Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India revived a writ petition that had been withdrawn by the petitioner before the Delhi High Court.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