PUBLIC LAW IN THE NEWS

Supreme Court in the news

Furlough is not a legal right [State of Gujarat v. Narayana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 949]

The Supreme Court highlighted an important difference between parole and furlough in this case and held that while furlough is granted after a significant time is spent in jail and does not mandate having any reason, the public interest considerations need to be balanced and the prisoner cannot claim a furlough as a matter of right. 

Creation and/or sanctioning of posts is the sole prerogative of the government and the Courts cannot interfere [Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 899]

Stating that the creation and sanctioning of posts is the sole prerogative of the government, the Court held that the High Court, through its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot issue a writ of mandamus and direct the government authority to create posts. In the impugned order, the P&H High Court had directed reformulation of the regularization policy and to take a decision on sanctioning the post in a phased manner.

When there is no settlement, Lok Adalats cannot enter into the merits of the writ petition and dismiss it on merits [Estate Officer v. Colonel H.V. Mankotia, 2021 SCC OnLine Sc 898]

In this case, the members of the Lok Adalat of Madhya Pradesh had entered into the merits of the writ petition and dismissed it on merits. A 3 judge bench of the Supreme Court set aside the order after explaining the relevant provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1897 and held that in the absence of any settlement agreement between the parties, the Lok Adalat cannot exceed its mandate by trying the dispute before it on merits. 

High Courts in the news

Kerala HC directs that no display boards, unauthorized advertisements, hoardings in respect of various Government projects are to be displayed at public places: [HM Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, Writ Petition No. 7135 of 2021]

Citing the landmark Supreme Court judgement on Common Cause v. Union of India (W.P No. 13/2003, 197/2004, 302/2012), the Petitioners filed a PIL seeking an appropriate writ/order/direction directing the Respondents to take action for the removal of unauthorized advertisements, hoardings and display boards of political functionaries.

Orissa HC decides on the constitutional validity of Section 43(5) of RERA Act, 2016 [High Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 1633]

The Orissa HC, in a detailed judgement analysed Section 45(3) of the RERA Act, 2016 which provides for the deposit of amount in the Appellate Tribunal by the promoter as a precondition for the appeal to be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal. Furthermore, it provides for three modes of calculation of such amount. The Court observed that the particular sub section provides for deposit of amount which is already calculated by the Authority in a quasi-judicial proceeding after taking all the materials on record into consideration. Therefore, it is not arbitrary or ultra vires.

No FIR under SC/ST Act can be registered at the instance of a third party, unless opinion is sought from the District Attorney (Legal) that the complaint falls within the definition of the Act: P&H High Court [Bhagwant Singh Randhawa v. State of Punjab, CRM-M No. 42685 of 2021]

Considering the misuse of the provisions of the SC/ST Act, the High Court directed the DGP to issue instructions to all the Senior Superintendents of Police that unless the District Attorney (Legal) is of the opinion that the complaint does fall within the purview of the SC/ST Act, no FIR ought to be registered by the Police. This was decided in the backdrop of a case filed for some derogatory remarks by the Petitioners towards their daughter-in-law, in a private conversion with their son wherein the son covertly recorded the conversation and uploaded it on social media with a bid to pressurize his parents to transfer the house in the son’s name. 

Article 21 is a precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative: Uttaranchal HC [Aman Goyal v. State of Uttaranchal, 2021 SCC OnLine Utt 1170]

The Application for Anticipatory Bail was filed by the Applicant since the Applicant was not named in the FIR but was falsely implicated at the instance of the co-accused. The FIR was lodged under the various provisions of IPC and the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The anticipatory bail was granted, subject to certain conditions and securities.  

State largesse should not be marred by arbitrariness while dealing with alienation of natural resources: Karnataka HC [Adinarayan Shetty v. Principal Secretary Writ Petition NO. 9616 of 2020]

In this case, the Government had allotted a civic amenity cite without following the allotment regulations. There was a detailed procedure under KHB Regulations for allotment of public sites which was not followed. The Court referred to the public trust doctrine and held that fairness in action of the state or local bodies or any instrumentality of the state is a sine qua non.

Compiled by Ashok Pandey (V B.A.L.L.B.)