i. Bar associations cannot deny the right to legally represent any individual – The Supreme Court expressed that a bar association could not restrain advocates from defending an individual. The petitioner had filed a writ petition against a resolution passed by the lawyers of the trial court, where he was pursuing various cases against his wife, prohibiting the lawyers from representing him. According to the petitioner, the resolution was passed because his wife had falsely accused him of slapping her on court premises, which led to the petitioner being beaten up and even taken to the police. The Supreme Court explained that even if such a resolution had been passed, it would not matter, as a bar association had no right to interfere with the right to legal representation. [Deepak Kalra v State of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 144 of 2018, date of order: 22.06.2018]

ii. Bihar, Jharkhand and UP criticised for poor infrastructure in government hospitals – The Supreme Court reprimanded the states of Bihar, Jharkhand and UP for the poor infrastructure in government medical colleges. The case pertained to the issuance of Letters of Permission by the MCI to eight colleges, which among them had a total of 800 seats. The government of Bihar produced an affidavit indicating that they were working on removing the deficiencies. The Court felt that the infrastructure was not fit to treat humans. The Court then decided not to close down the colleges until the colleges are cleared in the examination done by the MCI. [State of Bihar v Medical Council of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 634 of 2018, date of order: 18.06.2018]

iii. Uttarakhand government asked to regulate unaided professional educational institutions – The Uttarakhand High Court has asked the State government to enact a law regulating the admission process and fee structures in unaided professional schools and colleges, in light of the exorbitant fees being charged by them. The petition had highlighted that the while an Act had been enacted to regulate fees in institutions, no such steps had been taken for private unaided schools. The High Court held that the SC, ST and OBC would not be charged exorbitant fees. The institutions would also have to reserve at least five percent seats for students whose family income is below the poverty line. The Court quashed the amendment made to the earlier Act, the Uttarakhand Unaided Private Professional Education Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006, which allowed the State to appoint the Chairman and Appellate authority for price fixation by by-passing the earlier mandate of appointment to the posts by the Chief Justice of the High Court. [Pradeep Datta v State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 92 of 2012, date of order: 12.06.2018]

iv. Breastfeeding woman on Malayalam magazine not to be declared as obscene – The Kerala High Court held that the Malayalam issue of Grihalakshmi featuring a woman breastfeeding her child on the cover was not obscene. Ironically, the message behind the cover was normalisation of breastfeeding. The Court did not find any moral decadence/obscenity in the image noting that the beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. The Court also noted that their decision was bound to be subjective, as what someone else, like the petitioner might have found as obscene, the court did not. The Court reiterated the judicial opinion i.e. obscenity would only be a valid argument when it appealed to the prurient interest for a reasonable person on the basis of community standards. [Writ Petition No. 7778 of 2018, date of order: 08.03.2018]

v. Taking loan in the name of wife and not repaying it amounts to cruelty – The Uttarakhand High Court granted divorce to a wife on the ground that her husband had taken a loan in her name and had not repaid it, causing her trouble and embarassment. The loans, the court noted, had been taken for purchase of luxury cars, even though the evidence submitted by the husband indicated that their financial condition was not strong. The husband had even made her guarantor in some other loans he had taken. The petitioner was a housewife and was even deserted by the husband and was being hounded by the creditors. The Court found that such acts would amount to cruelty and thus granted the divorce. [Manpreet Verma v Brij Verma, First Appeal No. 133 of 2017, date of order: 14.06.2018]

vi. Zakir Naik’s petition challenging the revocation of his passport denied –The Bombay High Court has dismissed the petition by Zakir Naik, founder of Islamic Research Foundation, challenging the revocation of his passport and seeking a stay on his arrest. The Court also questioned as to why the petitioner had not joined the investigation and was in Malaysia. The preacher is being investigated for fuelling terrorist activities in India and two non-bailable warrants have been issued against him. [Zakir Abdul Karim Naik v State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 5002 of 2017, dated 20.06.2018]

vii. Over-speeding would not necessarily constitute rash driving –The Karnataka High Court has observed that in order to constitute rash and negligent driving, a person need not have exceeded the speed limit and vice versa – driving above the speed limit does not necessarily constitute rash and negligent driving. While relying on an earlier precedent, it noted that that to constitute rash and negligent driving, one has to show lack of due care and caution, it need not be coupled with high speeds necessarily. In the case, a lorry being driven the accused had hit the cycle of the victim from behind. The lorry driver had taken the contention that the road had speed breakers and thus he could not have driven at a high speed. The contention was rejected in line with the ruling. [Moulasab v State of Karnataka, Criminal Revision Petition No. 2051 of 2011, date of order: 11.06.2018]

(IPA Service)