0

Hijab Ban in yet another State; Now challenged before the Maharashtra High Court.

A new case has been brought before the Maharashtra High Court, Zainab Choudhary & Ors. v. Chembur Trombay Education Society’s NG Acharya and DK Marathe College & Ors. Where the students of the college were issued a notice cum direction, which read as the following:

You shall follow the dress code of college of formal and decent dress which shall not reveal anyone’s religion such as no burqa, no nakab, no hijab, no cap, no badge, no stole etc. Only full of half shirt and normal trousers for boys and any Indian/ western non-revealing dress for girls on the college campus. Changing room available for girls.”

 

The students have challenged this after a few junior students were denied entry into the college due to the fact that they were wearing hijabs and did not comply with the prescribed uniform. The students stated that these instructions were illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, and that the college, affiliated to Mumbai University and aided by the State of Maharashtra had no power and authority to issue directions giving out such restrictions and that the notice could not be sustained. The plea stated that the use of Naqab and Hijab are some of the fundamentals of the petitioner’s religious practices and beliefs, and that in a secular country, such as India, it would be their free will, and their right to life and religion, to choose to follow certain customs of their religion, even in the classroom. The prayers sought by them, are for the Court to declare that such notices are without the authority of law and is arbitrary, and that they are not binding on the petitioners.

The same situation had previously occurred in Udupi, Karnataka, where students of a Pre-University College were denied entry as they were hijabs which was in violation of the Uniform Policy. After which multiple protests erupted challenging this. To conclude this issue, the State Government set up a Committee to study this issue, and come up with a decision, as to whether the students can display their religion in public areas, after which they came up with an Order, that was communicated across all schools that students could not wear anything that could express what religion they follow. This was challenged in the Karnataka High Court, which upheld the order and then lead to an Appeal in the Division Bench of the Supreme Court, where they gave a Split Decision. It was then sent before a Larger Bench, where it is still pending. Once the verdict for this case is set, it could also be used to determine the issue in Maharashtra, which is quite similar, however, the question as to whether or not the people will fall behind it and choose to accept it, cannot be answered until the verdict is given.

“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 – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

0

The Thodu Tangle: The Karnataka High Court Validates Villagers’ Concerns on Bridge Construction.

Samad A.A. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Writ Appeal No.: 636 OF 2024

Court: High Court of Karnataka.

Coram: Hon’ble J. B.M. Shyam Prasad, J. T.G. Shivashankare Gowda.

The High Court of Karnataka delivered a judgment on May 2, 2024, on a writ appeal filed against an interim order dated 18.03. 2024. The interim order directed the Deputy Commissioner of Madikeri to remove a concrete road constructed on a thodu within four weeks.

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellants are the residents of Mugatageri village in Kodagu District. A concrete road has been put up on the thodu (a small stream or water channel) in their locality, which might have resulted in the stagnation of water. The initial petition was filed by Sri K.K. Deepak against various state officials and local authorities responsible for the construction and maintenance of the road. After this, there were directions to remove the concrete road, but actions were yet to be taken due to the election.

 

LEGAL ISSUES

  1. Whether the appellant’s rights would be affected by the implementation of the interim order directing the removal of the concrete land?
  2. Whether the appellants should have been impleaded as parties in the writ petition before passing the interim order?

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  • Section 4  of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, under which the appeal was filed.
  • Rule 27 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, states that a certiorari writ petition must include certified or authenticated copies of the order to be quashed and, if applicable, copies of orders from all involved authorities.
  • Additionally, the case involves principles under environmental protection laws concerning water bodies.

CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANTS

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the implementation of the interim order directing the removal of the concrete road would affect their rights as they were not made parties to the original writ petition. Thus, their rights and interests were only considered after passing the interim order. The petitioners argued that the construction of concrete roads over thodu may have led to significant water stagnation, affecting the local land properties. They also contended that despite the direction of the Tahsildar, the Panchayat Development Officer, to remove the concrete road, no action was taken.

