#Transfer Petition In Allahabad High Court

[advocatenoida]

Cyber Crime Cases In India

Cybercrime in India has seen a significant rise over the past decade, driven by increasing internet penetration, widespread use of smartphones, and rapid digitalization across sectors. The types of cybercrimes range from financial fraud and data breaches to cyberstalking and ransomware attacks.

[seemabhatnagar]

Blood Relatives should avoid taking case of blood relatives

Shubham Kumar & Subhash Kumar

In Re. Contempt Application (Cr.) 14 & 15 of 2022

Before Allahabad High Court

The Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh J and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar IV J closed on 12.10.2023 the proceedings initiated by the Additional Principal Judge Family Court Aligarh-1, as the apology tendered by the contemnors were not found to be genuine and hearing them further would waste the time of the meaty litigants.

Facts giving rise to Contempt Petition

Allegation against the Litigant Subhash Kumar is that he misbehaved with the Additional Principal Judge Family Court on 09.05.2022 while hearing of another case was going on. As his case was not called off, he started shouting when he was asked to wait he continued misbehaving with the Court giving rise to Contempt proceedings.

Allegation against the Advocate son is that he continued unruly and loud behavior and threatened the court by seeking transfer of proceedings. On being required to act in a civilized manner, he refused to abide by the advice.

Shubham Kumar- Advocate shouted saying he is a practitioner of the Allahabad High Court and he knows how to deal with petty courts & threatened to lodge a complaint against the Presiding Officer.

During hearing of the contempt proceedings Allahabad High Court asked the contemnors Father & Son are they seeking forgiveness?

Both answered yes.

When asked for what?

They answered “humney jo kara nahi”

Litigant-father Subhash Kumar even denied the occurrence.

Subhash Kumar in the post lunch session filed an application on 09.05.2022 @3pm for hearing of his case & @ 3.30pm his advocate son filed another application for hearing of his case. This is mentioned on the order sheet of their case by the Additional Principal Judge.

Observation of the Court

Any grievance that any litigant or lawyer may have may be addressed in due course. Any order that may be passed by a court to which any lawyer or litigant may have a grievance may be addressed by filing appropriate application or appeal or by making appropriate mention at the appropriate time.

What is more disastrous is that a son (lawyer) appearing for his father (litigant) that too in a matrimonial case with his mother. It cannot be for Courts to advise lawyers to choose their clients. It has always been left to the wisdom of the learned members of the bar.

The basic learning that any member of the bar imbibes at the initial years of practice is to tell him to not appear for his blood relatives. However, this wisdom and nuance has not touched Subham Kumar by a mile. He not only took up the matter of his father but that too against his mother, by his act, he became a party to the dispute itself.

It indeed would be sad if statutory law were to provide for restrains on who’s brief to take and who’s not. Yet, the father - son duo before us would appear to take no less. Thats the tragic part of this case.

We find that the present case is not a case that the Court may have the luxury to deal with, in the present state of its overburdened board.

To voice our opinion differently, we may note that in a matter such as this where the lawyer and the litigant both claimed (though not convincingly), utmost regard for the Court but their behavior and conduct is found wholly unacceptable and objectionable, we say, enough time has been wasted over those who are already wasted.

We do not have time to take our gaze away from the cause of justice and to devote the same to punish the contemnors as per the rules of law.

Our time would be better utilized and is needed to address the cry for justice by genuine litigants. It does not merit to be wasted on the jesters and/or deviant lawyer and litigant that these contemnors are. They are far too less deserving of that. Thus, such contemnors may sometimes waste Courts' time yet, they may be allowed to get away, in the interest of the other, genuine litigants and meaty matters.

We also make it clear that

Order

We refused to exercise our jurisdiction and have not absolved either Subhash Kumar and Shubham Kumar of their conduct.

It is only on account of wastage of time that we seek to prevent, we choose not to give them any further audience. They are thoroughly undeserving of that. Thus consigned.

