Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ravindra V. Ghughe, J. heard a miscellaneous civil application wherein the applicant had expressed his apprehension that orders available on the official website of the Bombay High Court and printed from there would not be considered a certified copy and that the trial court may insist upon producing a certified copy.

The Court held that the apprehension was misplaced since the print-outs from the official website of High Courts hold sanctity. And since the orders are also available before the trial court on the website, they can further be used for counter verification “to find out whether such an order is actually uploaded to the official website or not.” The Court also stated that “once the order is uploaded on the official website, it is a reliable document to be considered by the Court before whom it is cited.”

The Court further directed the Registrar of the Court to circulate this order to all the Principal District Judges of the District Courts in Maharashtra. [Shital Krushna Dhake v. Krushna Dhagdu Dhake, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 206, order dated 02-02-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the case where a 35-year-old woman was not allowed to abort her foetus by the Patna High Court as her foetus was 24-weeks-old at the time when the High Court was deciding the matter, the 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy and AM Khanwilkar, JJ directed the State of Bihar to pay a compensation of Rs. 10, 00, 000 to the appellant as it was due to the laxity of the authorities in terminating her pregnancy as she was 18 weeks pregnant when she expressed her desire to terminate her pregnancy. The Court said that the appellant has to be compensated so that she lives her life with dignity and the authorities of the State who were negligent would understand that truancy has no space in a situation of the present kind.

As per the facts of the case, the woman, a rape survivor who was living on the streets of Patna after being rejected by her husband and family, was brought to a shelter home from footpath. The functionaries of the home found her to be 13 weeks pregnant and took her to Patna Medical College Hospital to terminate her pregnancy with her consent. Her father and brother were called and made to sign a consent form. The appellant was also found to be HIV+. However, the hospital did not terminate her pregnancy and by that time she had entered into 20th week of pregnancy. When the woman approached the High Court, the single judge impleaded the husband and father of the woman. However, the notice was not served to the husband as his name was wrongly mentioned that caused further delay. Director of Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences was also directed to constitute a Multi-Disciplinary Medical Board to examine the victim with regard to physical and mental state and the condition of the foetus. The Court, after, going through the Medical report, thought is fit to reject the woman’s plea to abort her foetus as the foetus was 23-24 weeks old and the termination of the same would be hazardous to the life of the woman.

Considering the facts of the case, the Court said that it was luminescent that the appellant has suffered grave injury to her mental health and the said injury is in continuance. The bench said that one may have courage or cultivate courage to face a situation, but the shock of rape is bound to chain and enslave her with the trauma she has faced and cataclysm that she has to go through. Her condition cannot be reversed.

The bench also stated that the singe Judge should have been more alive to the provisions of the Medical termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and the necessity of consent only of the appellant in the facts of the case. There was no reason whatsoever to implead the husband and father of the appellant. The appellant was a destitute, a victim of rape and further she was staying in a shelter home. Calling for a medical report was justified but to delay it further was not at all warranted. The Court said that the High Courts are required to be more sensitive while dealing with matters of the present nature.

The Court directed that the compensation from the State be kept in a fixed deposit in the appellant’s name so that she may enjoy the interest. It was also directed that the child to be born, shall be given proper treatment and nutrition by the State and if any medical aid is necessary, it shall also be provided. If there will be any future grievance, liberty is granted to the appellant to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after the birth of the child. [Ms. Z v. State of Bihar, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 943, decided on 17.08.2017]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Discouraging the practice of the appellate courts of reproducing the passages of the lower court’s order without proper analysis, the bench of Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ said that quoting passages from the trial court judgment and thereafter penning few lines and expressing the view that there is no reason to differ with the trial court judgment, can by no stretch be termed as a reasoned order. The Court said that the absence of analysis not only evinces non-application of mind but mummifies the core spirit of the judgment. A Judge has to constantly remind himself that absence of reason in the process of adjudication makes the ultimate decision pregnable.

Stating that the first appellate court has a defined role and its judgment should show application of mind and reflect the reasons on the basis of which it agrees with the trial court, the Court said that there has to be an “expression of opinion” in the proper sense of the said phrase. It cannot be said that mere concurrence meets the requirement of law. It was said that it is one thing to state that the appeal is without any substance and it is another thing to elucidate, analyse and arrive at the conclusion that the appeal is devoid of merit.

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the Karnataka High Court order where the learned Judge had posed the question about the defensibility of the ultimate direction by the trial Court and thereafter proceeded to quote paragraphs from the trial court judgment. Remitting the matter for fresh disposal within 6 months, the Court said that posing a question which is relevant for adjudication of the appeal is not enough. There has to have been proper analysis of the same. Stating the facts and thereafter reproducing few passages from the trial Court and ultimately referring to certain exhibited documents in a cryptic manner will not convert an unreasoned judgment to a reasoned one. [U. Manjunath Rao v. U. Chandrashekar,  2017 SCC OnLine SC 865, decided on 04.08.2017]