the State Government to forward copies of the court order to the Public Prosecutors who had been instructed to withdraw from prosecution in those 61 cases. The Prosecutors were to bring it to the notice of the Karnataka High Court when an application was made under S.321 CrPC.

Refusing withdrawal of prosecution from these cases would be a bold move towards a brighter future. The judiciary is supposed to be independent of the legislature and executive, but in recent times, the lines have begun to blur. In the present situation, Karnataka’s own Law minister is a defendant in one of the cases that are to be withdrawn! The judiciary is seen as a pillar of democracy, and to win the trust of its citizens, the Court must take a proactive stance by putting justice first.

 

 

 Click here to view the order.

 

 

“Presence of malicious conduct of the parties if found, becomes sufficient for the court to not grant any relief to the concerned parties”, this remarkable stand was forwarded by Odisha HC in the writ appeal case of Abhinash Kumar Lohani v. Jitendra Kumar Sahoo & Others, [WRIT APPEAL NO.586 of 2020], chaired by Justice Sanju Panda & Justice S. K. Panigrahi. the bench in this present case allowed the instant writ appeal, thereby disposing off the case.

The respondent no.1 is a gold merchant who possess the ownership of many properties including a huge mall named as “B.S. Mall”. He was a tenant under joint family firm of the Appellant-M/s Kumar Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. and Dillip Kumar Ram. The period of tenancy was up to 31.12.2012 and it was never extended even though Clause-4 of the Deed of Agreement expressly provided for extension of the lease period by renewal of the agreement. In a family partition the aforesaid property fell in the share of the present appellant. Since the tenancy period of the respondent No.1 was over in 2012, the appellant-landlord approached the respondent No.1 to enter into a fresh rent agreement or to hand over the vacant possession to him. But, the respondent No.1 took evasive plea and refused to vacate the possession. As a result of which, the present Appellant was compelled to file a suit for eviction and the same is pending before the 4 learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar registered as C.S.No.81 of 2020.

The present Writ Appeal seeks to challenge the Order dated 23.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23804 of 2020 directing the electricity authority to provide temporary electricity supply in favor of the Writ Petitioner/present Respondent No.1 which amounts to granting the main relief sought for in the writ petition by the Respondent No.1.

After examining all the submissions, arguments and evidences forwarded by the councils, the hon’ble HC observed that, In fact, the conduct of the Respondent No.1 in seeking the intervention of this Court with unclean hands is sufficient for non-suiting to get any relief which is succinctly echoed in plethora of judgments like Dalip Singh v. State (2010) 2 SCC 114 & Oswal Fats and Oils Ltd. v. Commr. (Admn) (2010) 4 SCC 728. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and sans proper reasoning.

The bench further added that, the decision dated 23.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.23804 of 2020 is set aside, responded was asked to vacate the premises after restoring all his dues within 30 days from the date of the delivery of the judgment.

In lieu of the above made considerations and observations, the bench in this present case allowed the instant writ appeal, thereby disposing off the case.

Click here to read more

If a candidate agrees to the terms and conditions mentioned in the prospectus of a particular institution before applying for admission into it, he/ she cannot seek concessions on the same. This remarkable judgement was passed by the single judge bench of the Delhi High Court, consisting of Justice Jayant Nath  in the matter of Injamam Ul Hossain V All India Institute Of Medical Science & Ors., [W.P.(C) 8593/2020].

The present petition was filed by an individual who was graduate in the B.Sc course and had given the entrance test in which he ranked 4^th in the OBC Category, for M.Sc by virtue of which he was offered admission in AIIMS, Delhi.  The earlier date for submission of documents for procuring admission was 31.7.2020, which was extended by a month in light of delay caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic. The petitioner produced all documents demanded by the institution apart from his B.Sc passing certificate due to delay in his previous college in providing him with it. Due to his failure in submitting the document, AIIMS cancelled his admission and thus this petition. Further, the UGC had issued UGC Guidelines on Academic Calendar for the First Year of Under- Graduate and Post-Graduate Students of the Universities for the Session 2020- 21. As per the said guidelines where admissions are solely through entrance tests, the relevant documents of qualifying examination may be accepted upto 31.12.2020.

The respondent contended that AIIMS is an Institution of National importance as declared under Section 5 of the All India Medical Sciences Act being an Institution, established under Section 3 of AIIMS Act and is an autonomous body which is under the purview of the Central Government and that it is not liable to follow rules of the UGC.

On bare perusal of the facts and basic arguments put forward, the court opined that, “It has been strongly urged that the petitioners have qualified on merits in the entrance examination and should not be deprived of their right to get admission in the college in question on account of the failure of the Universities who are to give the qualifying certificates in declaring the results of the exams on account of the present pandemic. It has also been pointed out that AIIMS themselves have extended the time schedules. The last date for showing proof of having cleared the qualifying examination was 31.07.2020 which was extended to 31.08.2020”.

But, when the respondent relied on various judgements like Dr. Sandeep P.S. vs Government of India, [2020 SCC OnLine Mad 1263], Priyanka Chaudhary vs National Board of Examinations, [2016 SCC OnLine Del 5691] and National Board of Examinations vs. G. Anand Ramamurthy & Ors., [(2006) 5 SCC 515], the bench agreed to their contentions  and held that, “The terms of the prospectus would be binding on the candidates. The petitioners participated in the entrance examination and also participated in the counselling based on the terms of the prospectus and they cannot now turn around and seek concessions which are contrary to the terms of the prospectus. If the plea of the petitioners were to be accepted, then all the candidates who have not been able to submit their documents of having passed the qualifying degree as on 31.08.2020 would also have to be given the same relief. This would naturally cause confusion. In any case, the stipulations as noted above are reasonable and fair and cannot be termed to be arbitrary. There are no reasons to interfere in the procedure prescribed by the respondents. The respondent cannot accommodate to the schedules of all the universities in the country”.

