The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL petition asking for doctors to provide written information on medication side effects, stating that the duty to inform patients lies with drug manufacturers and pharmacists. The court rejected the argument that doctors should also provide this information, deeming the PIL unnecessary. The petitioner’s claim was not seen as disputing the adequacy of the existing framework.
The Allahabad High Court invalidated a subsection mandating the registration of agricultural land wills in Uttar Pradesh, stating that unregistered wills are still valid. The court ruled that the subsection contradicted central legislation, making it void. This decision affects wills created before August 23, 2004, reassuring their validity without registration.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of a female employee denied maternity leave by the Airport Authority of India due to having two children. The court emphasized the naturalness of motherhood and the need for employers to show understanding and provide necessary support. The AAI’s denial was invalidated, and the employee was granted maternity leave benefits.
The Delhi High Court rejected the parole application of Feroz Ahmed Bhatt, a convicted terrorist associated with Jaish-e-Mohammed, due to security concerns and the gravity of his offense. Despite his desire to meet his parents and get married, the court arranged a video call instead. The court cited the risks associated with his release and a previous case where a co-accused rejoined a terrorist organization after being released on parole.
The Bombay High Court overturned a Customs decision to confiscate body massagers labeled as adult sex toys, citing lack of evidence and emphasizing their common use. The Court rejected the Customs Commissioner’s claim, stressing that potential alternative use does not justify prohibition. This decision clarifies the classification of such items as non-prohibited for import.
On March 6th: The Orissa High Court ruled in favor of a housewife in a disproportionate assets case, stating that assets in her name did not make her the principal accused. The court emphasized the dependence of an unemployed wife on her husband’s earnings and shifted the burden of proving the source of income for assets in her name to the husband.