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS

The learned Additional Government Advocate, representing the respondents, submitted that the interim order could not be implemented due to the elections during the time of order. However, he did not oppose the appellant’s contention that they should have been included and heard before passing the interim order to address their concerns appropriately.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble High Court recognized the environmental issues resulting from the construction of the road over the thodu. It observed that the grievances of the appellants regarding the interim order and their concerns were valid as they were not given an opportunity to present their case in the original writ proceedings. The Court acknowledged the delay due to elections and deemed it necessary to provide the appellants an opportunity to file the applications.

CONCLUSION

The case above is an example of the importance given to the principles of natural justice by the courts. The courts allowed the appellants to be heard before the implementation of an order that might affect their rights. This case highlights the necessity of ensuring that all parties are heard in judicial proceedings. It also underscores the importance of maintaining natural environments and addressing the impact of infrastructure projects on the environment.

Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read full judgement

0

The Karnataka High Court directed the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) to pass appropriate orders in the matter of interim relief sought by the petitioner.

Case Title: SRI MANJUNATHA D R versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and others

Case No: WP No. 13494 of 2024

Decided on: 21st May , 2024

Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICER AMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

Facts of the case

In this matter, a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution was filed.Its goals are to grant the petitioner’s request for an interim plea and to overturn an orderi ssued by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal . In the interest of justice and equity,the petitioner asked the High Court to grant the interim prayer, order records from the Tribunal, and set aside the contested ruling . The High Court dismissed the petition ina accordance with its directive to Bangalore to make the necessary orders regarding the interim plea at the following hearing . The petitioner filed the current request after the Tribunal denied their request for an interim order of stay appeal.

Issues

1. What kind of case has Sri Manjunatha D R filed?

2. In the writ petition, what particular relief was requested by the petitioner?

3. With reference to the petitioner’s request for an interim prayer, what instruction did the High Court provide?

Legal Provisions

Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution are among the legal articles at issue in this case. Under these provisions, a writ petition was filed in an attempt to overturn an order made by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and to gain the interim prayer that the petitioner had requested.

Appellant Contentions

In addition to requesting records from the Tribunal, the appellant also requested that the impugned ruling be set aside, that the interim prayer be granted in the interest of justice and equity, and that the court award any other remedy that it judged appropriate. Despite asking for an interim injunction of stay based on earlier Tribunal actions, the petitioner argued that no interim order was fulfilled, which resulted in the current High Court petition.

Respondent Contentions

The documents that were provided did not specifically address the respondent’s contentions in the case. On the other hand, the petitioner contended that in the interest of justice and equity, the interim prayer should be granted, the Tribunal’s records should be requested, and further relief should be granted. The petition was filed before the high Court as a result of the petitioner pointing out that the Tribunal had not issued an interim ruling in cases with comparable circumstances.

Court Analysis and Judgement

The petitioner has filed several contentions, but the Tribunal has not issued any orders on the interim prayer requested. The petitioner has posted the matter for consideration on 28.05.2024. The court has disposed of the petition, directing the KSAT, Bangalore to issue the necessary orders on 28.05.2024.

“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.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

Click here to view the judgement

 

0

The offence invoked against the petitioners are under Sections 498(A) along with Section 306 of Indian Penal Code and not invoked the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act- Karnataka HC

Case Title: AKKAMMA and others versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRL.P No. 3498 of 2024

Decided on: 16th May , 2024

Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

Facts of the case

The charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC are the basis for a bail petition filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. A Ration Card was submitted by the petitioners, who are the victim’s in-laws and brother-in-law, to demonstrate that they live apart from the accused. The complaint specifically names the petitioners in relation to the victim’s marriage, dowry demands, and alleged assault that resulted in her death. The terms of the bail include turning yourself in to the investigating officer, posting a bond, collaborating, not interfering with the investigation, and certifying your attendance on a monthly basis.

