Faced with a couple aged between 75 and 80 years fighting a legal battle against each other for alimony, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday made a strong observation, saying it seemed that ‘kalyug’ (the age of darkness in Hinduism) has arrived. 

Hearing a petition by the husband, Munesh Kumar Gupta of Aligarh, against a family court order in favour of his wife, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery said the legal contest was a matter of concern and also tried to give advice to the couple. 

Mr Gupta’s wife had demanded alimony from him and the family court had ruled in her favour. The man challenged the order and, issuing a notice to the wife, the high court said it hoped that they would come to an agreement by the next date of hearing. 
 

Lucknow:

AAP leader Sanjay Singh on Thursday hailed the Allahabad High Court order that stayed the execution of the sentence awarded to him by a Sultanpur court in a 2001 protest case as the “triumph of truth”.

The Rajya Sabha MP of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) also expressed gratitude towards senior counsel and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leader Satish Chandra Mishra, who represented him in the high court.

“The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has stayed the three-month sentence awarded in a 23-year-old case. Truth triumphed with the decision of the honourable high court. Heartfelt gratitude to senior advocate, respected Shri Satish Mishra ji. Satyamev Jayate,” Mr Singh said in a post in Hindi on X.

इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट की लखनऊ बेंच ने 23 साल पुराने मामले में हुई तीन महीने की सजा पर रोक लगा दी है।
माननीय हाईकोर्ट के फैसले से सत्य की जीत हुई।
वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता आदरणीय श्री सतीश मिश्रा जी का अत्यंत आभार।
सत्यमेव जयते

— Sanjay Singh AAP (@SanjayAzadSln) August 22, 2024

The MP-MLA court of Sultanpur in Uttar Pradesh had, on January 11 last year, sentenced Mr Singh to three months of rigorous imprisonment and slapped a fine of Rs 1,500 on him for creating obstructions on a public road and inciting violence during a protest in the district in 2001.

The appeal of Mr Singh and the other accused in the case was dismissed by the sessions court on August 6 this year.

On August 13, a non-bailable warrant was issued by the MP-MLA court against Mr Singh, Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Anoop Sanda and four others.

The high court bench of Justice K S Pawar passed the order on Thursday on a revision petition filed by Mr Singh, challenging the Sultanpur court’s order.

“Till further orders of this court, the execution of the sentence awarded by the judgment and orders under revision shall remain stayed,” the judge said while admitting the revision petition for final hearing.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Prayagraj:

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the purpose of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 is to guarantee religious freedom to all persons and sustain the spirit of secularism in India.

In an order passed on Friday, while rejecting the bail of one Ajeem, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal said that though the Constitution guarantees each person the right to profess, practise, and propagate their religion, this individual right does not translate into a collective right to proselytise, as religious freedom equally belongs to both the person converting and the individual being converted.

Ajeem was booked under sections 323/504/506 of the IPC and section 3/5(1) UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 in Badaun district after being accused of forcing a woman to accept Islam and sexually exploiting her.

He applied for bail before the high court claiming that he was falsely implicated in the case, asserting that the woman was in a relationship with him and had left her home on her own.

He also claimed that she had earlier confirmed their marriage in statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 criminal procedure code (CrPC) in a related case.

The state counsel opposed Ajeem’s bail citing the woman’s statement, according to which, she was forced to convert to Islam.

The court held that the complainant was forced to convert by the man and his family and was also forced to witness an animal sacrifice on Bakrid and cook and eat meat.

The court noted that she was held captive by the man and was forced by his family members to perform certain Islamic rituals, which was unacceptable to her.

The court also observed that Ajeem could not bring on record any material that demonstrates that an application was moved under Section 8 of the 2021 Act, required to convert the woman to Islam before the marriage/nikah took place.

Section 8 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 deals with the requirement of a declaration before conversion of religion.

Making these observations, the court in its order dated August 9 rejected the bail of the applicant, while also noting that there is a prima facie contravention of sections 3 and 8 of the Act.

