Tag Archives: #Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Dr Lakhsmi P Gowda AND National Board of Examinations In Medical Sciences & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 12859/2023

Date of Order: 10-08-2023

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE G NARENDAR AND HON’BLE JUSTICE  VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court intervened to assist a 23-year-old student who, while completing the online registration for the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test-PG (NEET-PG), mistakenly omitted selecting her caste within the OBC category reservation.

FACTS

In this case, Dr. Lakshmi P Gowda filed a petition before a division bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil, seeking a correction in her application/score card for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) exam. She had inadvertently marked herself under the General Merit Category (GMC) instead of the Other Backward Class (OBC) category during the online registration process. The petitioner, belonging to the Vokkaliga caste, which is categorized as OBC in Karnataka, realized the error upon reviewing her application and immediately requested correction. When her request was not granted, she approached the court for relief.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The court, after considering the facts and arguments presented, ruled in favor of Dr. Lakshmi P Gowda. The court held that mere inadvertent errors made during the application process should not be used to deny a candidate the opportunity they are otherwise entitled to based on merit. The court directed the National Board of Examinations In Medical Sciences to allow the correction of her category entry from General to OBC in Column No.7 of the application/score card. Furthermore, the court ordered the insertion of her name in the order of merit for consideration under the OBC quota.

The court rejected the respondents’ argument that allowing such corrections would result in a flood of similar petitions. It stated that presuming widespread errors without evidence would be unfounded. The court clarified that the petitioner was not seeking inclusion in multiple reservation categories, but rather requesting rightful consideration within the OBC quota.

The court also addressed concerns about altering the merit list and cited the objective of the NEET process – to ensure meritorious candidates are not denied opportunities. It noted that punishing candidates for approaching the court by placing them at the bottom of the merit list would not be just. The court emphasized that NEET aims to provide a fair platform for candidates to showcase their merit and abilities.

Considering that there was ample time left in the counseling process, the court found it equitable to grant the petitioner the opportunity for correction and inclusion in the merit list. It pointed out that her inclusion would not harm other candidates in the list, as the merit list’s structure depends on both the number of candidates and the cutoff marks set by the authority.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petitioner’s plea, asserting that this ruling should not be treated as a precedent. The case highlights the court’s focus on ensuring fairness and justice in the NEET process, while also emphasizing the importance of correcting inadvertent errors without punishing diligent candidates seeking redressal.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Shreya Sharma

Case Title: Saibanna s/o Ningappa Natikar AND The Union of India & Others

Case No: Writ Petition no. 3297 of 2013

Date of Order: 17-08-2023

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE G NARENDAR AND HON’BLE JUSTICE C M POONACHA

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court has overturned the death sentence given to a 70-year-old individual convicted of murder. Instead, they have changed the punishment to life imprisonment. This decision comes after the person served 30 years in prison, during which almost 20 years were spent in isolation.

FACTS

In 1988, the petitioner turned himself in to the police, admitting that he had killed his wife, Malkawwa. He claimed he did so because she was having an affair with another man, which deeply disturbed him. He was arrested and taken into custody, where he met PW-1, Dattu, who offered his daughter’s hand in marriage once the petitioner was released.

In July 1988, the accused was granted bail and later married Nagamma, the daughter of PW-1. They had a child together. However, on February 2, 1993, the petitioner was found guilty and received a life imprisonment sentence. He was released on parole in August 1994 for one month.

On September 13, 1994, Nagamma and their daughter Vijayalakshmi were found murdered. The petitioner was discovered with serious injuries, including a severe head wound. After recovering from the injuries, he was arrested for the murders.

Despite the fact that Section 303 IPC had been declared unconstitutional by a Constitutional Bench in Mithu vs. State of Punjab (1983), the trial court still convicted the petitioner under this section. He was sentenced to death.

The conviction was upheld by the High Court and later confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2005. Subsequently, in 2005, the petitioner submitted a Mercy Petition, but it was mistakenly sent to the Union Government instead of the State Governor, who was the appropriate authority to consider it. The mercy petition wasn’t reviewed until January 2007 and was ultimately rejected in February 2007. Another mercy petition was submitted in the same month, which was also denied in 2013.

 COURT’S JUDGEMENT

Upon reviewing the records, the court found multiple instances of unexplained delays in the process of considering the petitioner’s mercy petition. These delays were attributed to various governmental bodies, including the State Government, the Governor’s Secretariat, and the Karnataka government. The court calculated a cumulative delay of over 7 years and 8 months in the consideration and disposal of the petitioner’s mercy petition. This prolonged delay was deemed to have violated the petitioner’s rights and justified their request for a commutation of the death sentence. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner had been held in solitary confinement for around 16 years and was suffering from physical and psychological issues due to this confinement. Consequently, the court partially granted the petitioner’s plea.

