i. Pregnancy beyond 20 weeks can be terminated if the foetus has congenital defects – The Calcutta High Court has held that if the foetus has a congenital defect, pregnancy can be terminated even if the foetus is beyond 20 weeks old. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act puts the limit for termination of pregnancy at 20 weeks, and only in certain exceptional cases, it is allowed beyond 20 weeks. Carrying a foetus with a birth defect beyond 20 weeks would not be conducive to the health of the child. The bar under the Act, the court held, would not be applicable to such cases. Congenital abnormality would not be compatible with the normal and healthy life of the child. While the State has an interest in saving the life of the foetus, its duty also extends to giving a quality life to the mother. [Ruma Imran v State of West Bengal, Writ Petition No. 231 of 2019, date of order: 30.05.2019]

ii. Petition against private unaided school for dismissal of teacher is amenable to writ jurisdiction – The Supreme Court has held that an order terminating the services of a teacher in a private unaided institution could be challenged in a writ petition. The school raised a contention that the school was a private entity and so a writ petition could not be filed against him. The Court explained, on the strength of precedent, that to remove employees, even private school employees need to obtain approval from the government and no such approval was obtained from the government. Further, it was reiterated that an employee of a private school can file a writ petition against the school for service matters. [Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v Asha Srivastava, Civil Appeal No. 9166 of 2013, date of judgment: 14.02.2019]

iii. Students do not have a right to admission in private schools if government schools are available in the neighbourhood – The Karnataka government brought about an amendment to a provision in the Compulsory Education Rules, 2002 which states that if government schools or government aided schools exist in a certain area, the private schools in it will not be bound by the requirements in the Right to Education Act. The petitioner argued that persons should be allowed to choose an unaided school in a neighbourhood even if there is a government school and the policy adopted by the government was wrong. The Karnataka High Court held that the petitioners had failed to show that the policy was arbitrary and unless a government policy is arbitrary, the court could not interfere in it. [Education Rights Trust v Government of Karnataka, Writ Petition No. 8028 of 2019, date of judgment: 31.05.2019]

iv. CBI granted three months to complete investigation in Bihar shelter homes case – The Supreme Court has granted a further period of three months to the CBIto complete its investigation in the Bihar shelter homes case. The bench also specifically asked the agency to look into offences alleged under Section 377 IPC, offences under the IT Act, illegal trafficking, other inmates who were involved in the facilitation of sexual exploitation of other inmates. The report will be filed within three months, the court said while taking note of the interim report filed by CBI. [Nivedita Jha v State of Bihar, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 24978 of 2018, date of order: 03.06.2019]

v. Entire animal and aquatic kingdom to be treated as legal entities –The Haryana High Court while stating the taking of different measures for protection of animals, declared that animals, all animals, be recognised as legal persons like idols in temples, scriptures, rivers etc. No vehicle being drawn by an animal, it would not carry more than 4 persons excluding the driver and children below 6 years. Yokes with spikes, knobs etc have been banned from use. Owners of bullock carts, camel carts, horse carts, tonga have been ordered to put fluorescent reflectors in the front and back of the carts. Animals will not be transported by foot on metalled roads. Other many such directions have been given in the judgment. [Karnail Singh v State of Haryana, CRR No. 533 of 2013, date of judgment: 31.05.2019]

vi. Immoveable property can be the subject of an offence u/s 405–In a partition suit, a case was filed under Section 405 for criminal breach of trust against one of the parties to the partition suit. An argument was taken by the accused that the complaint was not maintainable as Section 405 was restricted to moveable to property. But the court observed that the provision simply used the word ‘property’ without qualifying it with the word ‘moveable’ and there would be no reason why the legislature would want to restrict the application of the provision to just moveable properties since the ‘entrustment’ of the property can happen in any manner. But with respect to the Section, it is necessary that the property was owned by someone else. In order to establish ‘entrustment or dominion’ over property of an accused person, the mere existence of that person's dominion over property is not enough. But in the instant case the requisite ingredients were not found to be made out. [Damodar Panicker v State of KeralaCriminal Miscellaneous Complaint No. 2255 of 2013, date of decision: 06.06.2019]

vii. Passport renewal cannot be denied when criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant if the person has taken permission from the court – The Delhi High Court has held that in accordance with the 1993 notification issued by the centre, an accused can be granted a passport if the court seized of the matter gives permission for the same. This is over and above the provision in the Act which states that travel documents can be denied if a person is facing criminal proceedings. The applicant-cum-accused has been charged with Section 405 of the IPC and provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court hearing his case, a court in Greater Bombay had given the permission for the passport to be given yet it was denied to him. The Court did ask for an undertaking as to if and when it was required by the Court, he would make himself available. [Rajiv Chaturvedi v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12136 of 2018, date of judgment: 13.05.2019]
(IPA Service)