COVID-19 : J&K HC Passes Slew Of Directions For Protection Of Health Workers, Compliance Of Lockdown Guidelines

first_imgNews UpdatesCOVID-19 : J&K HC Passes Slew Of Directions For Protection Of Health Workers, Compliance Of Lockdown Guidelines Nilashish Chaudhary4 April 2020 7:26 AMShare This – xThe Jammu And Kashmir High Court on Friday dealt with a batch of petitions and passed various orders regarding several issues of governance during the nationwide lockdown. A Bench comprising of Chief Justice Geeta Mittal and Justice Rajnesh Oswal conducted the proceedings via video conference. Details regarding those orders are as follows:-The Bench suggested that associations of…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Jammu And Kashmir High Court on Friday dealt with a batch of petitions and passed various orders regarding several issues of governance during the nationwide lockdown. A Bench comprising of Chief Justice Geeta Mittal and Justice Rajnesh Oswal conducted the proceedings via video conference. Details regarding those orders are as follows:-The Bench suggested that associations of healthcare professionals could nominate some of its members who are well versed with the ground realities and requirements for relief thereof to join in discussions with the authorities to jointly take decisions for dealing with the crisis presented by the outbreak of COVID-19. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Medical Education has been directed to consider these suggestions and inform the Court of its decision.Further, addressing the contingency that the personnel engaged in the treatment of COVID-19 patients are working well beyond their scheduled hours, the Bench asked the administration to consider keeping canteens and kitchens in all medical institutions open 24 hours to ensure necessities are always available to these personnel. It was also suggested that the involvement of NGOs and citizen volunteers could be considered. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Medical Education is now to consider these suggestions and take steps accordingly.This concern of providing basic essentials was extended to the families of the healthcare personnel by the Court, which recorded that “in order to ensure the full attention of the personnel addressing COVID-19 issues, it is necessary that they be kept free of any personal tensions and needs.” So to ensure the optimum response of people addressing COVID-19 issues, be it healthcare personnel, government personnel or other officials so engaged, it was suggested that a body or a network of people be created to attend to the needs of family members or dependents of these personnel. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Medical Education has been directed to file a report on the action taken in this regard.The Court then emphasized on the need to prepare the public for the removal of lockdown restrictions. Though it cannot be said what the situation will be around April 14 (the last scheduled day of the lcokdown), the Court asserted that information regarding permissible conduct in case of any removal of restrictions must be disseminated forthwith. “It is therefore imperative to prepare the public about the permissible conduct upon removal of the restrictions (partial or complete); progression of the COVID-19 virus infection and life of the virus; possibility of carriers existing and infecting despite the lockdown and all related information…It is essential that widespread dissemination of the above information using all mediums as are available.” In this light, the Secretary, Health and Medical Education Department Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Director, Information Department and Member Secretary, JK State Legal Services Authority were directed to immediately take appropriate steps towards the same, and the action plan be submitted to the Court by the Director of the Information Department.Moving on, in light of several complaints over safety measures provided to healthcare professionals, the Department of Health and Medical Education has been asked to apprise the Court of the availability of personal protection equipment for the safety of all healthcare workers.Taking up the issue of decongestion of prisons, as per the suo motu cognizance taken by the Supreme Court, it is informed that an order of the High Power Committee notifying the ‘Jammu and Kashmir Suspension of Sentence Rules, 2020′ has been received by the Court. In furtherance of the same, the Court has directed these rules, on categories of prisoners to be released on parole and the manner in which the same is to be executed, to be implemented at the earliest. To facilitate the same, it has been directed that steps to ensure special parole to prisoners must be taken on a