The Yearly Reports: Highlights from India’s High Courts in 2017

Unexpected verdicts, commuting of death sentences, and even celibate peacocks; High Courts across the country spent a considerable amount of judicial time hearing and ruling on issues that ranged from grave, to downright bizarre this year..Here is a wrap of some of the highlights that dotted and blotted the legal landscape in 2017..Justice is Mute.The Allahabad High Court ordered the media to cease reporting on a case dating back to a 2007 speech by current Uttar Pradesh Chief Minster Yogi Adityanath, which allegedly contributed to the Gorakhpur riots. The order came after the government convinced the Court that oral observations were being misreported, quoted out of context, and causing much embarrassment to the state..An Ordinance amending criminal law in the State of Rajasthan was challenged before the state’s High Court on the ground that it was in violation of the Constitution. The Ordinance prohibits investigations into matters involving judges, Magistrates, and public servants, acting in discharge of their official duties, without sanction. It also restrains the media from reporting the same..Journalists in Mumbai took exception to being gagged from reporting on the Sohrabuddin Case by a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) special court. Challenging the order before the Bombay High Court, the petitioners contended that the court had no inherent power to pass a gag order, and that it was violative of the principles of an open trial..Consent is Key.The Delhi High Court overturned an order convicting director Mahmood Farooqui of rape, in effect, raising the bar for proving “lack of consent”. There was no affirmative consent by the woman, but her subsequent actions, and the fact that she was liberal, educated and had previously been in a relationship with the accused, somehow weighed in. The Judge held that,.“In such cases, it would be really difficult to decipher whether little or no resistance and a feeble “no”, was actually a denial of consent.” .The Bombay High Court all but decided the fate of a sexual assault case, while hearing the bail application of the accused. The victim had alleged assault by the man who adopted her. Justice Sadhana Jadhav went on to say the fact that a considerable period of time had elapsed and that the girl had admitted to all sorts of “dirty things” in the past led her to believe that the victim’s statement was untruthful..In sharp contrast to the previous two judgments, Justice AM Badar of the Bombay High Court refused to grant a rape convict bail on the basis of the fact that his victim was of “easy virtue”. The applicant had relied on the fact that his victim had two boyfriends with whom she had sexual relationships, as an extenuating factor. The Court rejected this and said that whatever his victim’s circumstances, the accused had no right to commit a penetrative sexual assault on the minor girl..The Truth is Out There.In an unexpected verdict, the Talwars, who were convicted by the trial court for the murder of their daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj, were deemed innocent by the Allahabad High Court. The Division Bench tore into the trial court’s judgment saying that the judge had made a mockery of the law and acted like a film director and a math teacher who was trying to solve a puzzle by analogy after taking a certain figure for granted..A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court quashed gubernatorial sanction granted to the state for prosecuting former Chief Minster Ashok Chavan in the Adrash Society case. The Bench observed that there was no fresh material with any evidentiary value which could be used to justify granting sanction, after it had been previously refused..There was a word of caution to the sanctioning authority, with the Court observing that it should not be influenced by popular opinion..Man on a Mission.Over the course of the year, Justice Kirubakaran of the Madras High Court made several observations and asked the government to file replies on a number of issues pertaining to social and economic justice. He sought a response from the state government on why the poor in forward communities should not be granted reservation in educational institutions..He sought the Union Government’s response on why there had been a delay in passing the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill 2016..The judge also sought the government’s response on why the Goondas Act shouldn’t apply to public servants guilty of corruption..Poppycock.Justice MC Sharma of the Rajasthan High Court had some interesting observations to make on how peacocks procreate. This, while urging the government to consider declaring the cow India’s national animal. His last judgment as a High Court judge extolled the virtues of gau mutra, and how the solution to all human ailments lay with the cow..A petition to block websites that could potentially be used to stream and download the Rajnikanth starrer Kabali, led to the popular online bookmarking portal Pinterest being blocked. Justice Kirubakaran of the Madras High Court granted an injunction in favour of the petitioner and directed authorities to ensure that 169 potential “rogue