A case was lodged against Nitin Dhaberao under sections 363, 376, 376(2)(n), 376(3) along with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4,6 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act on the basis of the complaint by minor girl’s father.

While hearing the case, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court observed that the duo had a love affair and the alleged sexual relationship appeared to be out of love, and was not due to lust.

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke held that the girl stated she had voluntarily stepped out of her house and the accused was also of a “tender age of 26 years and out of love affair, they came together.”

“It seems that the alleged incident of sexual relationship is out of attraction between the two young people, and it is not the case that the applicant has subjected the victim to a sexual assault out of lust,” the court stated.

The girl’s father alleged in his complaint that his 13-year-old daughter had stepped out of the house on August 23, 2020 on the pretext of bringing books, but did not return.

After the father reported a missing complaint, police traced the girl.

The minor girl told police that Nitin and she had a romantic relationship, and he promised to get married to her. She also informed cops that she took ornaments and cash from her house and went with Nitin, and they stayed together at different places.

“As far as merit is concerned, admittedly, the victim is 13 years of age, and her consent is not relevant. She also joined the company of the applicant (accused) and admitted her love relationship with the applicant in her statement,” Justice Joshi-Phalke noted while granting bail to Nitin.

“Her (minor’s) statement reveals that she stayed along with the present applicant at various places and did not make any grievance. Thus, it is apparent that, out of the love affair, she joined the company of the applicant,” the court stated.

The two-judge bench of Chief Justice Subhasis Talapatra and Justice Savitri Ratho reserved judgment after hearing the submissions of senior advocate Buddhadev Routray on behalf of the temple managing committee and senior advocate Pitambar Acharya representing the petitioner.

Acharya submitted that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), in an affidavit, had stated that inspection of the interior of Ratna Bhandar has not been possible for over five years for want of permission from Shree Jagannath Temple Administration (SJTA). Though the ASI had sought permission for it in a letter dated August 8, 2022, to the chief administrator of SJTA, it is still not given, he added.

Routray pointed out that a resolution for opening the inner chamber of the Ratna Bhandar for inspection and repair work and inventory of ornaments, jewellery, and other valuables during Rath Yatra next year, was passed by the managing committee in a meeting held on August 4, 2023.

A division bench of Justices G Narendar and Vijaykumar A Patil made the observation while hearing an appeal by X Corp (formerly Twitter) challenging the single judge order of June 30 which had dismissed its plea to the takedown orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY), PTI reported.

Between February 2, 2021, and February 28, 2022, MeiTY had under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, issued 10 Government Orders directing it to block 1,474 accounts, 175 Tweets, 256 URLs and one hashtag. Twitter challenged the orders related to 39 of these URLs.

“Ban social media. I will tell you a lot of good will come. Today’s school going children are so addicted to it. I think there should be an age limit such as in Excise rules,” Justice G Narendar noted.

The court further observed that “children may be 17 or 18. But do they have the maturity to judge what is or is not in the interest of the nation? Not only on social media, even on the Internet things should be removed, it corrupts the mind. Government should consider bringing in an age limit for the use of social media.”

The court had also imposed a cost of Rs 50 lakh on X Corp. X Corp’s counsel argued that MeiTY had not informed the users about blocking their tweets and accounts and even the company was forbidden from informing them.

The high court asked the government “You do not release the order. He is not permitted to reveal the order. How is he going to defend himself?”

The high court suggested that the government may have to tweak the rules a bit as it is at the government’s discretion that X Corp is blocking the accounts of users and the company cannot be left high and dry.

However, the high court said that “When it comes to national security, everybody has to be on the same page.” When the counsel for the company argued that it had informed which order of MeiTY it can comply with and which it could not, the bench said X Corp cannot be the judge.

The court said the X Corp “cannot be given the right to judge the content. If the content says ‘Apple a day keeps the doctor away’, you will interpret that as being against the doctor and the interest of the nation?”

The hearing of the case was adjourned to Wednesday when the high court will decide on the interim relief sought by X Corp. The hearing of the appeal will be heard after that, the court said, PTI reported.

Terming it as ‘evasive’ and ‘short’, the bench of Chief Justice Subhasis Talapatra and Justice Savitri Ratho said that it attempted to impart lessons on the basics of Orissa Fire Prevention and Safety act instead of complying with the direction issued by the court on August 14.

The state government was asked to file a detailed affidavit along with a comprehensive plan with the date by which the required fire safety measures will be put in place at SCBMCH. “Instead of filing a comprehensive affidavit dealing with the two important aspects, a very short affidavit has been filed giving a brief outline about what are required under Rule 13 (1) and 14 (2) of Odisha Fire Prevention & Fire Safety Act 2017,” the bench observed on Monday.

“We are really constrained to observe that we did not ask for the lesson of the rules. We wanted build-up of the appropriate fire safety measures in the SCBMCH supported by a well-coordinated network of CCTV cameras,” it added while hearing a PIL filed by Maitree Sansad, a local socio-cultural organisation, alleging inadequate fire safety measures at the premier hospital.

The state has been granted time till September 26 to file a comprehensive affidavit and the matter listed for September 29.

The division bench of Justices BR Sarangi and MS Raman issued the interim stay on the basis of a petition filed by the chief administrator of SJTA challenging the NGT order passed on October 14, 2022. “As an interim measure, it is directed that the order dated 14 October 2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone, Kolkata shall remain stayed till 4 October 2023,” the bench said on Monday.

