Cart is empty 
In a troubling case in Gujarat, a man who had been granted bail in 2020 remained behind bars for an additional three years. The reason? The prison authorities claimed they were unable to open an email attachment containing his bail order sent by the High Court registry. As a result, the Gujarat High Court has ordered the state to compensate the individual with ₹1 lakh.
The man in question, Chandanji Thakor, aged 27, had originally been serving a life sentence for a murder conviction. His sentence was suspended on September 29, 2020, with this information communicated to the prison authorities via email from the High Court registry. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the email went unnoticed by the jail authorities, and Thakor’s release order remained unimplemented.
According to the prison authorities, they were unable to take the necessary action because they couldn’t open the attachment in the received email. Additionally, the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) did not inform the jail authorities about the suspension of Thakor’s sentence.
Recognizing the gravity of the situation and the negligence on the part of the jail authorities, the Gujarat High Court ruled that the state must pay Thakor ₹1 lakh in compensation. The court stressed that this case serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need for improved coordination and communication between legal entities and prison officials.
The court went further by directing all District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) to compile data on prisoners who have been granted bail but may still be incarcerated due to various reasons, such as a lack of surety or non-execution of jail bonds. These authorities are tasked with investigating the reasons behind the continued detention of such individuals.
This ruling underscores the critical importance of ensuring that individuals who have been granted bail are released promptly and without undue delay. In Thakor’s case, the failure to open a simple email attachment had a profound impact on his life, resulting in an extended period of incarceration despite being eligible for release on bail.
This case highlights the pressing need for effective procedures to prevent such oversights in the criminal justice system, especially when it comes to implementing court orders for the release of individuals who have been granted bail. It also serves as a poignant reminder of the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted routine operations and communications, leading to unfortunate situations like Thakor’s prolonged imprisonment.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that a wife selling property in her name without her husband’s permission is not considered cruelty. The court overturned a divorce decree granted to the husband in 2014, citing cruelty and desertion. The judges noted that both spouses were educated, and the wife’s decision to sell property in her name without seeking her husband’s approval did not constitute cruelty. The court emphasized that a wife has the right to make decisions about her property without needing her husband’s permission. The ruling aimed to promote gender equality and rejected notions of male dominance in society. The court also dismissed claims of desertion and upheld the sanctity of the marriage.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi emphasized the significance of a robust, independent judiciary in India during an International Lawyers Conference hosted by the Bar Council of India. He highlighted that India’s judiciary has consistently upheld the rule of law and played a critical role in the nation’s development. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud praised the Supreme Court for making judgments available in regional languages. PM Modi expressed his commitment to presenting laws in both legal and layperson language to enhance accessibility and understanding. He also acknowledged the pivotal role lawyers played in India’s struggle for independence and hoped the conference would raise awareness of legal rights.
The Delhi High Court has said that people have the right to choose their life partners, and this choice shouldn’t be controlled by religion or beliefs. The right to marry is an important part of personal freedom. It’s not the government, society, or parents who can decide whom you marry, especially when it involves two consenting adults.