Tag Archives: #writ

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

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.

Supreme Court fines Advocate Prashant Bhushan with Rs 1

After finding Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of Court for his tweets on the Judiciary, the Supreme Court Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari finally sentenced him on August 31st, 2020 to a token fine of Rs. 1. The Bench also stated that if Advocate Prashant Bhushan defaults on this payment then he may be sent to prison for three months and may be debarred from practicing for three years.

The Court had given several opportunities to the Advocate to express his regret and apologise. However, Bhushan had issued a supplementary statement standing by his tweets and refusing to apologise. The Court also pointed out that Bhushan had given publicity to the events of his case by involving the press in it. That being said, the Court added that its decisions are not to be influenced by publication of opinions in the press.

Source: Bar and Bench

Hadiya Marriage Case

           

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/

Writ petition filed in SC challenges MHA Notification, UGC guidelines calling for conduction of final terms exams.

The plea prays for the promotion of students based on the performance in the previous semester by aggregation of scores instead of mandatorily having students take exams.

Writ Petition was filed by the Yash Dubey through Raj K. Verma, Advocate on record, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Petitioner is a Final Year law student of Creer College of Law, Barkatullah University, Bhopal, and also circle head (student wing) of Youth Bar Association of India. 

Earlier the Petitioner on 10.07.2020, had moved a letter petition seeking suo-moto cognizance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the issue of compulsory conduct of examination for final year students, in view of the notification dated 06.07.2020 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (hereinafter referred to as ‘MHA’). 

The undersigned has challenged the compulsory conduct of examination of the final year students, inter alia on the following grounds –

  • That the present model of conduct of online examination will give rise to an elitist culture where the advantage will go to the rich, who have access to online facilities and also to those institutions which are privileged to provide online facilities and online teaching;
  • That it is baffling to note that just one semester of the examination will be determinative of the integrity and value of a degree for which students worked hard for six to ten semesters, as the case may be and have also appeared for internal examinations for the sixth or tenth semester.
  • That the issue in the present matter is similar to the matter of Amit Bathla v. Central Board of School Education 2020 SCC Online 537, wherein the issue concerning the conduct of examination of Class X and XII of CBSE and ICSE was involved;
  • That the Revised Guidelines are in sheer violation of the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India, as it fails to consider the principles of health, safety, fair and equal opportunity for the students;
  • That in view of unprecedented health emergency and rising numbers of the Covid-19 cases in the country, the conduct of examination (either online/offline/blended) will expose the examinees to high risk and will undeniably sacrifice the basic principle of integrity by neglecting equal basis and treatment to all examinees;
  • That the conduct of offline exams will entail students (who have already traveled to their hometown) to migrate from one place to another, in order to attend the examination. This will also involve the risk of staying in shared accommodation as various colleges and hostels have been converted into quarantine centers;
  • That issuance of provisional degree for the final year students is the need of the hour and the repeated insistence on the conduction of final year examination in the current circumstances is practically impossible and is altogether a discriminatory process, in. That insistence on the conduct of examination and non-issuance of provisional degree will jeopardize the future of students in their final year.
  • That while India has already crossed the tally of 10.38 lakh and while the number of states is bringing back lockdown of various types, the deadline of September 2020 for the conduct of examination is unattainable and if the virus continues to spread, no university/college administration will be in a position to announce examinations and the students will continue to be in limbo about their future.
  • That it will be unjust to neglect the problems that will be faced by thousands of students, who will sit for the online examination as the same will indubitably work against the interest of students whose access to the internet is precarious and who do not have personal computers or laptops in their house, which are imperative to conduct online examination;
  • That in view of the COVID induced lockdown, many parents have undergone substantial pay cuts and even layoffs and in light of the same, it will be extremely difficult for a large section of the students to pay their examination fee or to bear the stay and travel expenses to the source where the examination will be conducted;
  • That the suggested model of conduction of compulsory examination takes the students backward rather than forward. It effectively brings in the second phase of postponement of examination, which creates a cloud of uncertainty for the states like Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chattisgarh, Punjab and West Bengal, which already decided to cancel examination;
  • That it is most humbly submitted that the Revised Guidelines not only provides for a model which is extremely dangerous for the lives of thousands of attendees (students of final-year/semester cohorts) but at the same time it is extremely dangerous for the Professor’s who will be invigilating the exams;
  • That it is relevant to note that the UGC has cited examples of top-ranking Universities such as MIT, Cambridge for conduction of examination during the Covid-19 Pandemic. However, by doing so, the UGC has totally neglected the unprecedented difficulties that our country is facing in times of pandemic. To say the least, in these testing days, a section of our society is not able to arrange bread and butter for a day. Therefore, given the current difficulties that our country is facing, it is quite unrealistic to justify the reasoning of the conduction of virtual examination by relying on examples of the premier institutions of the world. 

The Petitioner has sought the following prayer: 

  • Issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the notification dated 06.07.2020 issued by MHA and subsequently the Revised UGC Guidelines dated 06.07.2020; and
  • Issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to provide for an alternative mode of assessment of the final year students, in the wake of Corona Virus disease outbreak (‘Covid-19); and
  • Issue a writ of Mandamus, or any appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No. 2 to call upon universities to submit a set of parameters for evaluation of the students based on students past performance and accordingly award provisional degrees to the students; 
  • Issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents to promote the students based on the performance in the previous semesters by taking an aggregate score for all the semesters and extrapolating them to calculate the marks for the final semester.

Source: Team Attorneylex