priority basis and the orders must be complied with by the District Courts. Before the next date, the Court has sought a compliance report from the Member Secretary of JKSLSA. The Court has further asked the High Power Committee to view with urgency some aspects that have been raised as allegedly overlooked in this regard. With regard to residents of Jammu&Kashmir and Ladakh who are lodged in prisons in other States, the Additional Advocate General has been directed to file a report on their condition before the next hearing.Addressing the issue of safety and violence faced by healthcare professionals and establishments, the Court notes that these are matters which “would need critical attention of the Central Government as well as the Governments of Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh…We may note that it is only after appropriate legislations has been put in place that the aspect of its enforcement would also require to be strictly monitored.” In its order, the Court has recorded that a Draft Bill on violence against the healthcare professionals and establishments was released by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 8th March 2019 but did not result in a law. It further notes that 19 States have enacted their own specific laws in this regard. Owing to the importance of the issue, a copy of the order is to be placed before the Home Secretary and Secretary of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Central Government, in addition to the Secretaries Home and Secretaries Health and Medical Education of the UTs of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.The Secretary, Health and Medical Education has been directed to examine the probable impact of implementing a recent High Court order directing the felling of certain Poplar trees. It has been argued that pollen/seeds, released by Poplar trees, would remain in the air for many days wreaking havoc by causing respiratory diseases. If on examination, this is found to be correct, immediate remedial action is to be taken.The Bench stated that it would examine a report about the status of the provision of permanent infrastructure for Juvenile Justice Boards and Observation Homes “after the current crisis ends”. In the meantime, it was directed that the facilities be maintained efficiently.Taking up a matter involving the welfare of an Indian, Gurkirat Singh Sekhon, in USA the Court noted that a detailed report of the action taken by the Indian Consulate at New York had been received from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). This report contained the steps taken for the safety of Indian nationals abroad along with the proposed plan of action depending on change of situation. Satisfied with the same, the Bench was pleased to record its appreciation for the efforts of the MEA. “We have no manner of doubt that the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi is deeply concerned with the safety and well-being of all Indian nationals abroad and is doing its utmost possible to ensure the same… We would fail in our duty if we do not record our deep appreciation for the tremendous efforts of the Indian Consulate in New York City and the Embassy of India at Washington DC as also the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi in prioritising and addressing all concerns of Indian nationals who are in the United States of America.”Apropos a plea regarding pilgrims stranded at the Vaishno Devi Shrine in Katra, the lawyer for the shrine submitted a report informing the Court that 400 stranded pilgrims from Bihar were camping at a temple opposite the railway station in Jammu, and not in Katra anymore. It was further informed that their boarding and lodging was being looked after by the district administration, that the Shrine Board was in touch with local administration to ensure the pilgrims’ well-being and that a 600 bed facility had been provided to the district administration free of cost at Katra to serve this purpose. Satisfied with this, the Court decided that no further action on its part was required and disposed off the matter. A report regarding video conferencing facilities in the Court was directed to be forwarded to the Registrar (IT) for examination. The Bench will look into this issue on the next date of hearing.Given that authorities face difficulties in identifying those who have come in contact with COVID-19 infected persons, the Court emphasized the ‘imperative need’ for information of public gatherings to be readily available to authorities. In this light, concerned authorities were urged to consider “the feasibility of installation of CCTVs with or without online access to monitor such gatherings.Click here to download orderRead OrderSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