websites” be blocked..The list was drawn up by an expert consultancy hired by the petitioner, but how Pinterest made the cut is anyone’s guess. The order which is replete with rhetoric, made incorrect tangential references to the movie Psycho, and directed the Centre to consider casting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on the film industry..Courting Controversy.The efficiency of India’s premier investigating agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), came under the spotlight, after a bizarre gaffe by officials conducting a raid in Orissa. The operation, intended to raid the residence of retired High Court Judge IM Qudissi in a corruption related case, saw the party mistakenly arrive at the doorstep of sitting Judge CR Dash. An unconditional apology was later tendered by the CBI..A unanimous decision by the Collegium to transfer the Karnataka High Court’s Justice Jayant Patel to Allahabad led to vociferous criticism from civil society and the Bar. Some went to the extent of branding the Collegium “spineless”. After the judge announced his retirement, calls to make public the reasons for his transfer fell on deaf ears..At the Bombay High Court, a letter placed on record by the Mahrashatra Advocate General AS Kumbhakoni drew sharp reactions from both the Bar and the Bench. The letter drafted by an Additional Government Pleader at the behest of the Home Department in a string of matters related to noise pollution in the state, alleged that sitting judge, Justice AS Oka harboured a serious bias against the state machinery..The Bar’s effort would bear fruit, with Chief Justice Manjula Chellur listing the noise pollution matters before a Bench headed by Justice Oka. The state would also unconditionally withdraw its allegations against the judge..Embracing Technology.The Bombay High Court’s Justice Gautam Patel established himself as a trendsetter by allowing summons to be served via WhatsApp..Stating that the mode of service was irrelevant, Justice Patel observed,.“…here an alternative mode is used, however, and service is shown to be effected, and is acknowledged, then surely it cannot be suggested that the Defendants had ‘no notice’…”.He added that defendants who evade service of notice by regular means shouldn’t be allowed to take advantage of doing so..Doubts as to whether the practice would be accepted elsewhere were laid to rest fairly quickly with the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts allowing the practice soon after..An Aadhaar One Bites the Dust.The Madras and the Kerala High Courts allowed petitioners to file their Income Tax (IT) returns without an Aadhaar number. The Kerala High Court allowed the petitioner to file IT returns manually pending the final disposal of his petition. The petition contended that the Supreme Court’s decision to partially stay the requirement for those who don’t have an Aadhaar Card until its Constitutionality is decided, would be futile, if people were forced to provide a number..The Madras High Court allowed the petitioner to file tax returns without providing an Aadhaar number with the proviso that, the filing would be deemed invalid if the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Aaadhar , and that the petitioner would then be liable to pay a penalty..The Karnataka High Court meanwhile allowed a student to file a hard copy of an application to appear for Class X examinations, and directed the authorities not to insist on the production of an Aadhaar number at the time of registration..Wonder Women.The Madras High Court this year achieved the distinction of having the most woman judges on the Bench. The total number of woman judges now stands at 11, just ahead of the High Courts of Bombay and Delhi, which have ten women judges each..The High Court created another bit of history, when Chief Justice Indira Banerjee sat on the first ever all-woman first bench along with Justice Subbaroyan..To Forgive, Divine.The Gujarat High Court commuted the death sentence of 11 individuals convicted for their role in torching the Sabarmati Express in Godhra. The 11 will now serve a life term..The Bombay High Court was urged by the prosecution to award the death sentence in a case dating back to the Godhra Riots, which resulted in the murder of 14 individuals and the rape of four Muslim women. While the Court took the view that their crime was indeed abhorrent, they refused to enhance the life sentence awarded by the lower Court. The fact that the individuals were not repeat offenders, that 15 years had elapsed since the passage of the incident, and that the Prosecutrix’s testimony had certain lacunae were some of the reasons the Court gave..A Bench of the Madras High Court that was to decide on the confirmation of a death sentence awarded to two men for murder, commuted it to 30 years in prison. One of the mitigating circumstances was the fact that the convicts had young children..The Delhi High Court set aside a Presidential and Gubernatorial decision to turn down a mercy petition filed by a murder accused on the grounds that the authorities had failed to place mitigating factors before the President and the Governor, depriving them of an opportunity to exercise their powers in a fair and just manner.