The Calcutta High Court ruled that the current West Bengal Medical Council would be abolished as of July 31 due to the lack of elections to create a new Council since 1988. The court also mandated that a newly elected Medical Council should be established no later than October 31, 2022.

A Sinlge jusge bench presided by Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya Observed in the case of Dr. Kunal Saha v. West Bengal Medical Council (WBMC) and another (W.P.A. No. 8140 of 2022) that

“Thus, this court expresses its reservations as to the palpable inaction on the part of the West Medical Council in not holding any elections and/or constituting a new Council since 1988,”

The Court also pointed out that the last elected body completed its five-year term in 1988, and that no elections or ad hoc bodies have been appointed or held in the previous 34 years, or nearly seven times five.

The Court emphasized further that “the current Council members took no steps worthy of exhibiting their bona fides for taking steps to organize elections after the year 1988, however, for obvious reasons, instead choosing to hibernate in the stupor of protracted perpetuation of their power.”

Facts of the Case:

The five-year statutory term of the most recent elected Medical Council of West Bengal expired on July 15, 2018, and that no elections have been held since, according to a petition filed by Dr. Kunal Saha, a doctor in West Bengal.

A Medical Council is to be established in accordance with the Bengal Medical Act of 1914, which calls for the election of the majority of its members from a broad range of the medical, academic, and administrative cadres, with the State Government’s nomination of the remaining members.

Court’s Findings:

According to the Court, such an electoral process upholds the democratic spirit in the creation of such a council “In essence, this procedure ensures the underlying democratic spirit in the council’s constitution by giving the electoral process priority over nomination. From a different angle, such a strategy serves as an essential check and balance to the Medical Council’s extensive authority, which has the potential to have an impact not only on the entire medical community but also on society as a whole given the significant role that medical practitioners, the intelligentsia, academics, scholars, and those affiliated with them at all levels play in society.”

It was further asserted that since the Council is autonomous and not directly under the control of the State, transparency and the democratic principle are of the utmost importance in its formation.

The current West Bengal Medical Council was dissolved by the court with effect from July 31, 2022 on the grounds that it was operating illegally and against the letter and spirit of the law. In the interim, the State government was instructed to appoint an ad hoc council in accordance with the pertinent Bengal Medical Act, 1914 provisions for the specific purpose of holding the Council’s upcoming elections. It was mandated that the said ad hoc body begin operations on August 1, 2022, and thereafter.

The court stated, “The contravention alleged is not merely of Article 14, but also of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and the safety and well-being of the citizens at large, since the illegality affects the functioning of the entire medical community, which in turn concerns the health and well-being of the entire community.” The court went on to say that such a contravention of not holding elections in a timely manner affects the health and well-being of the populace as a whole.

It was mandated that the formalities and other requirements associated with the constitution of the new, duly elected Medical Council be finished at the very latest by October 31, 2022.

The Court stated, “Stipulating the limited duties to be performed by the current Medical Council, “The current council will only handle the West Bengal Medical Council’s basic day-to-day financial and administrative functions until July 31, 2022; however, it will not be allowed to sell, transfer, or otherwise encumber any assets owned by the council or those over which it has legal disposal authority. No registered medical practitioner will have their registration renewed or cancelled by the current council until it is disbanded. The current council is prohibited by law from making significant or policy decisions regarding any matter until it is disbanded.”

Judgement Reviewed By Manju Molakalapalli.

Click Here To View Judgement.

Registering FIRs without evidence against advocates for free expression will dampen their spirits, upheld by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh through the learned Judge JUSTICE SABINA and JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA, in the case of  Vipul Prabhakar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, (Cr.MMO No. 316 of 2021).

 

 

Brief facts of the case:

On July 24, 2019, a police squad tasked with maintaining law and order reported the committing of cognizable offenses to the Police Station, culminating in the filing of the present FIR.

According to the information supplied, a group of attorneys holding banners marched from the side of the Attorney General’s office to the CTO building in Shimla on July 24, 2019 at about 2:00 p.m.

Reportedly, these lawyers were chanting slogans against a High Court order. Since chanting slogans against the order of this Court was a violation of Sections 143 (Punishment for unlawful assembly) and 188 (Disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant) of the Indian Penal Code, the investigator filed a FIR.

JUDGEMENT:

After studying the case file, the court determined that the issue entailed the use of terms, but that the investigation did not reveal the name of such counsel.

It was also observed that the wording of the slogans and the court order that the attorneys were protesting were not stated.

As a result, the Court found that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 (nothing in this Code shall be construed as limiting or affecting the High Court’s inherent powers) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, may be utilized to quash the proceedings described above.

As a result, the FIR filed against the Attorney was dropped, as were all following actions.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – HARILAKSHMI

Click here to view you judgement

Inter-Caste Marriage – The Girl Is Not A Cow, But A Living, Independent Soul With Rights; She Can Exercise Her Discretion According To Her Desires, is upheld by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh through the learned Judge JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

, in the case of Sanjeev Kumar v. Sate of H.P. and others (Cr. Writ Petition No.2 of 2021)

Brief facts of the case:

The Petitioner (Man/Sanjeev Kumar) filed a plea alleging that Komal Parmar/Woman had been imprisoned against her will by respondent No. 3, her family, and friends, in order to hinder the solemnization of his marriage to her.

In addition, it was asserted that the abduction and illegal imprisonment of Ms. Komal Parmar was solely due to the fact that the petitioner belonged to a caste that is regarded as inferior by Komal Parmar’s family, relatives, and acquaintances.

Thus, the petitioner called for the production of Ms. Komal Parmar and for the respondents-State to give adequate protection to the petitioner and his family members, whose lives and property are in imminent danger.

