Appointments & TransfersNews

President appointed Justice Mohammad Rafiq, senior most Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, to perform the duties of the office of Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from the date Justice Pradeep Nandrajog relinquishes charge of the office of the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court consequent upon his transfer as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court.

[Notification dt. 03-04-2019]

Ministry of Law and Justice

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of following eleven Judicial Officers as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court:

  1. Shri Abhay Chaturvedi
  2. Shri Devendra Kachhawaha
  3. Shri Satish Kumar Sharma
  4. Ms. Prabha Sharma
  5. Shri Manoj Kumar Vyas
  6. Shri Rameshwar Vyas
  7. Shri Devendra Joshi
  8. Shri Chandra Kumar Songara
  9. Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena
  10. Shri Narendra Singh Dhaddha
  11. Shri Hemant Kumar Jain

As regards Shri Chandra Kumar Songara, (mentioned at Sl. No.8 above), consideration of the proposal for his elevation is deferred for the present and would be taken up after additional information is received from the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.

As regards S/Shri (1) Devendra Kachhawaha, (2) Satish Kumar Sharma, (3) Ms. Prabha Sharma, (4) Manoj Kumar Vyas, (5) Rameshwar Vyas, (6) Devendra Joshi, (7) Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena, and (8) Shri Hemant Kumar Jain (mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 to 7, 9 and 11 above) consideration of their proposal for elevation is deferred for the present. The same would be taken up upon receipt of detailed information from the Department of Justice in respect of certain unconfirmed inputs pointed out in the file.

Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ., resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Abhay Chaturvedi, and (2) Narendra Singh Dhaddha, Judicial Officers, be appointed as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.

[Notification dt. 01-04-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

Appointments & TransfersNews

The President in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (l) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, appointed S/Shri Justices (i) Ganga Ram Moolchandani, (2) Deepak Maheshwari, (3) Vijay Kumar Vyas, (4) Goverdhan Bardhar, (5) Pankaj Bhandari, (6) Dinesh Chandra Somani  (7) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma (8) Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, (9) Dinesh Mehta and (10) Vinit Kumar Mathur, Additional Judges of the Rajasthan  High Court to be Judges of the Rajasthan High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their offices.

Ministry of Law and Justice

Appointments & TransfersNews

The President in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, appointed Shri Justice Ajay Rastogi, Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, to be the Chief Justice of the Tripura High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.

Ministry of Law and Justice

(Department of Justice)

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: Applying the principle of rarest of rare case, the Court upheld the decision of trial Court and confirmed death sentence awarded to the accused for committing rape and murder of 8-year-old girl.

The present case was filed by the State of Rajasthan for confirmation of the capital punishment awarded by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh vide judgment dated 18.9.2015 in Sessions Case No.149/2013 to the accused for committing offence under Section 302 Penal Code and under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Court stated that the accused has crushed all the parameters of trust by committing rape and murder of a 8 year old yound girl who treated accused as maternal uncle. It is also evident that the deceased tried to resist but helpless girl was killed by the accused appellant, therefore, it is not only a case of murder and harassing sexually of young girl of 8 years but it is a case in which all the parameters of trust are crushed by the accused. The accused murdered helpless minor girl only to satisfy his physical desire.

The Court upon consideration of the entire evidences and the fact that accused has crushed all limits of trust and committed offence under Section 302 IPC and under the provisions of POCSO Act, confirmed death sentence awarded by the learned trial court. [State vs Prahlad, 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 5842, decided on September 1, 2016]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: While deciding a writ petition the Court has stated that Section 65 B of Evidence Act is not applicable to the evidence in the form of Pin Hole camera with a hard disk memory on which a recording was done, as it was submitted as Primary evidence, since Section 65 B it deals only with Secondary evidence.  The present writ petition was filed by the wife challenging the admissibility of the electronic record (Pin hole Camera, memory and recordings) filed by the husband in a family court, along with the affidavit in evidence in support of the divorce petition. The Court and also held that the privilege in respect of the husband and the wife’s communication under Section 122 of Evidence Act would not attract in Family court proceedings.

