women

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court has rejected a plea requesting parents of children attending a school in a Pashchim Vihar colony to drop off their children outside the colony gate in order to regulate traffic within the colony. The court emphasized that expecting primary school children to walk in adverse weather conditions from the school to the colony gate is impractical.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, heading the bench, instructed the petitioner seeking a review to engage with relevant authorities to address the traffic management issue outside the school. The petitioner was also directed to collaborate with local residents to find a solution, considering the problem’s limited duration.

The court was revisiting a prior order in response to a plea by Eden Castle School, where the court had disposed of the school’s request to open colony gates for the entry and exit of school children. The court allowed the school to approach again if the gates were closed, causing hindrance to students, parents, teachers, and staff members.

The review petition aimed to alter the court’s order by urging parents using private cars to drop their children outside the colony, while the school was urged to deploy security personnel to manage traffic congestion. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the plea, highlighting that the school operated within authorized parameters in an area designated for educational purposes.

The court emphasized that the convenience of colony residents should not outweigh the interests of the broader public. It stated that the petitioner’s colony was not unique in having a school within its premises. Justice Subramonium Prasad, presiding over the single-judge bench, asserted that the review petition lacked any apparent errors and declined to entertain it, noting that it seemed an attempt to re-argue the case.

While acknowledging the traffic rush during school opening and closing times, the court suggested that the petitioner approach authorities to manage the traffic flow during these periods. It underscored that obstructing the school’s ingress and egress could lead to problems for both the school and the general public.

However, the court acknowledged the concern raised by the review petition regarding cars remaining within the colony throughout the school hours. It stated that such a practice could not be allowed and suggested addressing this issue separately. The review petition had contended that the school contributed to traffic congestion in the colony due to parents parking their cars on nearby roads. According to the RWA records, the area had 419 registered members and 56 tenants, with 475 families residing around the school.

In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India has revoked the default bail granted to an individual under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act due to the failure to submit a charge sheet within the prescribed timeframe. The court overturned the Delhi High Court’s decision from February 11, 2021, which had granted default bail to the accused, identified as Raj Kumar alias Lovepreet alias Lovely, invoking Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal directed the immediate custody of the accused, noting that the police had already filed the charge sheet within the extended time granted. The arrest of the accused occurred on June 18, 2020, following an FIR by the Delhi police Special Cell on June 16, 2020, invoking various provisions of the UAPA.

During the investigation, it came to light that Gurtej Singh, an individual associated with the accused, had connections with Pakistan-based terrorists and was planning to undergo weapons training in Pakistan along with the respondent Rajkumar alias Lovely and others, as stated in the court’s order.

The bench emphasized the serious nature of the offense, involving terrorist activities with not only a nationwide impact but also repercussions on other enemy states, cautioning against treating the matter lightly.

Addressing an appeal by the Delhi government, the bench also highlighted Section 43 D(2)(b) of the UAPA, which allows an extension for investigation up to a maximum period of 180 days for specific reasons.

The Supreme Court criticized the Delhi High Court for overlooking its precedent in the case of ‘State of Maharashtra vs Surendra Pundlik Gadling and others’ (2019) regarding the extension of time for filing a charge sheet. Instead, the High Court relied on the judgment in the case of ‘Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs the State of Maharashtra and others’ (1994), related to provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.

The bench also pointed out an error in the High Court’s recording, stating that the sanction had already been obtained before the application for an extension of time was filed in November 2020. The Supreme Court clarified that the public prosecutor had indicated that while the sanction under section 45(1) of UAPA had been received from the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, the sanction under section 45(2) of UAPA was pending from GNCT Delhi, and the sanction under section 39 of the Arms Act was to be obtained after receiving results from the FSL.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s assertion that the extension application lacked a valid basis due to the already granted sanction was inaccurate.