i. Government response on Bihar encephalitis deaths sought – The Supreme Court has demanded a response from the Bihar state government over the death of more than a 120 children by encephalitis. The Court sternly stated that the deaths cannot keep on happening. The State and Union of India have been given 7 days to respond detailing the steps they have taken to control the spread of the disease. The PIL sought setting up a team of doctors to help with the situation supplied with the adequate medical equipment. The petition argues that government inaction has led the situation to get out of hand. The Court referred to media reports which highlighted the lack of medical supplies and medicines leading to the death of the children. The Act of negligence by the government was held to be a violation of Article 21. The PIL has also prayed for other reliefs like payment of compensation to the families of the deceased and setting up portable centres for providing medical attention. [Manohar Pratap v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 780 of 2019, dated 24.06.2019]

ii. Separate By-Polls to be held for 2 Rajya Sabha seats, petition against struck down – The Supreme Court has rejected the Gujarat Congress’ challenge to the decision of the Election Commission to hold by-polls for the 2 seats from the Rajya Sabha from Gujarat that fell vacant because of the election of Amit Shah and Smriti Irani to the Lok Sabha. The date has been declared as 5 July. The Rajya Sabha election is held by Single Transferrable Vote and thus all vacancies in the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha are filled together and their elections held at the same time. But if the election for these two seats were held separately, the petition argued, the scheme of proportional representation would get upset. It alleged that the ECI was toeing the line of the central government by holding elections for these separately. To do the same, they issued a notification clarifying that vacancies in the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha are treated as separate vacancies and so separate polls would be held. If the polls for these two seats are conducted separately, BJP would have advantage. But the Court said that now that the date for elections had been announced, it could not interfere with the same. [Paresh Dhanani v Election Commission of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 774 of 2019, date of order: 25.06.2019]

iii. Unmarried daughter can claim maintenance from father under Section 125, CrPC – The Madras High Court has held that the unmarried daughter can claim maintenance from her father under Section 125, CrPC. The trial court had rejected her petition holding that she was major did not suffer from any mental disablement. The High Court on the other hand held that in light of the Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, an unmarried daughter can claim maintenance even if she is major, under the Section 125. The Court referred to judgments of the different courts and explained that courts have taken a stand that fathers have to provide maintenance to unmarried daughters even if the section states otherwise. Talking about mental disablement, the court observed that violation of the right to maintenance could be treated as mental injury in itself. [R. Kiruba Kanmani v L. Rajan, Criminal Original Petition No. 15336 of 2019, date of order: 17.06.2019]

iv. Anand Patwardhan’s documentary allowed to be screened in film festival – The High Court of Kerala has allowed the screening of the documentary ‘Reason’/’Vivek’ at the International Documentary and Short Film Festival at Thiruvananthapuram. The Centre had withheld screening the screening of the movie citing law and order problems. But, the Court observed that the apprehension that the documentary might affect law and order was not a valid reason to withhold sanction. The order has been issued with a qualification that it cannot be screened anywhere else. The Court recognised that even through movies one could express their political views, a right protected by Article 19(2) Constitution. While exercising this right, one can criticise the existing government as well. [Kerala State Chalchitra Academy v Anand Patwardhan, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 31806 of 2019, date of order: 25.06.2019]

v. Appeal filed against the acquittal in Sohrabuddin’s case– The Bombay High Court has admitted the appeal filed by the brothers of Sohrabbuddin Shaikh challenging the acquittal of the 22 accused in the fake encounter case. He had earlier written to authorities like the Ministry of Home Affairs, Director, CBI and the Cabinet Secretary requesting them to file an appeal against the judgment of Special CBI judge. The petition firstly states that the appellants could be defined as victims and hence could file the appeal. It further claims that the judgment was based on extraneous and unwarranted assumptions. The evidence in the case was not appreciated to the fullest extent, leading to a miscarriage of justice. [Nayabuddin Shaikh v The Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal No. 656 of 2019, date of order: 24.06.2019]

vi. Harsh Mander files PIL to curb mob lynching – Activist Harsh Mander has filed a PIL in the Jharkhand High Court in the light of the recent mob lynching incident, seeking guidelines to control such instances. Tabrez Ansari was attached by a mob, chanting ‘Jai Shree Ram, on a suspicion of theft. He soon died of his injuries. A similar petition had been filed last year by Tehseen Poonawala in the Supreme Court where he had also sought directions to curb lynching. This petition sought the implementation of those guidelines. The Supreme Court order asked for creation of a victim compensation scheme for victims of lynching, fast tracking of lynching cases, broadcasting warnings against such violence etc. The video of the attack became viral.[Harsh Mander v State of Jharkhand, Writ Petition Civil No. 2943 of 2019]

vii. State Probation rules cannot contradict Section 433A of the CrPC–Section 433 CrPC read with Section 433A state that if a person is punished with a life sentence instead of a death sentence, the punishment cannot come to an end before 14 years. The petitioner in the case asked the court to consider his petition in light of the probation law as it stood before his application under which he could have been eligible for parole even after 5 years of imprisonment. The Court rejected this argument on the grounds that the provision would be in violation of the sections of the CrPC.[Siya Ram v State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No. 9540 of 2013, date of order: 20.06.2019]
(IPA Service)