Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Govind Mathur, CJ and Siddhartha Varma, J. denied to interfere with the petition for seeking opening of Mosque for offering Jamaat/Namaj of Eid-Ul-Fitr in State of Uttar Pradesh.

Petition sought direction for respondent-State to open Mosque/Idgah situated in Uttar Pradesh for offering Jamaat/Namaj of Eid-Ul-Fitr and Dova in congregation for 1 hour and future Namaj till June, 2020.

Court noted that the petitioner before approaching the Court did not first approach to authority competent for redressal of grievance which they should have.

Thus, Court refused to interfere and asked the petitioner to approach the State and if denied of relief from the authority concerned then, may approach the Court.

Petition stands disposed of.[Shahid Ali Siddiqui v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 612 , decided on 19-05-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Govind Mathur, CJ and Vivek Varma, J., has taken suo motu cognizance of a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of this Court by a practising Advocate who has while referring to certain new items and details published in New York Times and The Telegraph wherein it has been alleged that the situation in the State of U.P. is antithetical to core constitutional values and warrants interference of the High Court. Prayer has been made in the petition for a writ to have a judicial enquiry in the matter.

The Bench on considering the contents of the letter and documents annexed thereto considered it appropriate to treat the stated letter as a petition for the writ. While the hearing was in process Senior Advocate S.F.A Naqvi also brought to the notice of the Court a news report published by The Indian Express on 07-01-2020.

High Court issued a notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh in regard to why necessary directions as prayed for not be issued.

Court-appointed Senior Advocate, S.F.A Naqvi and Ramesh Kumar, Practising Advocate as Amicus Curiae in the present matter.

The present petition has been listed for 16-01-2020. [Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 2, decided on 07-01-2020]

Hot Off The PressNews

In a recent press release, State of Uttar Pradesh announced the re-insertion of the provision of “Anticipatory Bail” in the State which was removed at the time of “emergency”.

The Amendment was approved by the President on 01-06-2019 and has been brought into force with effect from 06-06-2019.

As per the Press Note, the provision of Anticipatory Bail was omitted by the Criminal Procedure Code (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1976.

Several writ petitions were filed to re-introduce the same. A Committee was constituted under Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Committee had forwarded its suggestion to re-introduce Section 438 CrPC.

Hence, the said Amendment was approved by the President on 01-06-2019 and has been brought into force with effect from 06-06-2019 through a gazette notification.


[Picture Credits: uphome.gov.in]