Major High Court Verdicts of 2024

The article titled 'Major High Court Verdicts of 2024' delves into significant cases concerning euthanasia, medical termination of pregnancy, fundamental rights, child custody, and permanent injunctions across various High Courts in India.

The author aims to equip readers with a comprehensive understanding of these pivotal legal decisions. By exploring these case laws, the article seeks to clarify complex legal concepts and offer valuable insights into different areas of the law.

Major High Court Verdicts of 2024

1. Dismissal of a plea by the Delhi High Court for referring the case for passive euthanasia to the medical board for consideration

In the case of Harish Rana v. Union Of India & Ors, (2024: DHC: 4988), it was stated by the Delhi High Court that it shall not refer the plea of a thirty-year-old man for his case of passive euthanasia to the medical board for consideration. The said man, a student of Panjab University, suffered severe head injuries post falling from the fourth floor of his accommodation where he was living as a paying guest. Since the patient was able to keep himself alive and no mechanical support was required for the same, the court refused to consider the case fit for passive euthanasia.

2. Termination of Pregnancy allowed by Delhi High Court beyond 24 weeks

In the case of R v. Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department, (2024 SCC OnLine Del 4610), it was stated by the Delhi High Court that it is not appropriate for women to be compelled to continue with pregnancy and give birth to a child who is diagnosed to have severe abnormalities. Thus, adhering to Section 3(2B) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 2021 the court mentioned that gestational age must not hinder medical intervention required in cases of substantial foetal abnormalities.

3. Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that the Police cannot curtail the fundamental right to hold a passport

In the case of Yesasvi Bodduluri v. Regional Passport Office, (Writ Petition No.33241 of 2023), it was stated that the seizure of the passport of a Non-resident Indian by the police shall amount to a violation of fundamental rights as provided under Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. As per the court, any such seizure is not authorised by law and neither is it provided under the authority granted to the police. The court said that the respondents were free to take action against the petitioner for any non-adherence to law as provided expressly in law but this was an extension of powers with the authority.

4. Affirmed Termination of Judicial Officer by Bombay HC who was accused of taking bribe for acquitting an accused

In the case of Pradeep Hiraman Kale v. State of Maharashtra, [WP(L) No. 555 of 2020], the Bombay High Court in a significant judgment upheld the removal of Pradeep Kale who was a judicial officer as appointed in the year 2009, on charges of taking bribery for acquitting the accused in POCSO case. In the year 2017, disciplinary proceedings began against him for taking bribes, to acquit an accused under the POCSO case. The Bombay High Court bench that gave this judgement comprised of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain and they gave this judgment with the motto to highlight the importance of discipline and integrity that should be adhered to by judicial officers.

5. Custody of children not to be refused in case of divorce due to adultery as stated by Bombay High Court

In the case of Vineet Gupta v. Mukta Aggarwal, [MAT.APP. (F.C.) 23/2020 & MAT.APP. (F.C.) 63/2020], the Bombay High Court stated, post relying on multiple relevant precedents on similar lines and grounds that even if the wife is proven to be involved in adultery and divorce is granted on this ground, this shall not be default mean that custody of children shall be denied to such woman. This was held by a single-judge bench comprising of Justice Rajesh S. Patil. The court thereby clarified and reinstated that adultery might be a valid ground for divorce but is not a ground for refusal of custody of children.

6. Suo moto cognizance taken by Chhattisgarh High Court to address the alarming rate of road accidents

In the matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, (WPPIL No. 37 of 2024), the Chhattisgarh High Court bench comprising of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Parth Prateem Sahu, J. took suo moto cognizance of increasing rate of road accidents and asked the State to show as to how it has been complying with Supreme Court’s directions as given in S. Rajaseekaran (II) case. The High Court took this action in response to multiple newspapers reporting the accidents on the road, especially on highways due to overspeeding.

7. Chhattisgarh High Court upholds dismissal of child’s custody application filed by father elucidating the impact of the live-in relationship on previous marriage and children

In the case of Abdul Hameed Siddiqui v. Kavita Gupta, the Chhattisgarh High Court stated that it is of utmost importance to understand the impact on women in live-in relationships as more often they complain of domestic violence by inmate partners. The married man can easily walk out of such a relationship but the aftermath on the woman and children born out of such relationship must be taken into consideration. Thus, the court upheld the dismissal of the application of such a father seeking custody of a child born in a live-in relationship.

8. Landmark judgement passed by Calcutta High Court for safeguarding copyrights of authors of music and literary work used in sound recordings

In the case of Vodafone Idea Limited v. Saregama India Limited & Anr., (CS-COM/93/2024), it was held that Vodafone is liable to pay royalties to authors for each of their literary and musical works. The Calcutta High Court thereby upheld the rights of the Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. and by doing that it reinforced that it is necessary to obtain a license from IPRS and pay royalties before commercially exploiting the work that is thereby incorporated in sound recordings.

9. Right to Religious Practice Upheld by Madras High Court in Angapradakshinam Case

It was held by the Madras High Court in the case of P.Naveen Kumar v. Indian Young Lawyers Association And Ors., (WP(MD)No.10496 of 2024), that the petitioner’s right was to be upheld about performing Angapradakshinam. The right was said to be protected under Article 25(1) of the Constitution. The court emphasized the importance of the right to privacy which allows the right to make personal choices. The court while affirming the petitioner’s right showcased the relevance of the freedom to practice one’s religion of choice.

10. Madras High Court stated in its order that Legal Service is not ‘Business’

The Madras High Court in the case of P.N.Vignesh v. The Chairman and Members of the Bar Council,(2024:MHC:2515), through its Division Bench comprising of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan, directed BCI to draft regulations or guidelines to make the State Bar Councils to initiate disciplinary measures against lawyers who are using advertisements to solicit clients. The court stated that justice delivery is based strongly on the Constitution and the process cannot be turned into a business.

11. Himachal Pradesh High Court stated that touching female students inappropriately or passing comments on their dress shall lead to the application of Section 7 of the POCSO Act

It was stated by Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Bansal v. State of H.P., ( 2024:HHC:4780), that if any physical contact is made by the accused with the female students along with the words that he used with them could assist in inferring the touch was meant to be sexual. The court also stated that the same shall be used as a rule where such actions would lead to the application of the POCSO Act if allegations made were to be subsequently proved.

12. Himachal Pradesh High Court gives warning to Shimla Municipal Corporation overcharging women for using public urinals

It was stated by Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Court on its own motion v. State of H.P. & Ors., (CWPIL No. 06/2017), that women must not be unlawfully charged Rs.5 for public urinals which are supposed to be free. The order was to be taken as a warning given to Shimla Municipal Corporation and Sulabh International Social Service Organization by a bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja.

13. Permanent injunction granted by Delhi High Court Adidas AG in infringement suit filed

It was stated by the Delhi High Court in the case of Adidas AG v. Keshav H Tulsiani, (CS(COMM) 582/2018), that when a mark that is as distinctive as ‘adidas’ is copied, the same leads to apparent dilution of the brand irrespective of the fact that the products offered are different in nature and category. Thus the court granted a permanent injunction in this matter siding with the brand and protecting its image.

14. Transfer of death investigation of young man in Delhi Anti-CAA protests to CBI by Delhi High Court

In the case of Kismatun v. State NCT of Delhi, (W.P. (CRL) 2195/2020), it was stated by the Delhi High Court that the investigation taken up by the Delhi police had been insufficient. The court stated that it is important that justice must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The investigation by delhi police was thus found to be tardy and to ensure a fair and transparent process the same has been transferred to CBI by the Delhi High Court.