The Court observed while rejecting the contention of the wife that, “Section 65B of the Act of 1872 only deals with the secondary evidence qua electronic records. It does not at all deal with the original electronic records, as in the instant case, where the pinhole camera, with a hard disk memory on which the recording was done has been submitted before the Family Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 has held that if an electronic record is produced as a primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence without compliance with the conditions of Section 65B of the Act of 1872. That evidence would take the colour of primary evidence, subject no doubt to its credibility based on forensic examination and cross examination.”

The single judge Bench comprising of Alok Sharma, J. observed that “Section 14 of the Family Court Act, 1984 provides that a family court may receive any evidence, report, statement, documents, information or matter which in its opinion will facilitate the effective adjudication of the disputes before it, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The aforesaid section therefore makes it pellucid that the issues of relevance and admissibility of evidence which regulate a regular trial do not burden proceedings before the family courts. It is the discretion of the family court to receive or not to receive the evidence, report, statement, documents, information etc. placed before it on the test whether it does or does not facilitate an effective adjudication of the disputes before it.”  The bench further observed “the privilege in respect of the husband and the wife’s communication under Section 122 of the Act of 1872 would also not attract, as Section 14 of the Family Court Act eclipses Section 122 of the Evidence Act in proceedings before the Family Court. Section 14 aforesaid is a special law, so to say, as against the general law, which Section 122 of the Act of 1872 encapsulates vis-a-vis privileged communications between husband and wife.” [Preeti Jain v. Kunal Jain 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 2838 Decided on 27.05. 2016]

High Courts

Rajasthan High Court: Dismissing a petition, a division bench comprising of Amitava Roy, CJ and Vijay Bishnoi, J concluded that there should be no separate category of the physically handicapped persons for the purpose of reservation.

In the present case, a physically handicapped  candidate who appeared for the preliminary examination of the Rajasthan Judicial Service was seeking to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court for violation of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, contending that there is an error in the decision of the examination committee in rejecting his representation, as the physically handicapped candidates construe to be a separate category independent of General/SC/ST/OBC categories under the Rules, and any omission thereof would be contravention of the Rules, professed advertisement, and Article 14 and 16 of the constitution. The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 215 , where the Court clarified the concept of reservation and explained that suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons, if he belongs to SC/ST/OBC/women category he will be placed in that quota, so that the percentage reservations in favour of that class remains the same.  The Court held that law does not permit that there should be a separate category for physically handicapped persons for the purpose of reservation. The Court found that the petitioner’s representation has been rejected on merits by the examination committee, and suspended the challenge of the petitioner and opined that in this case the exercise of the power of judicial review is not warranted. The results of the preliminary examination cannot be faulted and the insistence for the cut-off marks for this category of candidates is ex-facie absurd and preposterous, the Court held. Vikram Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3115 of 2014, decided on May 16, 2014.

To read the full judgment, click here

High Courts

Rajasthan High Court: Dismissing a petition, a division bench comprising of Amitava Roy, CJ and Vijay Bishnoi, J concluded that there should be no separate category of the physically handicapped persons for the purpose of reservation.

In the present case, a physically handicapped  candidate who appeared for the preliminary examination of the Rajasthan Judicial Service was seeking to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court for violation of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, contending that there is an error in the decision of the examination committee in rejecting his representation, as the physically handicapped candidates construe to be a separate category independent of General/SC/ST/OBC categories under the Rules, and any omission thereof would be contravention of the Rules, professed advertisement, and Article 14 and 16 of the constitution. The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 215 , where the Court clarified the concept of reservation and explained that suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons, if he belongs to SC/ST/OBC/women category he will be placed in that quota, so that the percentage reservations in favour of that class remains the same.  The Court held that law does not permit that there should be a separate category for physically handicapped persons for the purpose of reservation. The Court found that the petitioner’s representation has been rejected on merits by the examination committee, and suspended the challenge of the petitioner and opined that in this case the exercise of the power of judicial review is not warranted. The results of the preliminary examination cannot be faulted and the insistence for the cut-off marks for this category of candidates is ex-facie absurd and preposterous, the Court held. Vikram Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3115 of 2014, decided on May 16, 2014.

To read the full judgment, click here