Seema Bhatnagar

[s1mpl3legal]

Name of the case: Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain & Anr

Parties to the case: Petitioner: Indira Nehru Gandhi

                             Respondent: Shri Raj Narain & Anr

Nature of case: Civil

Citation: 1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333

Bench: H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud

FACTS OF THE CASE

Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain was the landmark case that created history and led to the imposition of Emergency in India from 1975 to 1977. It is the case which questioned the powers of the judiciary, a showcase of how Parliament expected the judiciary to kneel down before them. Parliament tried to establish its supremacy in the course of this case but put in place by the judiciary. The hearing of the case in Supreme court took place during the emergency during which the fundamental rights were suspended and press censorship was enforced, due to which there were no public hearing or possible reporting of the case. The case had a big impact on Indian politics.

In 1971, when the 5th Lok Sabha elections were held, Indira Gandhi and her party emerged victorious, securing a total of 352 seats out of 518 seats in the said elections. She fought her election from the Rae Bareilly Constituency and against her contest was Raj Narain, leader of Ram Manohar Lohia's SSP. Disappointed with the defeat, he filed an appeal to nullify the election and accused Indira Gandhi of using corrupt practices in the election campaign to claim victory. On 24th April, 1971, he challenged the Prime Minister's election by filing a petition in the Allahabad High Court and accused Gandhi of violating the election code in the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Apart from that, he alleged that Indira Gandhi has used Government vehicles for her election campaigns, distributed liquor and blankets to the voters to influence them to vote for her, exceeding the campaign expenses. The Allahabad High court declared Indira Gandhi's election void on the grounds of corrupt practices on 12th June 1975. 

ISSUES RAISED ARE

Whether Article 329A Clause (4) of the Constitution of India is Valid?

Whether Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act, 1974 And Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 are Constitutionally Valid?

Whether Indira Gandhi’s Election is Valid or Void?

DECISION

The court provided its judgment on 7th November, 1975 and was the first case in which the landmark decision of Kesavananda Bharati case was applied. The apex court upheld the contention of the respondent and declared clause (4) of Article 329-A as unconstitutional. Mathew J said that Article 329-A(4) destroyed the basic structure of the constitution. He was of the view that a healthy democracy' can only function when there is possibility of free and fair elections and the impugned amendment destroyed that possibility. Chandrachud J. found that the amendment was violative of the principle of separation of powers' as it wilfully transferred a function into the hands of the legislative which was purely judicial. He was also of the view that the amendment is violative of Article 14 as it creates unequal positions of specific members of the Parliament against others. 

Ray C.J held that one more basic feature was violated by the said amendment i.e the rule of law and Justice Khanna was of the opinion of violation of norms of free and fair elections. The bench also held that the amendment was violative of the principles of natural justice i.e Audi Alteram Partem Which means listening to the other side' as it was denying the right to fair hearing of those who were challenging the election of the members mentioned in the Amendment. Hence it was on varied reasons that the 39th Amendment act, 1975 was struck down as it was unconstitutional and violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio decidendi in Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi (1975) is centered on the Court's assertion that judicial review and the rule of law are integral components of the Constitution’s basic structure, which cannot be undermined by legislative amendments. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the 39th Amendment, which sought to immunize the Prime Minister’s election from judicial scrutiny, was unconstitutional. This amendment violated the essential democratic principles of equality and accountability by placing certain electoral disputes beyond the reach of the judiciary.

The Court ruled that Parliament cannot use its amending power to alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. This includes the principle that no one, not even the Prime Minister, is above the law, and that the judiciary must have the authority to review acts of the legislature and executive to maintain constitutional governance. By striking down the amendment, the Court underscored that the principles of democracy, accountability, and judicial review are essential to the Constitution and must be preserved.

