High Court Lucknow Bench Order Download !!TOP!!
Donnie Ehlen
In the Order passed by the high court, Justice Singh notes that the accused had refused to marry the victim on the ground that she is manglik. As per the belief among certain Hindu communities, a person born under the influence of Mangal or Mars is considered manglik, which affects, among other things, the auspiciousness of their marriage and has a negative impact on the life of their spouse.
The high courts of India are the highest courts of appellate jurisdiction in each state and union territory of India. However, a high court exercises its original civil and criminal jurisdiction only if the subordinate courts are not authorized by law to try such matters for lack of peculiary, territorial jurisdiction. High courts may also enjoy original jurisdiction in certain matters, if so designated specially[1] by the constitution, a state or union law.
The work of most high courts primarily consists of appeals from lower courts and writ petitions in terms of Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution. Writ jurisdiction is also an original jurisdiction of a high court.
Judges in a high court are appointed by the president of India in consultation with the chief justice of India and the governor of the state under Article 217, Chapter Five of Part VI of the Constitution but through subsequent judicial interpretations, the primacy of the appointment process is on the hands of the Judicial Collegium. High courts are headed by a chief justice. The chief justices rank fourteenth (within their respective states) and seventeenth (outside their respective states) on the Indian order of precedence. The number of judges in a court is decided by dividing the average institution of main cases during the last five years by the national average, or the average rate of disposal of main cases per judge per year in that high court, whichever is higher.
The Calcutta High Court is the oldest high court in the country, established on 2 July 1862. High courts that handle numerous cases of a particular region have permanent benches established there. Benches are also present in states which come under the jurisdiction of a court outside its territorial limits. Smaller states with few cases may have circuit benches established. Circuit benches (known as circuit courts in some parts of the world) are temporary courts which hold proceedings for a few selected months in a year. Thus cases built up during this interim period are judged when the circuit court is in session. According to a study conducted by Bangalore-based N.G.O, Daksh, on 21 high courts in collaboration with the Ministry of Law and Justice in March 2015, it was found that average pendency of a case in high courts in India is 3 years.[2]
The high courts are substantially different from and should not be confused with the state courts of other federations, in that the Constitution of India includes detailed provisions for the uniform organisation and operation of all high courts.[3] In other federations like the United States, state courts are formed under the constitutions of the separate states and as a result vary greatly from state to state.[3]
The Madras High Court in Chennai (est. 1862), Bombay High Court in Mumbai (est. 1862), Calcutta High Court in Kolkata (est. 1862), Allahabad High Court in Allahabad (est. 1866) and Bangalore High Court in Bangalore (est. 1884) are the five oldest high courts in India. The Andhra High Court and Telangana High Court are the newest high courts, established on 1 January 2019 according to Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
The following are the 25 high courts in India, sorted by name, year established, act by which it was established, jurisdiction, principal seat (headquarters), permanent benches (subordinate to the principal seat), circuit benches (functional a few days in a month/year), the maximum number of judges sanctioned and the presiding chief justice of the high court:
Residents of Western Uttar Pradesh have also been long demanding a high court bench in Meerut. Almost 54% of all cases reaching the High Court originate from the 22 districts of Western UP, still, western Uttar Pradesh does not have a High Court.
People have to travel 700 km away to Allahabad for hearings. In fact, 6 high courts (Shimla, Delhi, Jaipur, Chandigarh, Nainital, Jammu) from other states are closer than Allahabad from western Uttar Pradesh. Even Lahore High Court is closer than Allahabad.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board's legal committee will meet on Saturday next, October 9, and discuss the verdict in the Ayodhya title case suit, which was pronounced on September 30 by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court. Dr S Q R Ilyas, convener of the Babri Masjid Action Committee, told Rediff.com that this would be followed by a meeting of the Board's executive committee which would take the final decision. Professor Mohammad Sulaiman, a senior member of the Board, and Dr Ilyas said the decision to move the Supreme Court on the Allahabad high court judgment is final, but the two meetings would discuss the manner in which the Special Leave Petition is to be carried forward. Although the Board has not met formally as yet, it has been already decided that "we will not even consider the decision to share the land," Dr Ilyas said. "There is no way in which any Muslim in the country will be willing to compromise the inner portion of the mosque in accordance with Shariah law," he added. "Shariah law," he explained, "is very clear that there are two portions to a mosque -- the inner and outer portion. The law makes it clear that no Muslim should compromise the inner portion of a mosque." "The high court verdict in fact directs us to compromise on the inner portion of the mosque and this is not acceptable to Muslims," Dr Ilyas said. "We have always maintained this position and even when we met several prime ministers in the past," he added, "we have maintained this position of ours." "The other party has always been insisting on the inner portion of the mosque," he cotninued. "As per Shariah law it is not possible to agree to such a demand and hence we will move the Supreme Court explaining our position." "Shariah law has been accepted by both the Privy Council and also various courts in India," he said, "however we are aware that the Supreme Court can overturn it and we will abide by whatever it says." "The (All India Muslim Personal Law ) Board's legal committee at present is studying the options and the same would be placed before the executive committee on October 16. We are very sure that we want to move the highest court of the land since the high court has played hide and seek with the title suit," Dr Ilyas said. "Whatever the Supreme Court says will be the final decision and we are ready to abide by it," he added. "We, however, hope that there will be some clarity to the issue pertaining to the title suit since we are unable to understand what the high court meant when it passed this order," he said. "As of now, we feel that the high court order is not a workable one," he felt. "We never demanded land around the mosque. All we have been saying is that we want the inner portion of the mosque," he added. "There appears to be no clear-cut decision on the title suit and we still believe we have a case since all the high court did was reject our demand on the basis of 'barred by limitation'." "We still believe that the case is open. If you look at the Supreme Court guidelines of 1993, it is clearly stated that the main issue can be decided only after a final decision is made to the title suit which in this case still remains hanging," the lawyer pointed out. "Post the Ayodhya verdict we have been speaking to a cross section of Muslims across the country and the general feeling is that of shock," Dr Ilyas said. "None of them are able to understand the logic of the verdict. There is large scale disappointment among members of the community, but they do see hope in the Supreme Court," he added. " However there is no plan of taking the matter to the streets or issuing a fatwa against anyone responsible for this verdict," Dr Ilyas emphasised. "There is one thing that is decided -- and that there shall at no stage be any compromise as suggested by the special bench of the high court."
df19127ead