May 7, 2021 Archives

In the present PIL, the question was put on the preparedness of the Government to deal with the current surge of the pandemic in the face of the lacking public health infrastructure to meet the requirement. The Court, after considering the whole matter, directed the authorities to take remedial measures as soon as possible.

In the present case, two sets of appeals were filed before the Supreme Court of India challenging the decisions of the Rajasthan High Court regarding the matter of fee during the current pandemic time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, upheld the decision of the High Court and rejected the current petition being devoid of merit

The petitioner filed a petition seeking to assail his detention vide its order No. DMB/PSA/03 of 2020 dated 27.01.2020 ordered by the District Magistrate, Budgam.

A petition was filed by Mrs Deepak Kaur seeking partition of the property. And the present petition was filed on the behalf of the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint.

In the present case, the respondents/review petitioners filed a review petition for the impugned judgement dated 10th April 2019, which directed for the payment of RMA to all the personnel of CRPF up to the rank of Commandant. The Court allowed the review petition saying that relief cannot be granted to those who didn’t petition before the Court.

An application was filed before the High Court of Delhi raising some issues in respect of inmates in Central Jail No. 6 i.e. Women’s Jail in Tihar. The issues raised were regarding Tele-calling facilities, Vaccination of inmates, E-Mulaqats, Monthly charges for Calling facilities, Computer Center and Legal Aid. 

The High Court of Delhi has been recently dealing with various Writ Petitions concerning the reaction of the government regarding the COVID situation. On 01.05.2021, the court dealt with several such petitions. On being of Bhagat Chandra hospital raising several issues under Articles 21 and 47. 

A constitutional bench has been constituted to consider questions relating to the contours and extent of special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBC) among citizens as contemplated under Article 15(4). It also raises the question of reservation for the backward class under Article 16(4). Constitutional (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 was also challenged.

Brief Overview  The present case involved a Habeas Corpus petition filed by a person through his father to free himself from Preventive Detention  Facts in