Section 3 of the Act prohibits conversion from one religion to another religion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion or allurement.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Prayagraj:

The Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against petitioner Purushottam Singh after uncovering a shocking series of events where the police registered an FIR based on a complaint from a person who had already been dead for years.

The court found it even more bizarre that a chargesheet was later filed based on a statement allegedly given by the dead man.

“It is very strange that a dead person has not only lodged an FIR but has also recorded his statement before the Investigating Officer,” Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery remarked in his order passed on August 6.

“Thereafter, a vakalatnama has also been filed on behalf of him (the dead man) in the present case. It appears that all the proceedings are undertaken by a ghost,” the court further noted.

The court directed the Kushinagar superintendent of police (SP) to investigate the conduct of the investigating officer involved in the case.

The case traces back to an FIR filed in 2014 at Kotwali Hata police station in Kushinagar district. The FIR named Shabd Prakash as the informant, a man who had died on December 19, 2011.

According to official records, including a death certificate and the testimony of his wife, Prakash’s death was confirmed and documented long before the FIR was lodged.

Despite this, during the investigation, the investigating officer allegedly recorded a statement as if Prakash were alive and capable of participating in legal proceedings.

A chargesheet was subsequently filed on November 23, 2014, with the dead man named as a prosecution witness.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Prayagraj:

It is a woman’s decision whether to continue the pregnancy or go ahead with medical termination, the Allahabad High Court observed while hearing a 15-year-old rape victim’s plea for abortion at 32 weeks.

The court also said even if she decides to go ahead with the pregnancy and put the child up for adoption, the duty lies on the State to ensure that it is carried out as privately as possible.

Allowing the continuation of pregnancy after counselling of the victim and her parents of the risks involved with medical termination at 32 weeks pregnancy, a bench comprising justices Shekhar B Saraf and Manjive Shukla said, “This court is also of the opinion that a woman’s decision in whether or not to go ahead with the termination of her pregnancy is a decision that is to be taken by no one but herself.” “This is primarily based on the widely acknowledged idea of bodily autonomy. Here, her consent reigns supreme,” it said while hearing the girl’s petition filed through her lawyer.

“Even if she decides to go ahead with the pregnancy and put the child up for adoption, the duty lies on the State to ensure that it is carried out as privately as possible and also to ensure that the child, being a citizen of this land, is not stripped of the fundamental rights that are enshrined in the Constitution,” the bench said in its order dated July 24.

Thereby, it is the State’s duty to ensure that the adoption process, too, is carried out in an efficient manner and that the “best interests of the child” are followed, the bench said.

The girl, aged 15 years according to her high school marksheet, was living in the house of her maternal uncle. In his complaint, he claimed that she was “enticed” away by a man.

Based on the complaint, an FIR under Indian Penal Code section 363 (punishment for kidnapping). Upon recovery of the girl, the charge of rape and provisions of the POCSO Act were added. Subsequently, it was revealed that the petitioner was 29 weeks pregnant.

The court noted that since the petitioner is 15 years old, the offence of statutory rape had been committed.

She was examined by three separate teams of doctors and the chief medical officer in his report stated that though the continuation of pregnancy would impact the physical and mental well-being of the victim, medical termination of pregnancy at this stage was not possible without any threat to the life of the victim.

On a pointed query by the court, it was stated that despite the risks involved, the parents of the victim were consenting to termination of pregnancy.

Considering various judgments of the Supreme Court where medical termination was not allowed at later stages of pregnancy, the high court counselled the petitioner and her parents regarding the risks involved with the termination of pregnancy at 32 weeks.

Eventually, the petitioner and her parents agreed to continue with the pregnancy. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Prayagraj, UP:

 Denying bail to a person accused of carrying out illegal conversion, the Allahabad High Court has observed that the Constitution grants citizens the right to freely profess, practice and propagate their religion but it cannot be extended to construe a collective right to proselytise” or convert other people to one’s religion.

The order was passed by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal while rejecting the bail plea of Shriniwas Rav Nayak of Maharajganj who was booked under sections 3 and 5 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

Passing the order, the court opined that the individual right to freedom of conscience, as guaranteed by the Constitution, ensures that every person has the liberty to choose, practice, and express their religious beliefs.