A panel consisting of Justice G Narendar and Justice C M Poonacha has granted approval to the legal request submitted by Saibanna Ningappa Natikar on two main grounds. These grounds include an extensive delay of 7 years and 8 months in addressing his plea for clemency and his unjustified confinement in isolation, which lacked legal authorization.

The panel stated that after evaluating all the details and circumstances, especially considering the petitioner’s enduring imprisonment of over 30 years, justice would be better served by altering the initially given death penalty to a sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner is also granted the freedom to submit a request for remission at their discretion.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Shreya Sharma

Case Title: The Union of India v. Malini & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12947 OF 2017

Date of Order: 31-07-2023

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the Railway Claims Tribunal is not authorized to penalize individuals who fail to comply with its directives to provide compensation to claimants.

FACTS

In response to Malini’s claim petition, the tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 according to Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The petitioner, Union of India, was instructed to provide the compensation within 30 days.

As the petitioner failed to comply with the payment, the tribunal initiated actions and sent a notice to explain the situation.

The petitioner argued that once the tribunal issues an order, it becomes functus officio and lacks the authority to impose contempt charges. They contended that the tribunal is authorized to consider an execution request to carry out its order. Therefore, the issuance of a show-cause notice to the General Manager was considered to be beyond the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Additionally, they informed that the petitioner has now paid the complete compensation along with interest as directed by the tribunal. Hence, they requested the tribunal to terminate the proceedings.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The court concurred with the petitioner’s argument and stated that according to the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the Tribunal lacks the authority to impose penalties on individuals who disregard its rulings. Once the Tribunal concludes a case, it relinquishes jurisdiction over the matter and becomes legally ineffective (“functus officio”), in contrast to a Civil Court, which retains the power to penalize for non-compliance with its directives. The court further emphasized that the responsibility to initiate contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act lies with the claimant, and the Tribunal itself is not authorized to take action for non-adherence to its rulings.

Recognizing that the petitioner has already fulfilled the compensation obligation along with accrued interest, the court concluded that it is appropriate to conclude the proceedings before the Tribunal that were initiated based on the respondents’ application dated 07.11.2016.

A petition by the Union of India was granted by Justice R Nataraj, a sole judge on the bench. The 2017 order from the Tribunal, which had demanded an explanation from the General Manager of South Western Railway for not following the Tribunal’s directive and potentially facing consequences, was invalidated.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Shreya Sharma

 

Case Title: Manasa Centre For Development And Social Action Vs. The Managing Director, The Development Credit Bank Ltd

Date of Order: 11/08/2023

CORAM: Justice KS Hemalekha

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court has recently stated that holding a permanent registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act of 2010 (FCRA) does not establish any entitlement for an individual or entity to have foreign donation funds deposited into their bank account.

FACTS

The Court highlighted that mere possession of a permanent registration under the FCRA, 2010 does not grant automatic entitlement to receive foreign funds without additional clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The Government of India’s letter indicated that foreign donors could be placed under a ‘Prior Reference/Permission Category’ based on feedback from field or security agencies.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had issued a directive in 2013, based on MHA’s communication, requiring banks to inform the Ministry about any fund flow from ‘Dan Church Aid’ before granting clearance.

The MHA had specifically instructed the bank not to credit the amount received from ‘Dan Church Aid’ to the account without clearance.

Given the MHA’s clear instruction in a letter dated October 31, 2013, the Court concluded that Manasa was not entitled to the funds without obtaining clearance from the ministry.

As a result, the Court found the petition lacking in merit and dismissed it.

 COURT’S ANALYSIS

The Court emphasized that merely possessing a permanent registration under the FCRA, 2010 did not confer automatic entitlement for the reception of foreign funds, and it stressed that additional clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) was imperative. This stance was underscored by a letter from the Government of India, which revealed the possibility of categorizing foreign donors as subject to ‘Prior Reference/Permission’ based on inputs from field or security agencies. In 2013, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) mandated banks to notify the Ministry before granting clearance for any fund inflow from ‘Dan Church Aid’, as per communication from the MHA. Notably, the MHA specifically directed the bank not to credit funds from ‘Dan Church Aid’ to any account without proper clearance. Given the unequivocal directive provided in the MHA’s letter dated October 31, 2013, the Court reached the verdict that Manasa could not claim entitlement to the funds without obtaining clearance from the ministry. Consequently, the Court found the petition without merit and dismissed it.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Shreya Sharma