Schools Shall Not Strike Out Students’ Names For Non-Payment Of Tuition Fees Until They Decide Representations For Concession/ Waiver: P&H HC [Read Order]

first_imgNews UpdatesSchools Shall Not Strike Out Students’ Names For Non-Payment Of Tuition Fees Until They Decide Representations For Concession/ Waiver: P&H HC [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK23 July 2020 12:46 AMShare This – xA division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that even though the schools are permitted to collect tuition fee, they shall not strike out the names of such students who have either sought concession/ waiver of school fee (until disposal of their representations). While hearing an appeal against the single bench order of the High Court, permitting all…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginA division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that even though the schools are permitted to collect tuition fee, they shall not strike out the names of such students who have either sought concession/ waiver of school fee (until disposal of their representations). While hearing an appeal against the single bench order of the High Court, permitting all schools, irrespective of whether they offered online classes during the lock-down period or not, to collect the tuition fee, a division bench comprised of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli said, “in the given circumstances, we emphasize that all the students would remit their school fee in sync with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. However, the names of those students, who have either sought or apply for concession or waiver of school fee, their names shall not be struck off from the roles till their application(s) are decided by the School Management or by the Regulatory Body constituted under section 7 of the Punjab Regulation of Fee of Unaided Educational Institutions Act, 2016, as the case may be.” The bench expressed confidence that the authorities or the Regulatory Body in seisin of such representations shall make every endeavour to decide the same as expeditiously as possible. Upholding the single-bench order dated June 30, 2020, the Court said, “we rather consider it expedient to observe that until further orders, all the parties shall adhere to the arrangements set out in the impugned judgment. Additionally, in the given circumstances, we emphasize that all the students would remit their school fee in sync with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge.” The Court clarified that its order is only interim in nature, and it shall be subject to any further order passed in the appeals. The matter is now listed for consideration on September 21, 2020. The impugned order had reasoned that even though classes were not being held, schools were required to meet other infrastructural expenses and also pay salaries to its employees. It had therefore concluded that there is no rational in laying down such a classification especially when the obligations and basic expenses of all private un-aided schools remain the same irrespective of whether they are conducting online classes or not. Case Details: Case Title: Amandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. Case No.: LPAs-409, 411, 413, 414, 415, 419, 420, 421, 447, 448 & 449 of 2020 (O&M) Quorum: Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli Click Here To Download Order Read Order Next Storylast_img read more

No Interference With Govt Conclusion That Use Of Social Media By Army Personnel Enables Enemies To Gain Edge: Delhi HC [Read Order]

first_imgNews UpdatesNo Interference With Govt Conclusion That Use Of Social Media By Army Personnel Enables Enemies To Gain Edge: Delhi HC [Read Order] Karan Tripathi5 Aug 2020 8:00 PMShare This – xWhile dismissing a petition challenging the ban on army officers using social media, the Delhi High Court observed that scope of judicial review over matters concerning defence and security is limited.The bench comprising Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon noted that modern-day warfare is not just limited to accession of territory, but also extend to influencing economy and…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginWhile dismissing a petition challenging the ban on army officers using social media, the Delhi High Court observed that scope of judicial review over matters concerning defence and security is limited.The bench comprising Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon noted that modern-day warfare is not just limited to accession of territory, but also extend to influencing economy and political stability of the enemy country by inciting civil unrest and influencing the political will of citizens “In such a scenario, if the government, after complete assessment, has concluded that permitting use of certain social networking websites by personnel of its defence forces is enabling the enemy countries to gain an edge, the Courts would be loath to interfere”, the bench observed.Warfare not confined to accession of territory, but also extend to influencing economy and political stability of enemy country by inciting civil unrest and influencing political will of citizens – Delhi HC while dismissing a plea against ban on Army Officers using social media. pic.twitter.com/zG4rPP0vUx— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 5, 2020The petition was moved by P K Choudhary, a serving Lieutenant Colonel of the army,  who claimed that the said policy violates rights enshrined under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Petitioner had argued that Facebook enables him to share knowledge and information on varied subjects, with his daughters, helping him to parent them even when he is posted in remote locations. Citing Facebook as an important tool for staying connected with their families, the Petitioner further submitted that social media portals help personnel in maintaining social relationships with friends and family even from remote locations. ‘With the advent of the internet age, in particular high speed internet, in connectivity over mobile networks, the soldiers have found an effective way to come closer to their friends, family and loved ones, in the virtual world, easing the stress otherwise suffered by the soldiers’, the Petitioner argued. Calling the said policy draconian, it was further contended by the Petitioner that the purported security concerns and risk of data breach, forming the basis of the impugned policy and direction, are not limited to soldiers only. Several members of the civil administration and political class who possess information of a much higher level of sensitivity than a regular soldier but the restrictions as imposed on the soldiers do not extend to them, making the policy arbitrary. The Petitioner said: ‘The ban imposed on the personnel of the Indian Army shows the distrust of the country for its own army officials.’ Centre, on the other hand, argued that Rules 19, 20 and 21 of the Army Rules, 1950 prohibit persons, subject to the Army Act, from taking active part in any society, institution or organization not recognized as part of the armed forces of the Union unless it be of recreational or religious nature. It was further argued by the Central Government that not all social media portals are banned for army personnel – they can take recourse to Skype, YouTube, and LinkedIn. After going through these submissions, the court observed that the impugned policy has not been issued impulsively but is preceded by a prolonged study of different aspects and data collated in this regard with particular instances and deliberations at the highest level thereon and has been issued after considering similar bans imposed by other countries on armed personnel. The court also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Rafale Fighter Jets Procurement case wherein it was reiterated that though there is a general presumption against ousting the jurisdiction of the Courts, there are however certain areas of governmental activity, national security being the paradigm, which the Courts regard themselves as incompetent to investigate, beyond an initial decision as to whether the government’s claim is bona fide.The Court also took note of the submission of the Centre that army officers posting pictures and details of their posting locations in social media can easily convey a full picture to an expert espionage eye. Therefore, while dismissing the petition, the court highlighted that: ‘We may also notice that warfare and inter-country rivalries and animosities today are not confined to accession of territory and destruction of installations and infrastructure of enemy countries but also extend to influencing and affecting the economies and political stability of enemy country including by inciting civil unrest and disturbance and influencing the political will of the citizens of the enemy country.’Click here to download OrderRead Order Next Storylast_img read more

