Inadequate Explanation Under Section 313 CrPC Cannot Be Foundation For Conviction If Prosecution Fails To Prove Case: Allahabad High Court No-Confidence Motion In Housing Societies Fails If 2/3 Majority Not Met; Fractions In Voting Threshold Cannot Be Rounded Down: Bombay High Court Successor Rent Controller Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Act As Appellate Court Under Review Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Restores Eviction Order Article 21 Overrides PMLA Section 45 Rigors In Cases Of Unduly Long Incarceration Without Trial: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To SSC Scam ‘Middleman’ Unregistered Family Partition Deed Recording Past Oral Arrangement Doesn't Require Compulsory Registration: Gujarat High Court Private Banks Acting As Authorised Dealers Under FEMA Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction; Can Refuse Transactions For 'Sanctions-Related' Concerns: Gauhati High Court Non-Examination Of Investigating Officer Not Fatal To Prosecution Case If Eyewitness Testimony Is Credible & Trustworthy: Jharkhand High Court Mere Denial Of Signature Insufficient When Execution Is Proved Through Endorsements: Karnataka High Court Restores Specific Performance Decree Sectarianism Claims Can't Discredit Reliable Testimony Of Child Sexual Abuse Victim: Kerala High Court Upholds Madrassa Teacher's Conviction State Must Prove Specific 'Public Interest' To Exempt Projects From Social Impact Assessment Under Section 10A Land Acquisition Act: Telangana High Court Or 2 Rule 2 CPC |Failure To Seek Specific Performance In Earlier Injunction Suit Bars Subsequent Claim; Readiness & Willingness Must Be Continuous: Madras High Court Exoneration In Departmental Proceedings Does Not Result In Automatic Discharge In Criminal Case: Orissa High Court History Sheet Can Be Opened On 'Reasonable Belief' Even Without Conviction, But Must Be Reviewed After 7 Years Of Good Conduct: Rajasthan High Court

“Supreme Court Revives Writ Petition on Detention and Medical Care, Emphasizes Distinct Issues”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India revived a writ petition that had been withdrawn by the petitioner before the Delhi High Court. The case, titled “SABERA KHATOON v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.,” brought attention to the petitioner’s concerns about the procedure followed in her detention and the availability of medical facilities. The Supreme Court’s bench, comprising HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA, emphasized the differentiated issues raised by the petitioner and set aside the High Court’s withdrawal order.

The Supreme Court’s observation highlighted the petitioner’s stance that her case was distinct from the one referenced in her withdrawal application. The petitioner invoked Articles 14, 19(1)(e), and 21 of the Constitution of India. Notably, the Supreme Court acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns regarding the procedure of her detention and the medical care provided to her, indicating the importance of addressing such issues individually.

The court directed that the petitioner receive essential medical treatment based on the advice of the G B Pant Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. The judgment underscored the need to consider differentiated aspects of the case and provided the petitioner the liberty to seek interim directions before the Delhi High Court.

This decision reiterates the significance of distinguishing between distinct issues, ensuring proper medical care, and allowing due legal recourse. The court’s action serves as a reminder that individual concerns must be addressed within the framework of justice and constitutional rights.

Date of Decision: 21-08-2023

SABERA KHATOON vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                   

 

Latest Legal News