OBITER DICTA

In the Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi case, the Supreme Court’s obiter dicta included several reflections on the nature of democracy and the limits of political power. While the main decision focused on the validity of the 39th Amendment and its impact on the election process, the justices also commented on the importance of judicial review in maintaining the integrity of the democratic system. The judges emphasized that no individual or institution—even the Prime Minister—was above the law, and that the judiciary must be able to scrutinize and review any actions that could undermine the principles of free and fair elections. This comment underscored the Court’s role in safeguarding democracy against any form of authoritarianism, whether from the executive or the legislature.

The Court also remarked on Parliamentary supremacy and its limits. While Parliament has broad powers, the justices emphasized that those powers are not without bounds, particularly when they threaten the fundamental rights of citizens or the core principles of democracy. The justices observed that while the Constitution allows for the amendment process, amendments cannot be made in such a way that would distort the fundamental structure of the Constitution itself. This reflects the Court’s underlying concern about the vulnerability of democratic systems to manipulation or overreach by powerful political figures.

Furthermore, the justices observed that the right to contest elections is a crucial aspect of democratic participation, and no law or amendment should interfere with the fairness of electoral processes. They emphasized the importance of ensuring that the election process is transparent and accountable, free from misuse of power, to preserve the people's trust in democratic institutions.

REFLECTION

I chose to discuss the Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi case due to its historical significance in Indian politics and jurisprudence. It highlights the judiciary's role in upholding democratic principles, ensuring accountability of public officials, and reinforcing the rule of law, setting a precedent for governmental accountability and integrity.

[blogynews]

"Unveiling the Mysteries of Krishna Janambhoomi: Supreme Court's Unexpected Decision Sends Shockwaves | India News"

The Supreme Court of India has scheduled a hearing for October 3 regarding a petition challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order to transfer all pleas related to the Mathura Krishna Janambhoomi land dispute from the District Court in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman, requested an early hearing on behalf of the Committee of…

[blogynewz]

"Unveiling the Mysteries of Krishna Janambhoomi: Supreme Court's Unexpected Decision Sends Shockwaves | India News"

The Supreme Court of India has scheduled a hearing for October 3 regarding a petition challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order to transfer all pleas related to the Mathura Krishna Janambhoomi land dispute from the District Court in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman, requested an early hearing on behalf of the Committee of…

[blogynewsz]

"Unveiling the Mysteries of Krishna Janambhoomi: Supreme Court's Unexpected Decision Sends Shockwaves | India News"

The Supreme Court of India has scheduled a hearing for October 3 regarding a petition challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order to transfer all pleas related to the Mathura Krishna Janambhoomi land dispute from the District Court in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman, requested an early hearing on behalf of the Committee of…

[all-about-news24x7]

Allahabad HC to hear all cases of Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura

[] The Allahabad High Court has taken over the jurisdiction of all the cases pertaining to the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura. The High Court has transferred the ongoing cases from the lower court in Mathura to be heard before itself on Friday, 26th May 2023. On May 3, the Allahabad High Court reserved its judgment regarding a petition that sought the transfer of a case from the Mathura…

[marketingstrategy1]

इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट :आजम खां के मुकदमों की सुनवाई ट्रांसफर करने की याचिका पर 14 फरवरी को होगी सुनवाई - Allahabad High Court: Hearing On Petition To Transfer Trial Of Azam Khan's Cases Will Be Held On February 14

आजम खां – फोटो : अमर उजाला विस्तार सपा नेता और पूर्व सांसद आजम खां के मुकदमों को रामपुर से किसी अन्य जिले में ट्रांसफर करने की याचिका पर 14 फरवरी को इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट में सुनवाई होगी। हाईकोर्ट में यूपी सरकार और रामपुर के जिला जज की ओर से जवाब दाखिल किया गया है। कोर्ट ने आजम खां के वकीलों को पक्ष रखने के लिए एक हफ्ते का समय दिया। यह आदेश जस्टिस डी��े सिंह ने आजम खां के छह मुकदमों को रामपुर से…

[newslobster]