However, the individual right to freedom of conscience and religion cannot be extended to construe a collective right to proselytize, which means attempting to convert others to one’s religion, according to the court.

“The right to religious freedom belongs equally to the person converting and the individual sought to be converted,” the court added.

It is alleged that, on February 15, 2024, the informant in the case was invited to the house of Vishwanath where many villagers mostly from the Scheduled Castes community had gathered. Vishwanath’s brother Brijlal, the applicant Shriniwas, and Ravindra were also present there.

They allegedly urged the informant to leave Hinduism and convert to Christianity, promising relief from pain and an improved life. While some villagers accepted Christianity and began praying, the informant escaped and reported the incident to the police.

The counsel for the Shriniwas pleaded that he had no connection with the alleged conversion and that he was a domestic help of one of the co-accused, a resident of Andhra Pradesh, and had been falsely implicated in the case.

It was also contended that no person who had converted to Christianity came forward to lodge a complaint.

On the other hand, the state counsel submitted that a case under the anti-conversion Act of 2021 was made out against the applicant.

He stated that the applicant came to Maharajganj where the conversion was taking place and was actively participating in the conversion from one religion to another which is against the law.

The court in its decision on Tuesday noted that Section 3 of the 2021 Act clearly prohibits conversion from one religion to another based on misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, and allurement.

In view of this, taking into account the allegations made against the accused, the court noted that the informant was persuaded to convert to another religion and this was prima facie sufficient to decline bail to the applicant as it established the fact that a conversion programme was going on and many villagers belonging to the Scheduled Castes community were being converted from Hinduism to Christianity.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Prayagraj:

The Allahabad High Court has asked the ASI to file its reply in a suit seeking a survey of Jama Masjid in Agra while claiming that the remains of Thakur Keshav Dev’s idol from Krishna Janmabhoomi were buried in the mosque.

The petitioners sought a survey by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) claiming that Mughal king Aurangzeb had demolished the temple of Keshav Dev in Mathura in 1670 and buried the remains of the idol under Jama Masjid in Agra.

The plaintiffs also prayed for the appointment of an advocate commissioner in the case seeking a survey of the masjid.

Justice Mayank Kumar Jain passed the order on Thursday while hearing a suit related to Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah case filed in the name of the deity — Thakur Keshav Dev Ji, Maharaj Virajman Mandir Katra Keshav Dev.

The court observed, “An application (A-5) is moved on behalf of plaintiffs to direct the respondent-authority to make SIT Report as well as Archeological Survey by the competent authority and Advocate Commissioner also be appointed. Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the defendants may file reply to this application by the date fixed.”

Earlier, the management committee of Shahi Idgah Masjidi in Mathura had moved an impleadment application requesting the court to add it as a defendant in the suit. During the course of the hearing, a copy of the application was provided to the plaintiffs in the suit.

The court has fixed August 5 as the next date of hearing in the case.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Prayagraj, UP:

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the law permits interfaith couples to marry under the Special Marriage Act without conversion.

The court also granted protection to an interfaith live-in couple facing threats.

The court observed,”Interfaith couples who choose not to convert for marriage can register their union under the Special Marriage Act.”

Justice Jyotsna Sharma made this observation while granting protection to a live-in couple facing threats to their life and liberty due to the nature of their relationship.

The state objected to the plea, arguing that the couple claimed to have married by agreement, which is not legally recognised.

The court dismissed the argument, stating that while marriage by agreement is invalid, parties can apply for court marriage under the Special Marriage Act without conversion.

“In my opinion, marriage through agreement is definitely invalid in law. However, law does not prevent the parties from applying for court marriage under the Special Marriage Committee without conversion,” Justice Sharma said in her order.

The couple, who expressed their desire to marry under the Special Marriage Act without changing their religion, sought protection to proceed with their registration.

