A petition has been filed in the Telangana High Court seeking directions to the Bar Council of Telangana to expedite the process of enrolment of advocates in the State [G. Sai Teja v. The Bar Council for the State of Telangana].

The plea has been listed for hearing on Monday, September 30, before a Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J Srinivas Rao.

In another plea filed on similar lines, the Court had, by an order issued on September 11, directed the State Bar Council to expedite the enrolment process of applicants by fixing a date.

"...the respondents are directed to verify the said applications as expeditiously as possible, by fixing a date for enrolments of the applicants," a Bench of Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy had said in the Court's September 11 order.

The fresh plea filed by Advocate G Sai Teja states that despite the Court's direction, no new advocates have been registered with the State Bar Council since August 2024, which is of grave concern for fresh law graduates.

Earlier this year, the State Bar Council had increased the enrolment fee from ₹750 to ₹1,500. However, the same was reverted to ₹750 by a Supreme Court order on July 7.

Advocates Nikunj Duggar is representing the petitioner.

Advocate GH Mohiuddin is representing the Telangana Bar Council.

[Read September 11 Order]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently questioned the Punjab government over the State Health Agency’s failure to release pending dues to various hospitals under the Ayushman Bharat Scheme [Indian Medical Association Punjab and Others vs State of Punjab and Others].

Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj said there was no satisfactory explanation from the State on why funds already received from the government of India had been withheld and not released to the hospitals.

“Ordinarily any such action would have called for stern orders against the erring officials who misdirected the funds and diverted the same for unauthorized use. However, before proposing any action, it is deemed expedient to seek a detailed response from the State about the financial reimbursement received by the State of Punjab from the Union of India from December 2021 up till now and how that money has been utilized. The affidavit shall also inform whether the amount received from Union of India towards Ayushmaan Bharat Payments could be used for the said purposes (for which the amount has been utilized) or not,” the Court ordered.

The Court went a step ahead and directed the Principal Secretary, Finance to file an affidavit giving expenses incurred by the State on following heads from December 2021 till September 2024. 

(i) The expenses incurred for publishing advertisement in print and audio video media including break-up about the States and languages where such advertisements have been published/played. 

(ii) The expenses incurred on the renovation of the houses/ offices of Class-I officers as well as Ministers/MLAs in Punjab. 

(iii) Expenses incurred in purchase of new vehicles along with their make for the Ministers/ MLAs and Class-I officers in the State of Punjab. 

(iv) The litigation expenses paid for pursuing matters before the Supreme Court of India or Delhi High Court in defending/pursuing matters for the State of Punjab or for any other person or agency and instrumentality of State of Punjab or outside. 

(v) The expenditure incurred in various social welfare schemes such as free electricity, Atta Dal Scheme etc. as against the budgetary allocation for the same period. 

The Court said the information was being sought to examine if funds or grants received for any specific purpose are being misapplied or misused or not.

It added that the State, having received money for a specified purpose, is a custodian of that money and must only release it to the actual beneficiaries.

The government cannot be permitted to retain the amount or misappropriate the grants at the costs of the actual recipient and leave the citizens litigating for their dues, it asserted.

The Court was hearing a petition moved by Indian Medical Association (IMA) Punjab and others for release of their dues under the Ayushman Bharat Scheme.

An amount of over ₹500 crores was pending with the State Health Agency till December 2022 and only an amount of ₹26 crores has been released, the Court was told. In response, the State said the pending claims were under active consideration.

Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, representing the Centre, explained that as per the Ayushman Bharat Scheme, 60 per cent of the medical bills are to be reimbursed by the Union of India and the rest is to be done by the State government.

Jain further submitted that an amount of ₹355.48 crores, up to financial year 2023-24, has already been released by the Union of India to the State government and that the obligation to disburse the same is on the State Health Agencies including their own component of the dues to the extent of 40 per cent.

However, he claimed that the State has not only not released its own share, it has misused the share already released by the Union of India.

Calling the withholding of payment surprising, the Court ordered that salaries of Kumar Rahul, IAS, Principal Secretary, Department of Health; Babita, Chief Executive Officer; Deepak, Director and Sharanjit Kaur, Deputy Director, State Health Agency, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab shall remain attached till the next date of hearing

The matter will be heard  next on October 16.

Advocate Adityajit Singh Chadha represented the petitioners.

Deputy Advocate General Akshita Chauhan represented the State of Punjab.

Senior Panel Counsel Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar represented the State Health Agency.

Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain with Senior Panel Counsel Gurmeet Kaur Gill represented the Centre.

Advocates Amandeep Singh Talwar, Bomi Patel and Varun Gupta represented another respondent.  

[Read Order]

The Rajasthan High Court recently called out the State government for discriminating against female teachers in promotions on the ground that the number of girls' schools are less in comparison to boys' schools [Smt Tara Agrawat v. The State of Rajasthan].

The Court was hearing a 2009 petition challenging the State education department's decision to prepare two different seniority lists for male and female teachers. While male teachers appointed up to 1998 were considered for promotion, only female teachers appointed up to 1996 were included in the list.  

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said that by such exercise, the authorities not only caused gender discrimination but also violated the right to equality of the female teachers.

“Hence, the respondents have violated their fundamental rights contained under Article 14, 15(1), 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Such act on the part of the respondents is quite arbitrary, unjustified and is liable to be deprecated,” the Court added.

The Court emphasised that discrimination on the basis of sex in India has always been considered  as infringement of the fundamental rights, as provided under Part III of the Constitution of India.

“Article 14 of the Constitution addresses equality between the persons, Article 15(1) forbids the state from discriminating against anyone based on their sex among other things, and also prohibits classification amongst citizens on the basis of sex for any purpose and Article 16(1) and (2) deals with the equal opportunity in matters of public employment. These prohibitions are unqualified and absolute," the Court observed.

The State’s justification that the the requirement of male teachers was greater than female teacher as boys schools are more in number also did not impress the Court.

Rather, the Court criticised the State for assuming that only male teachers are competent enough to teach in boys' schools.

“Though on the face of it the rule makes a classification based on the demand of teachers belonging to a particular gender, the impact of that classification falls on female teachers, and thus, in effect, the rule entrenches social hierarchy by reaffirming existing inequalities between men and women. The above classification unjustly implies that only male teachers are competent enough to teach in boys’ school, thus treating female teachers as a substandard class in comparison to their counterpart," it said.

The Court further noted such classification, though it appeared to be innocuous, granted a greater proportion of promotions to male teachers on the basis of archaic gender stereotypes rather than any evidence of better educational outcomes.

Concluding that there was a clear case of discrimination in the case, the Court said the mandate of the State to not discriminate between citizens on grounds of sex was one of the most important fundamental rules that calls for strict observance.

“Unlike the freedoms in Article 19 of the Constitution there is no scope for restricting the absolute scope of the rights under Article 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution. There would be no scope whatever to justify differentiating between the male and female sexes in the matter of appointment and promotion. The right of women should not be denied on fanciful assumptions of what work the woman could do and could not do,” said the Court.

It also observed that at a time when ‘beti padhao, beti bachao’ is the goal, such an action by the authorities could neither be supported in law nor on facts.

Accordingly, the Court directed the authorities to consider all eligible female teachers for promotion.

“The respondents are directed to consider the case not only of the petitioners but also of all the similarly situated female teachers appointed as Teacher Gr.III upto the year 1998 for their promotion to the post of Senior Teacher Gr. II for the vacancies of the year 2008-09 and 2009-10 and grant them all consequential benefits,” the order stated.

Advocate HR Kumawat represented the petitioners. Advocate Namita Parihar represented the State.

[Read Judgment]

The Kerala High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against an Australian tourist of Jewish descent who was booked by the Fort Kochi police for tearing down posters on the Israel-Palestine conflict [Zara Michele Shilansk v State of Kerala & ors].

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas found that these posters were put up without legal authority. Therefore, he opined that tearing these posters down cannot be termed an illegal act although ideally, the tourist should have left it to the concerned authorities to take them down.

"If a poster has been put up without authority, it is irrefutably an illegal act. Removal of an illegal poster cannot be said to be an illegal act done malignantly or wantonly, even if it is done by a private individual, though ideally, petitioner ought to have approached the law enforcement agencies, instead of tearing it by herself. Since tearing down a poster kept without any legal authority cannot strictly fall within the term illegal act, the main ingredient of Section 153 is lacking in the final report," the Court observed.

The tourist was visiting Fort Kochi when she noticed two posters with the slogan "Silence is Violence, Stand up for humanity."

Disturbed by the posters, she and her friend tried to get them removed through the local tourism office. Since this effort was unsuccessful, the tourist and her friend resorted to tearing down the posters themselves.

Following this incident, the Area Secretary of the Students Islamic Organization (a student wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami) filed a complaint against the tourist.