Issues

In accordance with Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC, what bail requirements have been placed on the petitioners in this case?

Legal Provisions

Legal provisions concern the bail requirements imposed on the petitioners under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.

Appellant’s contention

According to the appellant, certain claims in the complaint pertain to an assault that resulted from the husband, in-laws, and brother-in-law demanding Rs. 20, 000, and the petitioners were charged with crimes under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Details of the instances that lend credence to the husband’s Section 306 crime are included in the complaint. According to the appellant, these accusations support the denial of bail to the applicants. These requirements include turning themselves in within ten days, posting a bond of Rs. 2,00,000, cooperating with the investigating officer, securing authorization before departing the area, and demonstrating monthly attendance before the investigating officer

Respondent Contentions

The respondent argues that certain accusations in the complaint that is, a demand for Rs. 20,000,000,000 by the husband, in-laws, and brother-in-law justify the invocation of charges against the petitioners under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint describes the instances that support the husband’s Section 306 violation, highlighting the gravity of the claims and providing justification for the petitioners’ denial of bail.

Court Analysis and Judgement

In relation to the offenses under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC, the court permitted the petitioners’ release on bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The terms of the bail include turning yourself in within 10 days, posting a bond of Rs. 2,00,000, assisting the investigating officer, not obstructing the investigation, getting consent before departing the area of responsibility, and registering monthly attendance in front of the investigating officer.

“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.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

Click here to view the judgement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Karnataka HC held that the state government cannot regulate the fees of private unaided educational institutions.

 

Case Title: CREATIVE EDUCATION TRUST versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and others

Case No: WP No. 13498 of 2024

Decided on: 21st May , 2024

Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

Facts of the case

The materials offered are connected to a writ suit that the Creative Education Trust filed about the Karnataka Education Act, 1983’s loss of recognition. Because the reply notice was sent through the petitioner’s counsel, it was ignored, and as a result, the order was declared unlawful and unsupportable. While noting that respondent No. 3’s arguments were unsustainable, the High Court Government Pleader emphasized that the petitioner’s noncompliance served as the foundation for the contested order . The impugned order was set aside, the petition was granted, and the case was remanded for further review with a 15-day window for the petitioner to provide more responses . After evaluating the reasons presented by respondent No. 3, the court instructed respondent No. 3 to issue the necessary orders the person making the petition.

Issues

1. What caused the petitioner’s recognition under the Karnataka Education Act to be revoked?

2. Why did the petitioner object to respondent No. 3’s order?

3. How did the judicial proceedings pertaining to the petitioner’s challenge turn out?

Appellant’s contention

It is unclear that the e petitioner gave grounds in their reply, which the appellant claimed respondent No. 3 ignored notice since it was sent through their advocate, which was viewed as bold and illogical. Due to the illegal and unsustainable ruling that resulted from this disregard, the matter has to be remitted for new review, giving the petitioner 15 days to provide more responses.

Respondent contentions

Respondent No. 3 gave unsupportable reasons for the impugned order, according to the respondent, but the petitioner’s operation of the institution in violation of the law was the basis for the impugned order. While admitting that respondent No. 3’s arguments were unsustainable, the High Court Government Pleader maintained that the order was issued as a result of the petitioner’s failure to comply with legal requirements. Even though respondent No. 3’s justifications were found to be untenable, the High Court Government Pleader emphasized the petitioner’s noncompliance in operating the institution as the foundation for the contested ruling .

Court Analysis and Judgement

The Supreme Court discovered that, because the reply notice was sent through the petitioner’s counsel, respondent No. 3 neglected to take into account the arguments made by the petitioner. The impugned order was set aside and the case was remitted for new consideration, with the petitioner having 15 days to provide more reply, because it was determined that this lack of consideration was unlawful and unsustainable. After giving the petitioner enough time and taking into account the reasons stated in the submitted reply, the court instructed respondent No. 3 to issue the necessary orders .

“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.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

Click here to view the judgement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3