[TRP Scam Case] Bombay HC Issues Notice On Hansa’s Petition Seeking Transfer Of Probe To CBI Alleging Harassment By Mumbai Police

first_imgNews Updates[TRP Scam Case] Bombay HC Issues Notice On Hansa’s Petition Seeking Transfer Of Probe To CBI Alleging Harassment By Mumbai Police Nitish Kashyap7 Nov 2020 2:02 AMShare This – xThe Bombay High Court in a special sitting on Saturday heard the writ petition filed by Hansa Research Group against Mumbai police and officers of the crime branch for allegedly harassing them and trying to coerce them into making allegations against Republic TV in the investigation relating to TRP Scam along with the interim bail application of Arnab Goswami.Division bench of Justice SS…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Bombay High Court in a special sitting on Saturday heard the writ petition filed by Hansa Research Group against Mumbai police and officers of the crime branch for allegedly harassing them and trying to coerce them into making allegations against Republic TV in the investigation relating to TRP Scam along with the interim bail application of Arnab Goswami.Division bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice MS Karnik first took up the petition by Hansa and Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan began his submissions. He reiterated that Mumbai police officers are calling Hansa officers everyday forcing them to give statements implicating Republic TV.In case they want any document, let them issue summons under Section 91 CrPC. They can’t put us under pressure by calling us everyday, Vaidyanathan said.Appearing on behalf of Mumbai Police commissioner Parambir Singh, Senior Adv Devadatt Kamat submitted that the petitioner(Hansa) is playing “hide and seek” with the Court. There are materials against the accused and the allegations of CS Vaidyanathan are not fair, Kamat argued.Addressing Senior Advocate Devdatt Kamat, Justice Shinde said- “We are issuing notice. He (referring to Vaidyanathan for Hansa) is the complainant, not the accused. Allegations are there in this petition, you can reply to them. He should not be unnecessarily called Mr.Kamat. You can call him for two days in a week for two hours. He will cooperate and interact.”Court asked Adv Kamat to take instructions in this regard and come back.Thereafter, Sr Adv Kamat came back and gave a statement: “We have no difficulty in calling them(Hansa) only for two days in a week.”Court recorded the submission of Sr Adv Kamat that Hansa officers will be called only on two days in a week for inquiry. Notice was issued to the respondents in the Hansa petition and the matter has been posted for hearing on November 25.Hansa Research Group’s petition includes its CEO Pravin Nijhara, Director, Narsimhan Swamy and DGM Nitin Deokar who is also the informant in this case, as petitioners. The petition impleades Assistant Police Inspector Sachin Vaze, Mumbai Police Commissioner Parambir Singh and Chief investigating Officer Prashant Sandbhor as respondents in the matter along with the State of Maharashtra and CBI.Yesterday, Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan had submitted on behalf Hansa-“We only filed a complaint to unearth the TRP scam. It was not against any particular channel. Now I am being forced to appear and give statements against Republic TV. I am seeking independent investigation by CBI or any other agency. I cannot be compelled to implicate anyone. If they want any documents let them issue summons under Sec 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

