Latest news with #JJMunir
Time of India
5 days ago
- Time of India
Abstinence from duty by presiding officer on strike call by bar assn illegal: HC
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has said abstinence from professional duty by presiding officers on a call given by the bar association was illegal and those officials who comply with such strike resolutions could face misconduct charges. While making these observations, Justice JJ Munir issued a show cause notice to the sub divisional magistrate (SDM), Koil, Aligarh for adjourning a case in pursuance of a resolution of the local bar association of Aligarh calling upon the lawyers to abstain from judicial work. "Accepting such a strike resolution may amount to misconduct on the part of the presiding officer and could invite a recommendation for disciplinary action, including removal from office," the court said in its order dated July 28. The case pertains to a restoration application filed by one Satyapal Singh before the SDM under section 38(2) of the UP Revenue Code, 2006. The case was adjourned on July 25, 2025, since the advocates were abstaining from work on that day and the matter was fixed for July 28. Coming down heavily on the conduct of the SDM, the court observed: "It is well settled that any kind of abstinence from professional duty on a call by the bar association is absolutely illegal. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 11 Foods That Help In Healing Knee Pain Naturally | Zen Life Mag Undo If no one appeared to press the restoration application and there was a resolution by the Bar, the court could not have sided with the resolution and fallen foul of the law laid down by the Supreme Court." The court also referred to certain Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Ex-Capt Harish Uppal v. Union of India and another 2003 and many others. The court also sought full particulars of the bar association, its president and secretary in the affidavit on whose call the advocates abstained from their duties. The matter will now be heard on August 6.
Time of India
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC fines gram pradhan Rs 25K for threatening lawyer
Prayagraj: Observing that lawyers are working like soldiers under a heavily burdened judicial system, the Allahabad high court imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on a gram pradhan who had threatened the petitioner's lawyer with a case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Justice JJ Munir was hearing a PIL filed by one Bano Bibi regarding alleged encroachment in her locality. Allegedly, one Jung Bahadur had abused petitioner's counsel ,who was appearing for petitioner before tehsil. However, before the high court he apologised for his misconduct and on affidavit stayed that he had no personal animosity with lawyer and he had no intentions to degrade the noble profession of law. He also undertake that he will never indulge in such an act in the future. After hearing the parties concerned, the court observed, "It is sad that members of the Bar, who virtually work like soldiers in times of peace to secure justice for citizens, are hurled with words of criticism from all quarters for the slightest human lapse or even matters beyond their control, working as they are under a very strained judicial system." Taking serious note of Jung Bahadur's conduct, the court remarked that his actions could amount to criminal contempt. "In these circumstances, for a member of the public—a litigant on the opposing side—to abuse a counsel over the telephone is a very serious matter, which certainly, in our opinion, borders on criminal contempt," it observed. In its order dated July 3, the court imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on Jung Bahadur and noted, "We did spare a thought of referring this matter to the criminal contempt bench, forwarding the sixth respondent to that bench, to be dealt with in accordance with law. But, given his unconditional remorse, we eschew that course and, instead, think that the ends of justice would be met by administering him a severe warning to be careful in future and imposing upon him costs of Rs 25,000. "
News18
09-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
Allahabad HC Raps Officials Over Pond Encroachment, Summons Gorakhpur SSP
Last Updated: The case pertains to a pond measuring 0.214 hectares, recorded in revenue records as non-cultivable submerged land In a stern rebuke to state authorities, the Allahabad High Court has summoned the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Gorakhpur, for failing to provide police protection to a court-appointed commissioner investigating illegal construction on a designated pond in Gorakhpur district. The order was passed by Justice JJ Munir while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Bhanu Pratap and others, seeking removal of encroachments over Arazi No. 217, a 0.214 hectare pond in village Katya, Tappa Haveli, Pargana Unwal, Tehsil Khajni. Taking note of a report submitted by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur, who had been deputed to conduct a field survey using advanced surveying methods, the court expressed 'shock" that no police force was made available despite explicit directions. The court recorded the commissioner's account that, 'when I reached at the spot, people and villagers were present and some of them argue & confront but due to my tactful conversation they become cool & calm and thereafter survey commission were started and completed successfully". The case pertains to a pond measuring 0.214 hectares, recorded in revenue records as non-cultivable submerged land. Alleging illegal construction by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and encroachment by a private individual, Sant Raj Yadav, the petitioners approached the high court through a PIL. Earlier, the court had directed demolition of illegal constructions by both the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and the said private encroacher. While authorities submitted that a pump house had been removed and a final eviction order was passed under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, the petitioners alleged that structures, including pillars of an overhead water tank, remained intact and Yadav's house continued to stand. Faced with these conflicting claims, the court ordered a local investigation under judicial supervision with technical and police support. It has now sought personal appearance of the SSP Gorakhpur on July 16 at 2pm to explain the 'most irresponsible" conduct in defying court orders and risking the safety of the judicial commissioner. The matter will be heard next on July 16, 2025. view comments First Published: July 09, 2025, 14:36 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Deccan Herald
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Deccan Herald
'Despicable': Allahabad HC slams family's objection to woman marrying person of choice
Providing protection to the 27-year-old woman who feared abduction, a bench of Justices J J Munir and Praveen Kumar Giri said the right to marry a person of one's choice is protected under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India.
Hindustan Times
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Family resistance to adult woman's marriage choice ‘despicable': HC
Condemning family resistance to an adult woman's decision to marry a person of her choice, the Allahabad high court termed such objections 'despicable' and underscored that the right to marry a person of one's choice is protected under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India. While making these observations, a division bench comprising justices JJ Munir and Praveen Kumar Giri provided protection to a 27-year-old woman, who feared abduction by her father and brother because she wanted to marry a person of her choice. The bench was hearing a petition filed by the woman's father and brother, who sought the quashing of the FIR lodged against them under sections 140(3), 62, and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at the Chilh police station in Mirzapur district. Though the court stayed the arrest of the petitioners in connection with the FIR, it also restrained them from interfering in the woman's life or from assaulting, threatening or contacting her or the man she intends to marry or live with. 'The petitioners shall not contact the fourth respondent (woman) over telephone or any other electronic device or using the internet or through friends or associates. It is despicable that the petitioners should object to the decision of an adult member of the family, a woman 27 years of age, from marrying a man of her choice. At least that is the right which every adult has under the Constitution by virtue of Article 21,' the court said in an order dated June 13. While the court clarified that it did not know whether the petitioners, the woman's father and brother, 'really intend to abduct' her, it noted that the matter reflected a larger societal issue -- the 'value gap' between constitutional and social norms. 'The fact that there is social and familial resistance to the exercise of such right is a glaring depiction of the 'value gap' between the constitutional and social norms. So long as there is a gap between the values fostered by the Constitution and those cherished by the society, these kinds of incidents would continue to happen,' the court said. 'The police are also restrained from interfering with the fourth respondent's freedom and liberty in any manner whatsoever,' the court added.
