Prayagraj:

The law provides the right to a victim of sexual assault to terminate her pregnancy medically, the Allahabad High Court has observed while allowing a 17-year-old woman to choose whether she wants the child or not.

A two-judge bench comprising Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar was hearing a petition of a 17-year-old rape victim seeking medical termination of pregnancy.

It said section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act provides the right to a victim of sexual assault to terminate her pregnancy medically.

The court further observed, “In the case of sexual assault, denying a women right to say no to medical termination of pregnancy and fasten her with responsibility of motherhood would amount to denying her human right to live with dignity as she has a right in relation to her body which includes saying ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to being a mother.” “Section 3(2) of the MTP Act reiterates that right of a woman. To force the victim to give birth to the child of a man who sexually assaulted would result in unexplainable miseries.” The petitioner said she was lured by the accused to elope with him. Later, upon a complaint by her father, she was found.

Subsequently, when the petitioner was medically examined for acute stomach ache, she was found to be three months and fifteen days pregnant.

The counsel for the petitioner alleged that she was raped multiple times, and investigation on this has been requested before the session court.

Since the petitioner is now nineteen weeks pregnant, her counsel submitted that the pregnancy was causing her anguish and was detrimental to her mental health.

It was also pleaded that the petitioner, being a minor, did not want the responsibility of a child.

The court observed that Rule 3 B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy, Rules 2003 (as amended by Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Rules, 2021) provides for termination of pregnancy of up to 24 weeks for survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest or if she is a minor.

Giving an example of the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court allowing medical termination of pregnancy in similar circumstances, the court observed that the victim has the right to say yes or no to keeping the child conceived due to sexual assault.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Noting that there was no “good reason” to decline bail, the Supreme Court rapped the Allahabad High Court for failing to show “courage” in granting bail to a cleric in an alleged conversion case.

“We can understand that the trial court declined bail as trial courts seldom muster the courage of granting bail, be it any offence. However, at least, it was expected of the High Court to muster the courage and exercise its discretion judiciously,” observed the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, granting bail to the cleric arrested under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

Discretion, said the top court, does not mean that the judge on his own whims and fancy declines bail saying conversion is something very serious.

“We are conscious of the fact that grant of bail is a matter of discretion. But discretion has to be exercised judicially keeping in mind the well settled principles of grant of bail. Discretion does not mean that the judge on his own whims and fancy declines bail saying conversion is something very serious,” said the top court.

The Supreme Court underlined that every year so many conferences, seminars, workshops etc. are held to make the trial judges understand how to exercise their discretion.

It was brought to the top court’s notice that the child being mentally challenged was abandoned by the parents and was thrown on the streets and the cleric, who has no prior criminal record, on humanitarian grounds brought the child to his place and gave him shelter.

“We are of the view that the High Court should have exercised its discretion by granting bail to the petitioner. There was no good reason for the High Court to decline bail. The offence alleged is not that serious or grave like murder, dacoity, rape etc,” said the top court.

“At times when the High Court declines bail in the matters of the present type, it gives an impression that altogether different considerations weighed with the presiding officer ignoring the well settled principles of grant of bail,” the court said further.

The release of the cleric should not now come in the way of the trial, cautioned the Supreme Court.

Flagging it as a cautionary tale for case pendency in courts, the Supreme Court said, “This is one of the reasons why the High Courts and now unfortunately the Supreme Court of the country is flooded with bail applications.”

“This matter should not have reached up to the Supreme Court. The trial court itself should have been courageous enough to exercise its discretion and release the petitioner on bail,” lamented the top court.

Prayagraj:

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to the state authorities to permit the mounting of loudspeakers on a Masjid.

The court observed that the religious places were for offering prayers, therefore the use of loudspeakers was not a matter of right.

Dismissing the writ petition filed by Pilibhit-resident Mukhtiyar Ahmad, a two judge-bench, comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh, observed, “Religious places are for offering prayers to the divinity and use of loudspeakers cannot be claimed as a matter of right, particularly when often such use of loudspeakers create nuisance for the residents”.

At the outset, the state counsel objected to the maintainability of the writ on the grounds that the petitioner was neither a mutawalli, nor did the mosque belong to him.

The court also noted that the petitioner did not have locus to file the writ petition.

The term ‘locus’ is a legal concept that refers to the right of a person or entity to participate in a legal proceeding or bring a lawsuit. P

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Prayagraj:

Although live-in relationships have no social sanction, the youths’ attraction to it demands there must be devised some framework or solution to save “moral values” of the society, the Allahabad High Court has observed.

Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava made the observation while granting bail to Varanasi-based Akash Keshari, who was booked under various sections of IPC and SC/ST Act for allegedly establishing physical relations with a woman on pretext of marriage.

Keshari allegedly refused to marry the person, who approached Sarnath Police Station of Varanasi district.

“So far as the live-in relationship is concerned, it has got no social sanction but since the youth is attracted to such relations because a young person, male or female, can easily escape from his or her liability to his or her partner, their attraction is rapidly increasing in favour of such relations.

“It is high time we all thought and tried to find out some framework and solution to save the moral values of the society,” the court observed while granting bail to the applicant.

Earlier, Keshari’s counsel argued that the prosecution’s story was false as the woman was a major and the relationship between them was consensual.

It was also submitted that she was in a live-in relationship with the appellant for about six years and the alleged abortion never happened.

The lawyer also submitted that the accused never promised to marry the woman. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Lucknow:

The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court on Tuesday dismissed as “not maintainable” a PIL challenging the impeachment motion moved against Justice Shekhar Yadav over his alleged controversial remarks at a VHP event last month.

“We do not see that the cause espoused in the present petition relates to any vulnerable section of people. Thus, on the touch stone of maintainability, the present PIL does not qualify the very test of initiation of proceedings on its threshold,” said the bench of Justice AR Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi.

The bench passed the order on the public interest litigation moved by Ashok Pandey.

The petitioner had demanded that the High Court should issue direction to the Rajya Sabha chairman not to initiate further proceedings on the notice for impeachment motion submitted to the Rajya Sabha secretary general by 55 MPs.

In the notice, the MPs have sought impeachment of Justice Yadav, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, over the speech delivered by him at Prayagraj on December 8 at an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP).

Dismissing the PIL, the bench held that the cardinal principle within which a PIL is entertained before the constitutional courts is representation of a cause of vulnerable section of people but the present PIL is not filed by such section.

Addressing a provincial convention of the legal cell and high court unit of the VHP at the high court on December 8, among other things, Justice Yadav said the main aim of the uniform civil code was to promote social harmony, gender equality and secularism.

The following day, videos of the judge speaking on provocative issues, including the law working according to the majority, were circulated widely on social media, prompting strong reactions from several quarters, including opposition leaders who questioned his reported statement, labelling it as “hate speech”. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav, who purportedly gave controversial statements at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad function, appeared before the Supreme Court collegium on Tuesday, sources said.

According to the sources, Yadav appeared before the collegium headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and was asked to put forth his version on the statements made.

The top court on December 10 took note of news reports over the statements and sought a report from the Allahabad High Court on the issue.

“The Supreme Court has taken note of newspaper reports of a speech given by Mr Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The details and particulars have been called from the high court and the matter is under consideration,” an official statement had said.

According to the established norm, a judge, against whom a report is sought by the apex court collegium on any controversial issue from the high court concerned, is given opportunity to put forth his or her version before the top court collegium headed by the chief justice of India.

At a VHP event on December 8, among other things, Justice Yadav said the main aim of the uniform civil code was to promote social harmony, gender equality and secularism.

He was addressing a provincial convention of the legal cell and high court unit of the VHP at the Allahabad HC.

The following day, videos of the judge speaking on provocative issues, including the law working according to the majority, were circulated widely on social media, prompting strong reactions from several quarters, including opposition leaders who questioned his reported statements, labelling it as “hate speech”.

Convenor of Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, an NGO, advocate Prashant Bhushan had written to CJI Sanjiv Khanna seeking an “in-house enquiry” into the conduct of the Allahabad HC judge.

Bhushan said the judge breached judicial ethics and violated the constitutional principles of impartiality and secularism.

According to Bhushan, the remarks undermined the judiciary’s role as a neutral arbiter and eroded public trust in its independence.

“A strong institutional response is needed to restore public faith in the judiciary,” the letter said, “we call upon your office sir (the CJI) to restore the faith of the people in the institution of judiciary by immediately setting up an in-house committee to enquire into acts of judicial impropriety by Justice Yadav and by withdrawing all judicial work from Justice Yadav”.

On December 8, CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat wrote to the CJI calling the judge’s speech a violation of his oath, saying “no place for such persons in a court of justice”.

Karat sought action from the apex court on the issue.

Similarly, the Bar Association of India passed a resolution condemning the statements of the high court judge.