Court Stays Transfer Of UP Cop Who Broke Down In Public Over Mess Food

Court Stays Transfer Of UP Cop Who Broke Down In Public Over Mess Food

Manoj Kumar had alleged that police personnel are served watery dal and undercooked rotis. (File) Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has stayed the transfer of Uttar Pradesh Police constable Manoj Kumar who had protested against the alleged substandard food being served at the mess at Firozabad police line. The order was passed by Justice Pankaj Bhatia on a petition filed by Kumar who was…

[globalexpressnews]

Employee can't insist on transfer to particular place, says SC

Employee can't insist on transfer to particular place, says SC

Image Source : PTI/FILE Employee can’t insist on transfer to particular place, says SC An employee cannot insist on a transfer to a particular place and it is for the employer to shift the staff considering the requirement, the Supreme Court has said. The apex court observed this while dismissing a petition by a lecturer challenging an October 2017 order of the Allahabad High Court. The high…

[netbreakingnews9]

Jaunpur custodial death case goes to CBI

Jaunpur custodial death case goes to CBI

PRAYAGRAJ: Observing that ‘the entire effort of the police is to somehow give clean chit to the accused’, the Allahabad high court has transferred a probe into the alleged custodial death of a 24-year-old man in Jaunpur to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Hearing a writ petition filed by one Ajay Kumar Yadav of Jaunpur, a division bench comprising Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and…

[advocatenoida]

(Advocate AK Tiwari)

[bbcbreakingnews]

Laws against ‘love jihad’: Wait for HCs to decide, says SC

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain fresh PILs challenging the enactment of laws by states governed by BJP banning conversion caused by inter-faith marriages and said it would be better to await the decisions of high courts which are already examining the validity of these legislations. Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh, appearing for People’s Union for Civil Liberties, tried to convince a bench led by CJI SA Bobde to entertain the writ petition by saying that an increasing number of states were enacting laws similar to the ones under challenge before the high courts of UP and Uttarakhand. “We came to know that Allahabad high court and Uttarakhand HC have entertained pleas against such laws and we’ve refused a petition seeking transfer of these petitions to SC,” the bench said. Parikh said governments of MP and Gujarat were also planning to enact similar legislations. “We’re not denying the importance of the issue. We would like to have the opinion of HCs which are hearing the petitions. You can move the HC if you so desire,” it added. On January 6, the same bench had agreed to examine the validity of ‘love jihad’ laws and ordinances by states governed by BJP to curb alleged conversion of girls through inter-faith marriages.

source https://bbcbreakingnews.com/2021/02/04/laws-against-love-jihad-wait-for-hcs-to-decide-says-sc/

[newsmatters]

Challenge to law on religious conversions: SC refuses to transfer to itself cases from Allahabad HC

Challenge to law on religious conversions: SC refuses to transfer to itself cases from Allahabad HC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to transfer to itself petitions filed in Allahabad High Court challenging new law of Uttar Pradesh regulating religious conversions for the inter-faith marriages. A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian said that it would like to have the advantage of the High Court order. Taking note of the observation of the…

[abhay121996-blog]

New Post has been published on Divya Sandesh

#Divyasandesh

Challenge to Law on Religious Conversions: SC Refuses to Transfer to Itself Cases from Allahabad HC

Senior advocate P S Narasimha, appearing for Uttar Pradesh government, said to avoid multiplicity of proceedings before the High Court and the top court, the transfer petition may be allowed.

[bloggvalley]

Hathras Case: Allahabad High Court To Monitor CBI Probe, Says Top Court

Hathras Case: Allahabad High Court To Monitor CBI Probe, Says Top Court

The Allahabad High Court will monitor all aspects including the CBI investigation into the alleged gang-rape and death of a Dalit girl from Uttar Pradesh’s Hathras, the Supreme Court said today. The top court said that a request to transfer the trial out of UP “has been left open” until the investigation is completed.

The top court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking a court-monitored probe…