The court has also issued notice to the Khurda collector, member secretary of Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB), member secretary of State Environment Impact Assessment Authority and Bidu Bhusan Harichandan, the petitioner, and posted the matter to October 4, 2023.

The NGT’s east zone bench had issued the direction while hearing a petition filed by Harichandan over alleged illegal stone mining in nearly 500 acres of the temple land under Nijigarh Tapang panchayat in Khurda district. He had alleged that these areas were basically cashew jungle, gramya jungle (village forest) and gochar land (common land). No environmental clearance or consent to operate was obtained from the respective authorities while mining activities were taken up after clearing trees, the petition added.

Besides directing SJTA to deposit Rs 12 crore, the bench had asked the Khurda collector to constitute a committee for the purpose of restoration and renovation of the excavated areas in 23 quarries as per plan, and complete the entire work within four months.

The committee, constituted by NGT with OSPCB as the nodal agency, had confirmed illegal quarrying. The fine amount was the cost of renovation, reclamation and restitution of the 23 quarries, identified by SJTA after discussion with OSPCB as sites where no mining operation will be undertaken.

According the committee report, only 27 of the 72 quarries in Puri Jagannath Temple land had obtained environmental clearance, consent to establish (CTE) and consent to operate (CTO). While 24 quarries do not have CTE, 37 have not obtained CTO, it added.

The temple administration, however, contended that Odisha Minor Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 is not covered under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Therefore, any order passed by the rights panel on the basis of the OMMC Rules is in violation of the Act itself.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner had said that as per provisions contained in Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule-1. But, Schedule-1 does not cover Odisha Minor Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957.

The single judge bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy invalidated the criminal proceedings pending against Swain in Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) court, Angul, as cognisance of the alleged offence was taken after the statutory period of two years. “Since cognisance of offence after the statutory period is otherwise an abuse of process of court and to secure the ends of justice, the impugned order taking cognisance of offence together with the criminal proceeding being unsustainable, is required to be quashed,” the court observed on Monday.

While the Athagarh MLA along with his supporters had obstructed the movement of trains on August 3, 2016, opposing construction of barrage over the Mahanadi in his constituency by Chhattisgarh government, Railway police registered a case against him under Section 174 (a) of the Railway Act, 1989, on July 9, 2019.

While Dhenkanal police initiated criminal proceedings before the court of JMFC, Sundargarh, which took cognisance of the offence, the case was later transferred to JMFC, Angul, after it was notified to try cases relating to MPs and MLAs for offences connected to Dhenkanal and some other districts.

In 2021, Swain moved the HC, which observed that the JMFC, Sundargarh, simply took cognisance of offence and issued process against the accused petitioner ignoring his valuable right which cannot be rectified.

“What is happening in Gujarat High Court?” the Supreme Court bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said after it was informed of an order by the High Court on Saturday.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the Gujarat government, said Saturday’s order was passed only to fix a “clerical error”. “There was a clerical error in the previous order and that was fixed on Saturday. It was a misunderstanding,” he said, adding, “We as the state government will request the judge to recall the order,” NDTV reported.

The Supreme Court on Saturday flagged the delay by the high court in deciding the rape survivor’s petition, saying “valuable time” has been lost. The bench of Justice Nagarathna and Justice Bhuyan then said they would hear the matter today. The Supreme Court criticised the “lackadaisical attitude” of the High Court and issued notices to the Gujarat government and others, seeking their responses to the woman’s plea.

The counsel for the 25-year-old’s victim told the Supreme Court that she approached the court on August 7 and the matter was heard the next day. The High Court on August 8 directed that a medical board be formed to look into the status of the petitioner’s pregnancy and her health condition.

In its report, the medical college ruled that the pregnancy can be terminated. The Supreme Court noted that the report was taken on record by the High Court on August 11 but “strangely”, the matter was listed 12 days later, “losing sight of the fact that every day’s delay was crucial and of great significance having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case”.

“In such cases, there must be, not undue urgency, but at least a sense of urgency in such matters and not a lackadaisical attitude of treating it as any normal case and just adjourning it. We are sorry to say and make this remark,” the bench orally said.

A division bench of Chief Justice Subhasis Talapatra and Justice Savitri Ratho disposed of the PIL filed by R R Sahu seeking the court’s directive to disqualify Moquim as MLA following his conviction in a rural housing loan scam.

Noting that PIL cannot be used as a weapon, the HC held that there is a special division bench to hear matters relating to MLAs and MPs and the petitioner can move the same bench.

The PIL also sought the court’s intervention for expeditious disposal of the criminal appeal in which the conviction of Moquim in the loan scam which was stayed in an interim order on October 19, 2022. It was stated that the criminal appeal has since been pending without further hearing for over nine months now.

The petition also urged the court to declare that criminal appeals arising out of convictions of MLAs and MPs being a continuation of a trial be disposed of within a period of six months.

The Special Vigilance Court, Bhubaneswar had sentenced Moquim to three years imprisonment after convicting him along with former IAS officer and MD of Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation (ORHDC) Vinod Kumar and two others in connection with the loan scam on September 29 last year.

Moquim had filed the criminal appeal challenging the propriety of the trial court’s order on the ground that it was incurably defective and suffered from gross infirmities on October 1, 2022.