Read Time: 17 minutes
1. [Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath Temple Land Dispute] The judgment for the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi land title dispute, reserved on July 25 by a single judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, was once again postponed on Monday last week. The case is to be reexamined by Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker. It is noteworthy that earlier, on July 25, while reserving the judgment, the bench of Justice Prakash Padia had noted the multiple deferment of the judgment in the matter. He had stated that the judgment had been postponed on various occasions due to the need for clarifications from both sides' counsel, leading to further hearings. The matter pertains to a suit filed in 1991 seeking removal of the Gyanvapi Mosque and restoration of the land to Hindus. On April 8, 2021, Civil Judge Senior Division, Varanasi Civil Court allowed the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a comprehensive physical survey of the Gyanvapi mosque adjacent to Kashi Vishwanath Temple. Against this order, Anjuman Intezamiya Masajid Varanasi knocked on the high court's doors. It is to be noted that in another matter, on August 3, 2023, the bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker gave a green signal to the ASI survey of the Gyanvapi premises.
Bench: Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker
Case Title: U.P Sunni Central Waqf Board v. Ancient Idol Of Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar And 5 Others and Connected Matters
Click here to read more
2. [Delayed Trials] The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the State police's failure to serve summons and execute coercive processes issued by the court to ensure witness attendance in criminal trials infringes upon the fundamental rights of the accused. The bench observed so while taking note of the status reports sent by the trial courts revealing that the trials were being delayed as the police authorities did not serve summons and execute coercive measures in a timely manner to compel the appearance of the witnesses on the appointed date in the trial. "Summons, bailable warrants and non bailable warrants are directed to police officers. Duty is imposed by the Cr.P.C. upon police authorities to serve the summons, execute other coercive measures like bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants issued by the courts in a time-bound manner," court emphasised. It held that failure to serve summons or execute warrants by police officers and absence of official witnesses constitute offences affecting the administration of justice.
Bench: Justice Ajay Bhanot
Case Title: Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir v. State of UP
3. [Misleading Ads By Padma Awardees] The Allahabad High Court recently asked the Central Government to inform it as to why it had not addressed a representation about certain Padma awardees' involvement in misleading advertisements. Court issued notices to the Cabinet Secretary in the Government of India, Rajiv Gowba, and the Chief Commissioner of the Central Consumer Protection Authority. The order was passed in a plea to take contempt action due to non-compliance of court's September 2022 order, which directed the centre to address the grievance raised by the petitioner in a Public Interest Litigation concerning participation of ‘certain’ Padma awardees in ‘misleading’ advertisements'. A PIL plea was moved before the high court highlighting Padma awardees endorsing harmful products in advertisements, raising concerns about public health. The petitioner prayed for formulation of guidelines to revoke awards if awardees engage in inappropriate conduct.
Bench: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Case Title: Moti Lal Yadav v. Sri Rajiv Gowba, Cabinet Secy. Central Secrtt. Govt. Of India, New Delhi And Another
4. [Hathras Case] In the suo moto case pertaining to the Hathras incident (In re: Right to decent & dignified last rights/cremation), the victim's family last week submitted before the Allahabad High Court that the court's order dated July 26, 2022, had not been complied with by the State Government. In the July 26, 2022 order, the high court had directed the State Government to consider employment of one of the family members of the deceased victim under the Government or Government Undertaking commensurate with the qualification possessed by them. In the rape and murder case, one of the accused, namely, Sandeep has been convicted. The next hearing in the matter will take place on September 21, 2023. The suo motu matter was initiated by the high court on October 1, 2020, after taking suo moto cognizance of the issue of the alleged forceful cremation of an alleged gang rape victim at 2 am by the UP Police instead of handing over her body to the family
Bench: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Jaspreet Singh
Case Title: In Re: Right to decent and dignified last rites/cremation
5. [Delayed Job Application] The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate seeking appointment as a Sanskrit teacher, whose application had reached the recruiters after the stipulated deadline, leading to the disqualification of his candidature. The bench, while referring to the full bench's judgments in Neena Chaturvedi Vs. UP Public Service Commission (2010) and Rajendra Patel Vs. State of UP (2016), held that in a recruitment process where the applications of the candidates are sought through the post, though the post office acts as an agent of the recruiters, the recruiters cannot be bound by any delay on the receipt of the application form. "The Courts of law, in case, gives elasticity and leverage as sought by the writ petitioner then obviously the selection proceedings cannot be concluded as even otherwise law is very clear that cut of date is sometime painful to one and beneficial to other," said the judge while dismissing the petitioner's plea.
Bench: Justice Vikas Budhwar
Case Title: Pankaj Kumar Priyam v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
6. [NOC for meat shop] The Allahabad High Court earlier last week allowed a petition filed by a meat seller challenging rejection of his application for grant of a 'no objection certificate' (NOC) in his favour to open a retail meat shop. The petitioner's application for NOC had been rejected on the ground that favourable report was not given by the police. Court dismissed both the grounds for rejection state by the administration. Regarding the ground of rejection with regard to unauthorized sale of meat was concerned, the court held that the same was absolutely presumptive in nature and could not be a ground to refuse a 'no objection certificate' to the petitioner. Further, so far as the ground of petitioner's shop's proximity to religious places was concerned, court noted there were three more shops, which had been given a 'no objection certificate' in the very same area.
Bench: Justice Manish Kumar and Justice Vivek Chaudhary
Case Title: Mohd. Shakeel v. State of UP and Others
7. [Live-In relationship] While dealing with a bail application filed by a man accused of raping his female live-in partner,a single judge bench of the Allahabad High Court made noteworthy remarks about live-in relationships. The bench said, "There is systematic design to destroy the institution of marriage in this country and destablize the society and hinder the progress of our country. The films and the T.V serials being aired are contributing to eradicate of institution of marriage. The infidelity to a partner in married relationship and having free live-in-relationship are being shown as sign of progressive society." The bench added that the youth gets attracted to such philosophy being advanced unaware of the long-term consequences. In the judge's opinion, "the security and stability which the institution of marriage provides to an individual's life cannot be expected from live-in-relationship". Regarding the bail application before him, the bench noted that this was another case where after enjoying the live-in-relationship the young couple had parted ways, and the girl, like in majority of cases, lodged FIR in vain bid to enter into secure relationship of marriage with the accused. Therefore, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the counsel for the parties among other factors, the bench allowed the bail application.
Bench: Justice Siddharth
Case Title: Adnan v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Please Login or Register
