Tag Archives: #CourtofAppeal

Legal News

Allahabad HC orders Dr Kafeel Khan’s release, sets aside detention order under NSA

Leave a comment

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday dropped charges under National Security Act against Dr Kafeel Khan, the pediatrician directing his immediate release. Dr Kafeel Khan has been incarcerated in Mathura jail for the last six months. 

The HC bench comprising Chief Justice Govind Marhur and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh cancelled his detention in a habeaus corpus petition filed by a Kafeel’s mother. The Uttar Pradesh government had earlier extended his detention by three months till November 13.

In its last hearing, the HC bench adjourned the matter as parties prayed to file additional documents and the court wanted to pursue original records of the proceedings under the NSA, resulting in the detention of Khan and further extension of the same.

According to the plea, Khan was earlier granted bail by a court and he was supposed to be released. However, the NSA was imposed against him. Hence, his detention was illegal, the plea said.

Under the NSA, people can be detained without a charge for up to 12 months if authorities are satisfied that they are a threat to the national security or law and order. Khan is currently lodged in a Mathura jail.

The Gorakhpur doctor was arrested on January 29 by Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force (STF) for an alleged provocative speech against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) at Aligarh Muslim University in December 2019.

Case Summary

Hadiya Marriage Case

Leave a comment

           

Facts:-

The petitioner (father )filed a case on the ground that Hadiya (originally Akhila Ashokan) was deceived into marrying her husband, Mr. Shafin Jahan and forcibly converted to Islam. I.e, He alleged that Hadiya had been misled and forced to become a Muslim.

Question of law:- 

  • Does the High Court have the power to annul the marriage of an adult under Article 226?
  • Does marriage being the most crucial decision of life, can be taken only with the active involvement of her parents, and no legal adult consent is necessary?

Held:- 

  • The writ of habeas corpus is ‘a great constitutional privilege’ or ‘the first security of civil liberty.’ It is a remedy against illegal detention, which affects the liberty and freedom of the detainee. In this case, the High Court misused the habeas corpus. When Hadiya appeared before the High Court, she stated that she was not under illegal confinement. The High Court has no power to decide the ‘just’ way of life or ‘correct’ course of living for Hadiya. 
  • Parens patriae is the power of the State to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent or guardian. The State acts as the parent of such an individual. The courts can invoke this role only in exceptional cases where the individual is either mentally incompetent, underage, or has either no parent/legal guardian or abusive one.
  •  The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21. The High Court was wrong in using its powers under Article 226 to annul Hadiya’s marriage with Shafin Jahan.

Submitted By: Priya Singh

https://lawmentor.in/2022/03/13/hadiya-marriage-case/

Legal News

BHRC Issues Statement Raising Concerns Regarding Conviction of Adv. Prashant Bhushan

Leave a comment

Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales, working on challenging human rights violations, protecting lawyers, judges, social rights activists, and journalists, etc., on the 19th of August raised concerns over the Supreme Court’s judgment convicting Advocate Prashant Bhushan of contempt of court over his two tweets. BHRC has issued a statement saying the August 14th Supreme Court judgement delivered by Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari should go through a review process and until the review process is completed Mr Bhushan’s sentencing shall stay.

BHRC has also included in the statement that the Supreme Court, in concluding Mr. Bhushan’s tweets as ‘scurrilous’ and ‘malicious’, “did not hold in contemplation that lawyers are entitled to, and should have, the freedom to voice publicly legitimate criticism of how justice is administered.” The Committee has also urged to abolish Section 2(c)(i) speaking of criminal contempt of court.

Source: Bar and Bench

Legal News

The high court cannot convert itself to a court of appeal under Section 227: Supreme Court

Leave a comment

The supreme court today has told in a case that when a high court hears a case under article 227 it cannot convert itself as a court of appeal.
So, according to the Constitution article 226, the high court has an original jurisdiction under which the high courts can issue, to any person or authority, including the government (inappropriate case), directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of them. And under article 227, it gives the high court the power of superintendence over lower courts.

In this case, the Rent Controller and Eviction officer have passed a judgement which was then again heard in the district court. And further, when it was filed to the high court, it observed that ground that the District Judge had committed illegality in entertaining the joint revision filed against the vacancy order as well as the final order.
The supreme court said that the High court has ignored the earlier judgement which has come in the case of Achal Mishra Vs Rama Shanker Singh, and here the district court judge is completely justified in interfering with the order passed by the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer.
The supreme court said that the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 in the present case was patently unwarranted and unjustified. 


Source: Live Law