“The Bar Association of India calls upon the judge to retract his statements and tender a suitable apology for his remarks and urges the Chief Justice of India and companion judges of the Supreme Court to deal with this issue in a stern and emphatic manner. It also emphasises that events conducted by organisations not concerned with the administration of justice as a matter of principle should not be permitted on any court premises,” it said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The court directed Additional solicitor general (ASG) S.B.Pandey to obtain instructions from the ministry of home affairs in this regard within three weeks and to place its response on the next date, said ASG Pandey. It directed to list the plea in the week commencing from December 19, 2024.

The HC in July 2024 had allowed Shishir to withdraw a similar petition and granted him the liberty to pursue remedies under the Citizenship Act. Shishir has now again moved the high court for a decision on his representations. Shishir informed the court that after withdrawing his earlier petition before the high court, he submitted two representations to the competent authority in the Union home ministry. 

The petitioner — S Vignesh Shishir, a resident of Karnataka — has also sought a CBI probe into Mr Gandhi’s citizenship. 

In an interview with NDTV, Mr Vignesh said, “The court has ordered that a clear and final decision be made on the matter by December 19, the next date of hearing. The home ministry also has to communicate to the court its findings in the matter”. 

“I am hoping that the government will promptly revoke the Indian citizenship of Rahul Gandhi. We have received direct communication from the UK government that Mr Gandhi’s name is in their citizenship records,” he added.

“We have presented all the documents to the Allahabad High Court…. Under Indian laws dual citizenship is not allowed. Once someone takes the citizenship of another nation, Indian citizenship gets automatically cancelled,” he added.
 

New Delhi:
Thousands of madrassa students across Uttar Pradesh may get to know today which way their education will go as the Supreme Court decides if the madrassa law, scrapped by the Allahabad High Court, should stay or not.

Here are top 10 points on this big story:

Prayagraj:

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an appeal filed against alleged objectionable comments made against Dalits by a seer during a religious talk event.

The petitioner filed an appeal after a special judge for SC/ST cases dismissed an application against remarks made by Swami Rambhadracharya. Dismissing the appeal filed by one Prakash Chandra, Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed, “Having perused the grounds taken up while preferring the instant appeal, it is crystal clear that no specific offence under SC/ST Act, 1989, Section 67 of IT Act and other sections of IPC is attracted.” The petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) (CrPC) seeking court direction to register an FIR over certain statements made by Swami Rambhadracharya.

These comments were targeted against the Scheduled Caste community and has attracted the offence under the SC/ST Act and certain provisions of the IPC, he said in his plea.

The SC/ST Act special judge, Prayagraj had dismissed the application in an order dated February 15, 2024 on grounds of maintainability. The petitioner then filed the present criminal appeal before the high court.

Appearing for Swami Rambhadracharya, senior advocate M C Chaturvedi submitted that the reasoning and finding recorded by the court of special judge is quite reasonable and justified.

He submitted that Rambhadracharya’s words are not an offence under the SC/ST Act, 1989 or Section 67 of IT Act as submitted in the appeal.

The additional government advocate, appearing for the state government also opposed the appeal, and said the special court order has no legal infirmity and the instant appeal should be dismissed.

After a detailed hearing, the high court in its decision dated October 4 dismissed the appeal.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Justice Shamim Ahmed who has been transferred to the Madras High Court from Allahabad High Court
| Photo Credit: Special Arrangement

Madras High Court Chief Justice K.R. Shriram on Monday (September 30, 2024) administered the oath of office to Justice Shamim Ahmed who has been transferred here from the Allahabad High Court.

Advocate General P.S. Raman welcomed the judge and introduced him to the Bar.

Justice Ahmed was born on March 8, 1966, and graduated in arts and law from Allahabad University. He had enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on April 17, 1993, and practised in civil, constitutional, service, labour, and company law apart from the criminal side.

During his stint as a lawyer in Allahabad, he had served as a Central government counsel since 2004 and also as standing counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh between May 22, 2015, and July 7, 2017.

He was elevated as an additional judge of the Allahabad High Court on December 12, 2019, and was made permanent on March 26, 2021.

Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry chairman P.S. Amalraj, Madras High Court Advocates Association president G. Mohanakrishnan, Madras Bar Association president M. Baskar, Women Lawyers Association president Revathi, and Law Association president Selvaraj too welcomed the judge.

State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, State Government Pleader A. Edwin Prabhakar, other law officers and Bar members of both Chennai and the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court participated in the event.