Manipur High Court: Banishment of villagers on grounds of religious conversion is unconstitutional
Villagers from Manipur’s Kamjong District filed a petition on being banished by the village authorities on grounds of converting to Roman Catholics from Baptist Christians. The Manipur High Court, therefore, held that the banishment from the village was not a valid order and stood in the face of the Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression), 21 (right to life and liberty), 25 (right to practice, profess and propagate religion) and 26 (right to manage religious affairs) of the Indian Constitution. Violative of Article 19, 21, 25 and 26, the court declared the order passed by the village authorities as void
The court observed, “The inexorable and inescapable conclusion is that the said provision of the village constitution which lays down that there shall not be any denominational activity dividing the existing Religion (i.e., Baptist Christianity) is void in law and cannot be enforced being violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.”
Madras High Court: Court apologises to freedom fighter for not receiving his pension for 37 years
The petitioner had made an application to the District Collector (respondent), Chennai in 1980 requesting his freedom fighter pension. But for the past 37 years not having heard anything from the respondent, the petitioner approached the Madras High Court. The petitioner was a part of the Indian Independence League in Rangoon, Burma and underwent imprisonment for seven months in 1945.
The high court apologised to the petitioner for waiting “patiently” for 37 years for his pension. “Sorry sir, you are made to suffer at the hands of our people too, as, unfortunately, this is how the bureaucratic dogmatism with wooden approach works, at times, in this country, for which you fought to get freedom,” said the court.
The court directed the respondent to pass an order granting the petitioner’s pension from the date of application by the petitioner and serving the order at petitioner’s door step. The court held that within four weeks the petitioner shall receive his pension.
Chhattisgarh High Court: Insisting husband to live separately from his ailing mother is cruelty
Married for 16 years, a man filed a divorce petition against his wife in a trial court in Chhattisgarh for forcing him to leave his aged and ailing mother and live separately with her.
Receiving an unfavourable order from the trial court, the petitioner appealed to the Chhattisgarh High Court. The high court listed precedents and granted divorce to the appellant and made an observation, “Insisting upon the husband to live separate from his mother, who is aged about 68 years and is suffering from cardiac problem is by itself a cruelty.”
Bombay High Court: Relief granted to a man marked as unfit for a Constable post for having a religious tattoo
Marked ineligible for the post of a constable/driver in Central Industrial Security Forces (C.I.S.F.) for having a religious symbol as tattoo on his arm, the petitioner had filed a petition against the state challenging the medical opinion.
The Bombay High Court held in favour of the petitioner stating, “The religious sentiments of a citizen shall have to be given a due weightage and specially while making recruitment to a higher post such exceptions are made, there was no reason for the employer to apply the same parameters and hold the petitioner ineligible.”
The court further directed the C.I.S.F. to consider the application of the petitioner for the post of a constable/driver and the struck down the medical opinion holding the petitioner ineligible on account of a tattoo.
Allahabad High Court: Intervention in privacy of a person is permissible only in extraordinary circumstances
An alleged offender charged for robbery and stealing in 2011, filed a petition in Allahabad High Court for continued surveillance since 2011 by the Station House Officer. The court observed that the petitioner had been acquitted in all cases and ruled to discontinue the surveillance.
The court observed, “No intervention with the right of privacy of an Indian citizen can be permitted, so mechanically. If such intervention is required then there must be adequate reasons with appropriate discussion demanding the surveillance by maintaining history-sheet.