A criminal complaint was registered under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which punishes those who intentionally do illegal or wanton acts that could provoke a riot.

The tourist later secured bail, but was prevented from leaving the country as a lookout notice was issued against her. As a result, she was detained at the airport.

She proceeded to challenge the validity of the proceedings initiated against her before the High Court.

The Court granted her relief on September 10 after noting that the essential elements of the offence under Section 153 of the IPC were not present in this case.

"The final report does not even allege that the posters were torn with the intention to provoke or knowing that it will provoke a person to commit the offence of rioting. The final report is totally silent as to whether the petitioner was aware that the tearing of the poster will cause the offence of rioting or provoke people to indulge in rioting," the Court added, before quashing the criminal case.

Advocates Blaze K Jose, Nikhil Sanjay, Treesa Rose and Airine Joby represented the tourist. Public Prosecutor Sreeja V represented the State.

[Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court on Friday closed a curative petition filed by the Central government and the Airports Authority of India (AAI) which had remained a hurdle to Nagpur airport's brownfield redevelopment by a private company, GMR Airports Limited [Airports Authority of India v GMR Airports Ltd and anr].

Interestingly, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the matter need not be considered under the Court's curative jurisdiction.

He told the Court that it was his professional opinion that the grounds for invoking the curative jurisdiction of the top court were not present in this case.

The response of the SG came after the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud-led bench had asked for a reply from the Solicitor General in his professional capacity.

Therefore, he submitted that the curative petition filed against the dismissal of a review petition challenging the 2022 decision of the apex court in the matter is not being pressed,

"It is my professional opinion that there is no ground of bias and there cannot be any bias," the SG said.

"We note that curative plea is not pressed before the court," the Bench noted in its order closing the matter.

SG Mehta, however, urged the Court to clarify an observation made in the 2022 judgment, by which the top court had dismissed objections by the Centre and the AAI over not being impleaded as parties to the case.

The para in question stated:

"We are of the considered opinion that the objection regarding non-joinder raised by the appellants is bereft of any merit and the High Court has rightly rejected the same."

Mehta explained that it may affect future litigation in similar matters if this line is not clarified. The Supreme Court took note of the concern and added a clarification in its order today.

"SG has submitted that this Court may issue a clarification as per para 51 of the impugned order that in such matters, Union and AAI are not necessary parties. He says if the above statement of law holds the field, then it may impact the representation of parties in future litigation ... The observation in para 51 of the judgment that AAI or Union are not necessary parties would not be correct position in law," the Court recorded.

The development came after CJI led bench had earlier asked SG to give his personal opinion as a law officer whether case falls within the parameters of Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment. SG during his submissions today maintained that the opinion was made as an officer of the court and in a professional manner. SG even clarified that he has not even consulted the Union of India about it.

SG however stressed that curative petition should not become an intra-court appeal in disguise.

In 2022, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging a Bombay High Court ruling that allowed GMR Airports to upgrade and operate Nagpur’s Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport as part of a MIHAN (Multi-modal International Cargo Hub and Airport at Nagpur) project.

The Central government and AAI challenged this ruling by way of a review petition, which was rejected.

They then filed a curative petition and urged the top court to have a relook at its decision. This plea has also now been closed by the Court as not pressed.

Today's development was welcomed by the ruling dispensation in Maharashtra as well.

The Bombay High Court on Thursday observed that a married woman cannot claim that she fell victim to a false promise of marriage by a man and consented to sexual intercourse on that ground [Vishal Nagnath Shinde v.State of Maharashtra].

Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to a man arrested by the Pune police in a rape case.

"In the first place, the informant herself being a married woman, cannot claim that she fell prey to the false promise of marriage given by the applicant. Being a married woman, she was clearly aware that she would not be able to marry the applicant. In any case, even the applicant is a married man and therefore, the theory of false promise of marriage prima facie appears to be misplaced," the Court said. 

The Court was hearing the anticipatory bail plea filed by one Vishal Nagnath Shinde booked for rape and criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code.

The complainant, a married woman, alleged that the Shinde, who is also married, had cultivated a friendship with her and promised to marry her, after which he allegedly forced himself upon her in a lodge.

Following the incident, she claimed that he threatened to circulate videos of the assault.

Shinde's counsel argued that he had cooperated with the investigation.

He also raised concerns about the credibility of the woman's claims, particularly given their marital status.