Click here to read more

Public interest plays an important role in every field. Profession, academics, and career are all complementary and supplementary to each other and constant competition of opportunity plays around to help an individual to secure and understand his/her worth. The same had been held in the case of Sri. Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,( WRIT PETITION NO. 11455 OF 2020 (S-TR). The court was of the view that “Before parting with this writ petition, this  Court deems it necessary to remind the State Government and the top Executives that appointments and transfers are required to be made in “public interest”.

The facts of the case initiates when the petitioner who is a cadre of Chief Engineer was appointed as Director of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, by an appointment dated 06.12.2019. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent-State Government on 07.10.2020 by which respondent No.4 was named Director of KPTCL and the petitioner was appointed as Director of KPTCL.

As Managing Director of Karnataka Limited’s Power Company (‘PCKL’ for short), by virtue of another order given on the same day. It is claimed that before the challenged order dated 07.10.2020 was passed, the fourth respondent was the Managing Director of ‘PCKL’.

The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the petitioner as Director of KPTCL on 06.12.2019 was certainly under the pleasure of the Government because the order of 06.12.2019 explicitly indicates that the appointment of the petitioner was ‘until further orders’; however, it is submitted that appointments made under the pleasure of the Government do not indicate an arbitrary license to function.

On the other hand, the invocation by the Government of the doctrine of pleasure must be for fair and compelling reasons and cannot be at the hands of the State Government’s sweet will, whims and fancy, but it can be used only for legitimate reasons and the power referred to in the doctrine of pleasure can be used fairly and exclusively for the public good. In the case of the fourth respondent, the learned Senior Counsel argued that these were the terms used by the Hon’ble Division Bench when he challenged the order of this Court’s Coordinate Bench.

When referring to Hon’ble’s decision in question it was submitted to the Division Bench that when the doctrine of enjoyment was invoked by the State Government, it was appropriate to state legitimate reasons either in the proposal or in the approval granted by the Honorable Chief Minister. It is argued that the proposal did not contain any legitimate reasons for putting an end to the services of the petitioner as Director, KPTCL, in the form of notes put forward before the Hon’ble Chief Minister, and neither did the Hon’ble Chief Minister provide reasons for approving the proposal.

On the basis of the evidence, it was submitted that the fourth respondent was due to reach the age of superannuation on 31.01.2021, while on 30.04.2021 the applicant was due to reach the age of superannuation. It is argued that it is difficult to understand what led the respondent-State Government, on the verge of his retirement, to nominate the fourth respondent as Director, KPTCL. In addition, it was alleged that the fourth respondent had no experience in the field of transmission. Since November 2019, the petitioner had earlier served as Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone, Bagalkot, and as Director (Transmission).

The respondent counsel on the other hand had submitted that if this writ were to succeed the petitionerPetition, and if the Court were to set aside the challenged petition, it will be of no benefit to the order dated 07.10.2020, since the petitioner took over as Managing Director, the petitioner has MEI Limited’s Director on 16.10.2020.

Thus the Court had held that “Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of the KPTCL, the State and the citizens, it would not be proper in directing the State Government to reconsider the appointment of the respondent No.4 as Director, KPTCL.”

“Public interest means the interest of the State and the citizens. If the same is followed in letter and spirit, the powers that be would not have to face inconvenient questions and such actions would considerably reduce unwanted litigations. It is sad that though this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court have time and again reminded the powers that be of their constitutional obligation to act in accordance with law, both in letter and spirit, orders of appointment and transfers are made with utter disregard to the reminders and have become source of genuinely avoidable litigations.

Click here to read the judgment

The Supreme Court in one of the recent judgments has held that in case a victim during an interrogation by any of the agencies like Police, CBI, NIA, ED etc., has a right to obtain the CCTV footage if there is any human right violation faced by the victim. The victim can approach the National/State Human Rights Commission, Superintendent of Police or Human Rights Courts. Further every interrogation room should have CCTV’s installed. The Supreme Court in order to protect the human rights have laid down serious measures in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Ors., SLP (Criminal) No. 3543 of 2020.

The Supreme Court issued the directives while disposing the Special Leve Petition filed by Paramvir Singh, in which the issue of audio-video recordings and installation of CCTV’s in places of interrogation and other relevant places was raised. The Court while giving directives referred to the case of Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 5 SCC 311, where the court had issued similar set of directives but it has been more than 2 years and there have been no steps taken to implement the directives. The court further stated that the right to report violation of human right is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and hence the provision of recordings and CCTV has to be available on an urgent basis.

The Court further asked the Central Government to file an affidavit on the Constitution and working of the Central Oversight Body. It also instructed the Central Government to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment’s in all interrogation offices of the agencies. Lastly dismissing the petition the court was of the opinion that “The SLOC and the COB shall give directions to all Police Stations, investigative/enforcement agencies to prominently display at the entrance and inside the police stations/offices of investigative/enforcement agencies about the coverage of the concerned premises by CCTV. This shall be done by large posters in English, Hindi and vernacular language. In addition to the above, it shall be clearly mentioned therein that  na person has a right to complain about human rights violations to the National/State Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Court or the Superintendent of Police or any other authority empowered to take cognizance of an offence. It shall further mention that CCTV footage is reserved for a certain minimum time period, which shall not be less than six months, and the victim has a right to have the same secured in the event of violation of human rights.”

[Please Click here to view the judgment]