Muslim Man Can Marry More Than Once Without Divorcing Earlier Wife But Same Doesn’t Apply To A Muslim Woman: P&H High Court

first_imgNews UpdatesMuslim Man Can Marry More Than Once Without Divorcing Earlier Wife But Same Doesn’t Apply To A Muslim Woman: P&H High Court Sparsh Upadhyay9 Feb 2021 8:37 AMShare This – xA Muslim lady has to divorce her first husband, either under the Muslim Personal Law or under the provisions of the Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, before contracting a second marriageWhile hearing a protection plea filed by a Muslim couple, the Punjab & Haryana High Court recently observed that “a Muslim man may get married more than once without divorcing his earlier wife but the same does not apply to a Muslim lady”. The Bench of Justice Alka Sarin noted that the Petitioner No.1, the Muslim lady (who admittedly was married earlier) did not obtain a legally…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginWhile hearing a protection plea filed by a Muslim couple, the Punjab & Haryana High Court recently observed that “a Muslim man may get married more than once without divorcing his earlier wife but the same does not apply to a Muslim lady”. The Bench of Justice Alka Sarin noted that the Petitioner No.1, the Muslim lady (who admittedly was married earlier) did not obtain a legally valid divorce from her first husband before marrying Petitioner No. 2, Muslim Man. In other words, in the instant matter, petitioner No.1 (Muslim Woman) and 2 (Muslim Man) got married without petitioner No.1 (Muslim Woman) obtaining a legally valid divorce from her first husband. The Couple submitted before the Court that they have been in love with each other since many years and on 19th January 2021, they performed nikah, as per Nikahnama, however, the woman’s relatives are against the relationship. On a query put to counsel for the petitioners as to the marital status of the petitioners, it was stated that being Muslim, the petitioners can both contract a second marriage. [NOTE: A Muslim lady has to divorce her first husband, either under the Muslim Personal Law or under the provisions of the Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, before contracting a second marriage.] Further, noting that there was no averment as to whether she divorced her first husband either under the Muslim Personal Law or under the provisions of the Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, the Court said, “There is also no averment that her first marriage stands dissolved and thus her first marriage subsists in the eyes of law.” In this backdrop, the Court observed, “In fact, the alleged marriage itself between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 would be illegal inasmuch as this marriage has been contracted without the petitioner No.1 being legally divorced.” Lastly, while holding that the petition is not maintainable at the behest of the petitioners who have got married without petitioner No.1 being legally and validly divorced, the Court said, “The petitioners have approached this Court for protection of their life and liberty to live as a couple which cannot be considered in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” However, the petitioners, as individuals, were given the liberty to approach the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police for redressal of their apprehensions regarding threats to their life and liberty. Case title – Nahida & Anr. V. State of Haryana & Ors. [CRWP No.764 of 2021 (O&M)] Click Here To Download Order/JudgmentRead Order/JudgmentNext Storylast_img read more

Karnataka High Court Issues Notice On Private Schools’ Plea For Collecting 100% Tuition Fees

