Hon'ble Judge(s):
Abhay S. Oka,
K. V. Viswanathan
, JJ
Mahendra Awase v.
State Of Madhya Pradesh
D.O.D : 17/01/2025
Appeal Allowed
Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.227— Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.306, S.107— Discharge of accused - Rejection of application - Legality - Accused was charged for offence under S.306 of IPC - Suicide note indicated that accused was asking deceased to repay loan guaranteed by deceased and advanced to another person - It could not be said that accused by performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at behest of his employer had instigated deceased to commit suicide - It could not be said that accused by his acts created circumstances which left deceased with no other option except to commit suicide - Exchanges with deceased by accused, though heated, were not with intent to leave deceased with no other option but to commit suicide - Also, FIR was lodged after delay of two months and twenty days - There were no grounds to frame charges under S.306 of IPC against accused - Accused was discharged.
Hon'ble Judge(s):
B. V. Nagarathna,
Satish Chandra Sharma
, JJ
Dharmendra Kumar Singh v.
Hon'ble High Court Of Jharkhand
D.O.D : 15/01/2025
Appeal Allowed
Constitution of India , Art.309— Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Recruitment Appointment and Conditions of Service Rules (2001) , R.4, R.5— Promotion and seniority - Claim for - Post of District Judge - Appellants who had successfully qualified suitability test, could not have been deprived of their legitimate right of promotion to the post of District Judge, only on account of lower placement in merit list - Appellants who were promoted during pendency of litigation, would be entitled for notional promotion from the same date on which other officers from the select list, were appointed.
Hon'ble Judge(s):
J. B. Pardiwala,
R. Mahadevan
, JJ
Rajeeb Kalita v.
Union Of India
D.O.D : 15/01/2025
Order Accordingly
Constitution of India , Art.32, Art.21— Right to life - Toilet facilities in Courts - It is settled law that the right to life encompasses within it the right to healthy and hygienic life and the right to live with dignity -It is duty of every State/UT under Part IV of the Constitution to ensure a healthy environment and to continuously strive for improving public health - Litigants for fear of sitting in courts for long hours without access to basic amenities should not be forced to refrain from exercising their legal rights - Absence of adequate washroom facilities undermines equality and poses a barrier to the fair administration of justice - Directions were issued accordingly
Public interest litigation was initiated with a prayer for directions to ensure that basic toilet facilities are made available in all Courts/ Tribunals in the Country for men, women and handicapped persons including transgenders.
Held, it is duty of every State/UT under Part IV of the Constitution to ensure a healthy environment and to continuously strive for improving public health . Absence of adequate washroom facilities undermines equality and poses a barrier to the fair administration of justice.
It is settled law that the right to life encompasses within it the right to healthy and hygienic life and the right to live with dignity. Creation of adequate public toilets also protects the privacy and removes the threat to ladies and transgender persons. Availability of access to public toilet is an important duty of the States/UTs under the Directive Principles and it is just not enough if such provisions are made but steps are to be taken to ensure that the toilets are maintained throughout the year. Without such access to the three genders, the States/UTs can no longer claim to be welfare State.
Following directions were issued, in the larger public interest:
(i) The High Courts and the State Governments / UTs shall ensure the construction and availability of separate toilet facilities for males, females, PwD, and transgender persons in all Court premises and Tribunals across the Country.
(ii) The High Courts shall oversee and ensure that these facilities are clearly identifiable and accessible to Judges, advocates, litigants, and court staff.
(iii) For the aforesaid purpose, a committee shall be constituted in each of the High Courts under the chairmanship of a Judge nominated by the Chief Justice and members comprising the Registrar General/Registrar of the High Court, the Chief Secretary, the PWD Secretary and the Finance Secretary of the State, a representative of the Bar Association and any other officers as they deem it fit, within a period of six weeks.
(iv) The committee shall formulate a comprehensive plan, carry out the following tasks, and ensure its implementation.
(a) have a statistic of number of persons visiting the courts every day on an average and ensure that sufficient separate washrooms are built and maintained.
(b) conduct a survey regarding the availability of toilet facilities, lacunae in the infrastructure and maintenance of the same. demarcate existing washrooms and assess the need to convert existing washrooms to meet the requirement of above categories
(c) provide alternate facilities like mobile toilets, during construction of new ones, environment friendly toilets (bio-toilets) across the courts as done in Railways.