The Court was informed that he had complied with interim relief conditions, was attending the police station regularly and had also surrendered his mobile phone for examination.

While the State's counsel contended that he had not fully cooperated, the Court found no evidence indicating that he had circulated any videos of the woman.

Consequently, the Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to him subject to specific conditions.

“There is nothing to indicate that the applicant till date has circulated any videos of the informant and therefore, sufficient grounds are made out for allowing the present application,” the order noted.

Advocates Nagesh Somanath Khedkar and Shubham Sane appeared for Shinde.

Additional Public Prosecutor Balraj B Kulkarni represented the State.

[Read Order]

The Karnataka High Court on Friday asked prison authorities to explain why they shifted undertrials out of the Central Prison in Bengaluru to jails across the State following a video showing actor Darshan Thoogudeepa receiving preferential treatment that went viral on social media.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said that prison authorities will have to answer why they shifted undertrials “en masse” and not just Darshan and the two others seen with him in the said video.

“Who were found with Darshan that day? Whom did you find in that viral video? Only three people..then why did you shift everybody? If you have problem with the three people, shift only them. Why did you shift everybody? What inquiry did you conduct prior (to shifting)? You will have to answer because you have shifted these undertrials without consulting the investigating officers. Why did you shift them en masse? Whoever was sitting there with Darshan, you shift them. Why do you shift everybody?” the judge asked.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Pradosh, Darshan’s co-accused in the Renukaswamy murder case. Pradosh was shifted to the Hindalga Prison in Belagavi while Darshan was transferred from Bengaluru's Parappana Agrahara Central Prison to Ballari Central Jail last month.

In his petition filed through Advocate Hitesh Gowda, Pradosh had sought quashing of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order passed on August 27 directing his transfer to the prison in Belagavi.

Pradosh claimed that such transfer to a distant prison was made without following procedure, and that it adversely affected his right to defence.

In his petition, Pradosh pointed out that besides Darshan, eleven other undertrials were shifted out of the Central Prison even though they had no relation to the said video.

The State, however, argued that the decision to shift the undertrials had been taken following an internal inquiry conducted by the prison authorities.

The Court will hear the matter further on Monday, September 30.

The Kerala High Court recently directed the State government to complete the revalidation of non-judicial ₹20 stamp papers amid an ongoing shortage of lower denomination stamp papers in Kerala. [Jyothish P v. State of Kerala & Anr.]

While issuing the direction, a Division Bench of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu noted that over over 12 lakh stamp papers of ₹20 denomination are in the treasury for re-validation and distribution to vendors.

"If that be the case, there shall be a direction to complete the re-validation process of stamp papers of facevalue of ₹20 which remain in the treasury within a period of three weeks," the Court ordered.

The Court also ordered the State government to take a decision on the request by Central Stamp Report Officer for permission take 6 lakh more ₹50 stamp papers which are already printed and stored at Nasik Central Security Press.

The direction was passed on a petition filed by an advocate highlighting the severe scarcity of ₹100, ₹200 and ₹500 denomination stamp papers.

The petitioner had emphasized that despite multiple attempts to procure these stamp papers, they remain in short supply, forcing people to purchase higher denomination stamp papers which are often unaffordable for many.

The petition also stated that the Kerala government failed to place timely orders with the Nashik Printing Press, resulting in an acute shortage of such stamp papers.

Moreover, the government’s promise to commence an e-stamp service from August 1, 2024, was also not implemented and only revalidated ₹20 stamp papers were provided on a limited basis, available just three days a week to address the high demand for ₹100 stamp papers.

Besides seeking implementation of the e-stamp facility, the petitioner also sought a detailed report on the current status of stamp paper availability.

During the hearing, the State government, through a written instruction from the Directorate of Treasuries, informed the Court that 9,37,646 stamp papers of ₹100 denomination have been revalidated and distributed to vendors since June 1, 2024.

It was also submitted that the State government plans to revalidate over 12 lakh ₹20 stamp papers in the treasury by the end of September.

The State government assured the Court that urgent steps were being taken to rectify the shortage in areas where the supply of stamp papers remains limited, including transferring stock from other districts with surplus supplies.

The Court disposed of the writ petition directing the State to complete the revalidation process for the ₹20 stamp papers and make a decision to obtain the ₹50 stamp papers within a period of three weeks.

The petition was moved by advocate Jyothish P who was represented by advocates MG Sreejith, Vidyajith M, Rojin Devassy and Bincy Jose.

Senior Government Pleader Tek Chand V appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]