In compliance with the court’s order, Komal Parmar was brought before the court and her desires were ascertained; she approved of her abduction and subsequent treatment by her family members, relatives, and locals.

Komal Parmar also argued before the court that the primary reason for the opposition to the marriage is the difference in caste, and that her father’s assertions that the Petitioner is not financially stable and that the Girl is mentally fragile are nothing more than an attempt to delay the solemnization of the marriage so that her marriage with the petitioner can be avoided through the passage of time.

 

JUDGEMENT:

Underscoring that an individual’s freedom of opinion is a key aspect of Indian culture, the court stated at the start, “We live in a state controlled by the Constitution, and discrimination on the basis of caste by limiting the freedom to choose a spouse violates the Fundamental Rights granted by the Indian Constitution.”

The court proceeded by declaring that discrimination based on caste is not only contrary to constitutional obligation, but also contrary to true Dharma.

The right to marry is widely acknowledged in Indian society.

In addition to noting that the right to marry or, for valid reasons, not to marry, as well as the right to choose a spouse, has been a well-recognized right in Indian society since ancient times, the Court also noted that inter-caste marriages were permissible in ancient Indian society and that wrong perceptions of the Middle Ages have obscured the rich cultural values and principles of our society and culture.

To illustrate its argument, the court referenced the weddings of Shantunu and Satyavati and Dushyant and Shakuntla, which are considered intercaste unions.

In its Order, the Court stated that Komal reaffirmed that her intention to marry petitioner is “well-considered and deliberate.”

“Komal is an adult, capable of making her own decisions, and entitled to the constitutional freedom to live her life as she pleases.”

She also claimed before the court that she does not wish to experience trauma again by choosing to remain with her parents, but that she does not wish to take legal action against them out of respect for her family and others.

Thus, the petition was dismissed, and Komal Parmar was given the freedom to move and dwell anywhere she chooses. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were ordered to safeguard the safety of the petitioner and his family, as well as Komal Parmar, and to offer prompt aid/assistance if necessary.

However, before the court, Komal declared her wish to go independently to the home of her friend Pooja Devi, who is also the sister of the petitioner (Sanjeev Kumar), and then to proceed to the hamlet of Jalari (in Himachal Pradesh).

The Court then ordered the Superintendent of Police Shimla and Hamirpur, SHOs Sadar (Shimla), District Shimla, and SHOs Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, to assign Police Personnel to accompany her from the Court premises to her desired destination.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – HARILAKSHMI

Click here to view you judgement

The High Court of Delhi, through learned judge,  Justice V.K Shali in the case of Sunita  vs. State of NCT of Delhi  & ORS (CRL. A. No.1104/2010) held that not even a single fact should be available on record which will be incompatible with the innocence of the accused

BRIEF FACTS: The facts of the prosecution case was that while the appellant/complainant Sunita was cleaning her room, suddenly her husband and her mother-in-law, who are the accused persons, came there and assaulted her physically. It was alleged that her husband poured kerosene oil on her while her mother-in-law threw a burning match stick on her. The matchstick was alleged to have landed on her dupatta which she immediately threw on the floor. As a consequence of this, the dupatta got burnt. The accused persons ran away from the spot. It was alleged that, in the meantime, the brother of the appellant who had gone to get some food, came back and poured water on her which saved her life. PCR was informed about the incident by the complainant and her brother. The local police came to the spot but the complainant refused to make any statement as she wanted to wait for her father to come. The appellant/complainant was sent to DDU Hospital for medical examination and on the next day after the arrival of her father, she made a statement to the Police on the basis of which the aforesaid FIR was recorded. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet under Sections 30,324 & 34 of IPC was filed.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT: The court observed that the facts coupled with the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge clearly showed that the story of the prosecution was not only highly improbable but also seemed to be full of holes inasmuch as there are not only contradictions and inconsistencies but also a serious doubt about the genuineness and correctness of the allegations levelled by the appellant. The court was in total agreement with the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, so far as the acquittal of the accused persons in the case was concerned. The court dismissed the appeal by remarking that the guilt of the accused persons admittedly has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, meaning thereby not even a single fact should be available on record which will be incompatible with the innocence of the accused.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – AMRUTHA K

Click here to read Judgement 

The High Court of Delhi, through learned judges, Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan in the case of Shovan Patra vs. UOI & Others (W.P.(C) 7600/2020 ) held that public interest litigation cannot be filed merely because suggestions of the officer have not been accepted by the superior officers

BRIEF FACTS: The petitioner was an employee of the respondent-institution, and held the post of Accounts Officer. He had a difference of opinion with his superior officers about the implementation of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. In the writ petition, the petitioner alleged various violations of the Act and Schemes framed thereunder, which according to him, resulted in loss to the exchequer, including inter alia enrolment of excluded employees and withdrawal of provident fund amounts contrary to the existing Rules. The petitioner had also stated that certain remedial measures were required to be taken, including by modification of the software system employed by the respondent organisation. The petitioner had put an endorsement to this effect before high ranking administrative officers of the respondents, but they took a different view regarding the implementation of the Act, 1952. The petitioner then took the matter up directly with the highest levels in the respondent organisation, and has also submitted a grievance with the Prime Minister’s Office.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT: The court remarked that the present petition was not appropriately the subject matter of a Public Interest Litigation at all. It was not desirable that an administrative officer approached the Court by way of a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the view taken by his superior administrative officers, whether to vindicate a position of which he is convinced or to teach a lesson to the high ranking officer. There was no allegation in the present case of any mala fides, or any supporting material, for the court to entertain the present public interest litigation. The court dismissed the petition by remarking that a public interest litigation cannot be filed merely because suggestions of the officer have not been accepted by the superior officers

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – AMRUTHA K

Click here to read the Judgement