1 year of RG Kar rape-murder: HC refuses to pass order against march to Nabanna
A division bench presided by Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Smita Das De observed, 'This Court declined to pass any prohibitory order as sought for by the petitioner therein. This Court poignantly held that the right to protest is a fundamental right.'
A PIL was filed in the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday, seeking to stop the 'Nabanna Abhijan' planned by the parents of the postgraduate trainee doctor who was raped and murdered at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, in Kolkata, last year. The march is scheduled for August 9, marking the first death anniversary of the doctor.
A resident of the Howrah district had filed the petition, citing disruptions caused by protest rallies near the state secretariat, affecting daily life, movement, and business activities in the Mandirtala area.
The court, on Thursday, said it will be open for the West Bengal government to implement a prohibitory order imposed in the area near Nabanna and inform the organisers about adequate alternative places for protest.
'As noted above, the police has already issued the prohibitory order and it will be open for the Government to implement the said prohibitory order in accordance with law and inform the organizers about adequate alternative places for protest,' it said.
The court observed that the persons participating in the rally should protest peacefully as law-abiding citizens and not cause any harm to the police or government authorities, buildings and public properties.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Verbal abuse about personal hygiene without sexual undertones not an insult to modesty of women, says HC
The Kerala High Court has observed that verbal abuse about personal hygiene and character without sexual undertones or intent to shock a woman's sense of decency does not constitute an insult to the modesty of women. A Bench of Justice G. Girish went on to quash the criminal proceedings against Anas Mohammed M., a motor vehicle Inspector, for allegedly scolding and verbally abusing a woman who turned up for driving test with long nails. The order was issued on a petition filed by the MVI seeking to quash the criminal case registered against him on the woman's complaint. During the course of the driving test, the petitioner reportedly took note of her long nails and angrily asked whether she had come for the driving test without trimming her nails. He also reportedly asked whether he should trim her nails and commented that she should be taken for a bath before taking the driving test. Observing that remarks like 'take a bath' and 'should I cut your nails' are filthy, the court observed that the incident took place inside a car which was in motion. It cannot be said that the private space inside the car where the accused allegedly uttered the 'abusive words,' would come within the term of public place. Thus, they did not amount to outraging the woman's modesty or using obscene words in a public place to constitute offences under the Indian Penal Code, it said.
News18
35 minutes ago
- News18
SC deletes direction to remove Allahabad HC judge from handling criminal cases
New Delhi [India], August 8 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Friday recalled it's recent order in which it had issued adverse observations against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Prashant Kumar for the latters' decision in having allowed criminal proceedings to continue in a civil money recovery its August 4 order, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan had asked the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to remove Justice Prashant Kumar from the criminal roster — meaning the judge will not be handling criminal matters until his retirement. The top-court had also directed the High Court Chief Justice to change Justice Kumar's roster and bench him along side a senior judge of the High Court. However, following the top-court's observation against Justice Kumar, at least thirteen Allahabad High Court judges wrote to the High Court's Chief Justice Arun Bhansali to convene a full-court meeting in defiance of the adverse observations made by the top-court against Justice Kumar. Subsequently, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai wrote to Justice Pardiwala urging the top-court judge to reconsider the said directions against Allahabad HC judge Justice Kumar. Therefore, the bench led by Justice Pardiwala decided to recall the said order and deleted the two paragraphs in which it had issued adverse directions against Justice Kumar. The bench while dictating its order today, said 'At the outset we must clarify our intention was not to cause embarrassment or aspersions on the concerned judge. However, when matters cross a threshold and the dignity of the institution is in peril it is the responsibility of this court to ensure that its dignity is held high".The top-court acknowledged that it's is the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court who is the master of roaster and that the top-court's directions are not interfering with the administrative powers of the HC.'We hereby delete the said paras. The order be corrected accordingly. While we are deleting the said directions, we leave it to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to look into the matter. We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court is the Master of the Roster of the High Court. But, as observed above, our directions are not interfering with the administrative power of the High Court also referred to a recent Supreme Court order in which a bench comprising of former CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar had pulled up UP government for initiating criminal prosecution in civil cases and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000. The top-court went on the observe that Courts are being flooded with cases of civil wrongs that have been made into criminal wrongs.'We hope in future no such perverse and unjust orders be issued from any High Court. If the rule of law is not maintained, it will be the end of the entire justice delivery system in the country", the Court added as it closed the case. (ANI)
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Legal heir entitled to compensation under MV Act even if not dependent on deceased: Allahabad HC
In an important judgment, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has observed that a legal heir cannot be deprived of compensation beyond the limits of no fault liability as provided under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988 on the ground that the said heir was not a dependent of the deceased. The court observed that the claimant used to stay with her father and brother. Hence, it cannot be said that merely because the claimant was married, she would have no right or that she would not be a dependent. (For Representation) The issue before the high court for consideration was whether a married daughter can be excluded to claim compensation beyond the prescribed limit as mentioned in Section 140 of the MV Act, 1988. Passing the judgment on August 6 on two appeals filed by the state, Justice Jaspreet Singh observed, 'It should always be kept in mind that human life has much value, it would be anomalous to state that a person may lose a dear one or member of the family and merely because the legal representative is not dependent on the deceased hence, he or she would be confined only to the no fault liability amount as prescribed under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 and adding some amount under the conventional heads, this would be a travesty of justice and mocking at a loss of an important human being, due to negligence of another.' In this matter, the respondent had filed a claim under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as her father and brother expired after being hit by a truck while riding a motorcycle. The motor accident claims tribunal awarded her a sum of ₹2,13,200 and Rs1,16,400 along with 6% interest per annum. While filing the two appeals challenging the tribunal's award (order), the state contended that it was the motorcycle rider (now deceased) who was not careful while driving and on account of their own negligence the accident occurred and not on account of negligence of the truck. It was also contended that since the claimant was the married daughter of one of the deceased, hence she cannot be said to be dependent on her father. The court observed that the claimant used to stay with her father and brother. Hence, it cannot be said that merely because the claimant was married, she would have no right or that she would not be a dependent. Accordingly, the court dismissed both the appeals filed by the state.