first_imgNews UpdatesKarnataka High Court Issues Notice On Private Schools’ Plea For Collecting 100% Tuition Fees Mustafa Plumber25 Feb 2021 8:47 AMShare This – xThe Karnataka High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the State Government on a batch of petitions challenging the government notification dated January 29, by which all categories of Private Educational Unaided Institutions only for the Academic Year 2020-21are directed to collect only 70% Tuition Fees from the parents as collected for the academic year 2019-20 and other charges are not…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Karnataka High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the State Government on a batch of petitions challenging the government notification dated January 29, by which all categories of Private Educational Unaided Institutions only for the Academic Year 2020-21are directed to collect only 70% Tuition Fees from the parents as collected for the academic year 2019-20 and other charges are not be collected. A single bench of Justice R Devdas issued the notice and directed the state government to file its statement of objections within a period of 10 days from today. The court said it would hear the matter immediately after the statement of objections are filed by the respondents. One of the petition filed by Associated Managements of Primary & Secondary Schools in Karnataka(KAMS) through advocate G R Mohan states that Petitioner association, which has around 3655 member private unaided budget schools with about 55000 teaching and non teaching staff and students, need about 15 lakhs in order to pay the salary to the teaching and non teaching staff they depend on the fees that is being paid by the students. Further, it is said that the unaided private educational institutions, who are the members of the Petitioner Association, are not in a position to pay the salary and others benefits to its teaching and non teaching staff till date due to the reasons that the Parents are not coming forward to pay the fees for their wards till date. It is further submitted that if the management of the private unaided schools do not pay the salary and other allowance both teaching and non teaching staff may search for other jobs and when the reopening of schools permitted by the Union of India MHA the private educational institutions will suffer badly. The management of the private schools have to meet various commitments even till date such as payment of provident fund, ESI benefits, various taxes, electricity and water charges, security systems maintenance. It is also claimed that the Notification dated 29-01-2021 is issued contrary to the directions of the High Court in W.P.9855 of 2020 dated 14-09-2020 and the SC judgment in the case of TMA Pai Foundation and others Vs State of Karnataka where the SC observed – “It is in the interest of general public that more good quality schools are established; autonomy and non-regulation of the school administration in the right of appointment, admission of students and the fee to be charged will ensure more such institutions are established”. The plea by way of interim relief seeks to stay the impugned notification, pending disposal of the petition. Further to direct the respondents to consider the representations made to them. Recently, the Supreme Court had allowed private unaided schools in Rajasthan to collect 100% tuition fee in 6 equal monthly instalments. A bench headed by Justice Khawnilkar passed the interim order while considering special leave petitions filed by Rajasthan schools challenging a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court which had directed them not to collect more than 70% fees. Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Advertisement Promoting Alcoholic Drinks In National Capital

first_imgNews UpdatesDelhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Advertisement Promoting Alcoholic Drinks In National Capital Akshita Saxena3 May 2021 8:50 AMShare This – xThe Delhi High Court today issued notice on a PIL seeking action against a beverage company for putting up hoardings for promotion of an alcoholic drink across the national capital. A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jasmeet Singh has issued notice to the Respondents including the Delhi Municipal Corporation and the company which goes by the name Pegasi Spirits Pvt. Ltd. The development comes in a PIL filed by Advocate Dhruv Chawla, seeking enforcement of the Advertising Industry’s Code of Ethics which designates “Advertisement promoting drugs, alcohol, cigarette or tobacco items” as negative advertisements. The Delhi Outdoor Advertisement Policy, 2008 empowers the city agencies to take action, modify or remove any Advertising Device that contravene the Code, the plea states. The plea also refers to directive principle stipulated under Article 47 of the Constitution which directs the State to endeavour to bring about prohibition of intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to health. It is further stated that the New Delhi Municipal Corporation has also erred in granting permission for putting up such hoardings across the city and the same amounts to dereliction of duty prescribed under the NDMC (Pasting of Bills and Advertisement) Bye-Laws, 1993. It may be noted that prior to instituting the present proceedings, the Petitioner had filed a complaint before the Advertising Standard Council of India pursuant to which, the company modified its hoardings. However, it is the case of the Petitioner that the hoardings continue to advertise the same brand, being an alcoholic beverage, and it is a clever attempt on part of the Respondent-company to circumvent the law. “The Petitioner, by way of the present Public Interest Litigation seeks to set right the gross violations of the legal setup in the NCT region carried out by the relevant authorities. As a consequence of the said violations, the general public of the NCT region are consuming such advertisements as have been specifically banned by law makers thereby, sending out a wrong message that provisions of law can be circumvented through such illegal means, in addition to the impugned advertisements causing health hazards,” the plea states. Case Title: Dhruv Chawla v. GNCTD & Ors. Click Here To Download Petition Read PetitionTagsDelhi High Court Illegal Advertisements Alcohol Advertisement Liquor Sale Next Storylast_img read more