(d) Qua women, transgender persons, PwD, provide clear signage and indications along with functional amenities, such as, water, electricity, operational flushes, provision of hand soap, napkins, toilet paper and up to date plumbing systems. Specifically, for PwD washrooms, ensure the installation of ramps and that washrooms are designed to accommodate them.
(e) conduct a study about maintaining architectural integrity in respect of Heritage Court buildings such as Mumbai, Calcutta, Chennai, etc. To work with the existing facilities by using underutilised spaces to build washrooms, modular solutions to work around the old plumbing systems, engaging professionals to assess the solutions to modernise sanitation facilities.
(f) effectuate a mandatory cleaning schedule and ensure staffing for maintenance and upkeeping dry bathroom floors along with sensitising users on clean washroom practices.
(g) ensure regular maintenance of the toilets by outsourcing professional agencies on contract basis, by employing modern cleaning methods and machinery to ensure better hygiene and usability.
(h) put in place a mechanism that mandates the periodic inspection of the functionality of these washrooms and specific compliance reports to be filed to a person in-charge.
(i) frame a complaint / redressal system for speedy reporting of defective washrooms and instant repair of the same.
(j) ensure that there are working and stocked sanitary pad dispensers in women, PwD, and transgender washrooms.
(k) nominate or appoint a person specifically in each premises of the High Court/District Court/ Civil Court/Tribunal as nodal officer to monitor the maintenance, address the complaints and communicate with the presiding officer or the appropriate committee; such authority should address the complaints and give standing instructions in writing regarding maintenance and working of the said toilets; and the responsibilities should be fixed.
(l) have a transparent and separate monetary fund for the construction and maintenance of toilets in court complexes.
(m) have child safe washrooms in Family court complexes with trained staff equipped to provide children with a safe and hygienic space.
(n) Provide separate rooms (interconnected with the women's washroom) to cater to nursing mothers' or mothers with infants with feeding stations and changing napkins available. To consider incorporating breastfeeding facilities to support nursing mothers, along with dedicated platforms for changing napkins within toilet areas, similar to the amenities available in airports. (o) High Courts to develop and sustain the quality of maintenance can create a grading system for the District Courts and other courts/forums under its supervision, provide certifications and motivate the appropriate officials and staff, which can form part of their service records.
(iv) The State Governments / UTs shall allocate sufficient funds for construction, maintenance and cleanliness of the toilet facilities within the court premises, which shall be periodically reviewed in consultation with the committee constituted by the High Courts.
(v) A status report shall be filed by all the High Courts and the States/UTs within a period of four months.
Dnyaneshwar Balasaheb Khodve v.
Anand Alias Ananta Devidas Chopde
D.O.D : 15/01/2025
Petition Allowed
Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.439(2)— Cancellation of bail - Non-adherence to bail conditions - Committing crime while on bail - Court had granted bail to accused with specific condition that they would not tamper with prosecution witnesses - However, accused along with others, approached informant, with threats to settle a previous dispute - They also allegedly assaulted him using an iron pipe, kicks and fist blows, resulting in a leg fracture, as evidenced by hospital records - Second offence was thus committed by accused while on bail, in violation of conditions imposed by Court - Actions of accused demonstrated a blatant disregard for law and justified withdrawal of their liberty - Bail was cancelled.
Hon'ble Judge(s):
B. P. Colabawalla,
Somasekhar Sundaresan
, JJ
Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement v.
Branch Manager, The Goa State Co-op Bank Ltd.
D.O.D : 14/01/2025
Petition Dismissed
Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (15 of 2003) , S.42— Appeal - Condonation of delay - Application for - Delay of 132 days in filing appeal under S. 42 of PMLA - Delay caused in approaching Court due to appellant initially filed appeal in wrong forum - Appellant was already five days late in approaching Gujarat High Court, and this delay was condoned - After Gujarat High Court ruled that jurisdictional Court was Bombay High Court, appellant took another 132 days to approach Bombay High Court - Fact that appellant had approached wrong forum would not reset clock for computing limitation from scratch - Appellant ought to have approached Bombay High Court within 55 days of outcome at Gujarat High Court, and evidently, appellant was late by time of 132 days - Thus, beyond total period of 120 days as stipulated in S. 42 r/w its proviso, Court had no power to condone delay - Delay was not condoned.
Hon'ble Judge(s):
Abhay S. Oka,
K. V. Viswanathan
, JJ