“Supplementary affidavit has been submitted in which it is categorically submitted that they will continue to follow the faith/religion of their own and do not propose to convert and that they are mature enough to take decisions regarding their lives. Further they seriously want to enter into matrimonial relationship as per law,” the court recorded in the order.

The court granted protection to the couple and instructed them to solemnise their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, providing documentary proof in a supplementary affidavit. The next hearing is scheduled for July 10.

The Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954, provides a legal framework for the marriage of people belonging to different religions.

Under this law, one can marry with a person of other religion without changing his or her faith. It promotes a society where love transcends faith and is legally recognised throughout India.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Prayagraj:

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the dismissal of a judicial officer accused of demanding dowry and attempting to influence a junior judge in the case.

If there exists a temple of justice, the judicial officers must act like its high priests, a bench comprising justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh said and stressed that a judicial officer who defiles his office merits no mercy.

Dismissing a writ petition filed by Umesh Kumar Sirohi, an additional district judge who was removed from service, the court said, “Any transgression committed by a judicial officer to extract benefit for himself or those to whom he may be closely related would always be dealt with severely”.

In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the penalty order passed by the state government dated April 16, 2021, whereby Sirohi – then serving as additional district and sessions judge, Lalitpur – was removed from service with immediate effect.

“Once the ‘bad fish’ is identified, it may not be retained in the ‘tank’. No room may ever exist and no margin of error may be permitted as may allow any possibility for a judicial officer to seek to influence another judicial officer in the exercise of judicial function.

“If there exists a temple of justice, the judicial officers must act like its high priests who must not only conduct the rituals involving the discharge of their duties on the dais but they must zealously guard the purity of the temple itself,” the court said.

The two charge sheets were issued against the petition by the administrative side of the High Court in 2016 and 2017.

In the first charge sheet, Sirohi was accused of demanding dowry for the marriage of his brother, also a judge, and inflicting an injury on his own hand as a conspiracy to implicate his brother’s wife and her family.

Sirohi’s wife had registered a police complaint in this regard against the sister-in-law and her family members, leading to the registration of a case against them.

Another allegation against Sirohi and his brother was that they had tried to influence the investigating officer in the matter by misusing their official position.

In the second charge sheet, it was alleged that Sirohi had tried to influence an additional chief judicial magistrate in the proceedings of the case registered by his wife. He was also accused of making false allegations of bias against the then district judge, Meerut.

In 2020, the High Court accepted the inquiry reports against Sirohi and recommended his dismissal from service. The state accepted the recommendation, leading to his removal from service, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

After hearing the arguments and examining the records, the court concluded that a case of most serious misconduct had been made out against Sirohi.

The court noted that charges alleging efforts to influence the investigating officer and demand of dowry were found to be true. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Prayadraj, UP:

The Allahabad High Court recently held that liking an “obscene” post on social media does not constitute an offence, however, sharing or reposting such content will attract penal consequences.

The court in its observations on Wednesday said sharing such a post would amount to “transmission” under Section 67 of the Information Technology (IT) Act and will be punishable.

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made the remarks as he quashed the criminal proceedings pending against Mohd Imran Kazi of Agra filed under section 67 of IT Act and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Mohd Imran Kazi was under trial for liking another person’s post for unlawful assembly.

“I do not find any material which could connect the applicant with any objectionable post, as there is no offensive post available in the Facebook and WhatsApp accounts of the applicant. Therefore, no case is made out against the applicant,” the judge noted.

He said though under the IT Act transmitting obscene material is an offence, in the present case “the applicant has liked the post of one Farhan Usman for unlawful assembly, but liking a post will not amount to publishing or transmitting the post, therefore, merely liking a post will not attract section 67 IT Act.” “Even otherwise section 67 of the IT Act is for obscene material and not for provocative material,” the court said.

A criminal case was registered against petitioner Mohd Imran Kazmi and a charge sheet was filed against him for liking “provocative” messages on social media, which resulted in the assembly of about 600-700 persons belonging to the Muslim community for arranging procession without permission.

The court of CJM, Agra, took cognisance of the charge sheet and issued a non-bailable warrant against him on June 30, 2023. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)