In this roundup of court judgements, we look at Constitutional Courts’ remarks & directions on queerphobic MBBS content, investigations under UAPA, principles of natural justice, misuse of public funds, and an election bribery case. Kerala HC: Directs medical education board to look into queerphobic MBBS course content In the case Queerythm & Anr. Vs. National Medical Commission & Ors, the Kerala high court directed the Undergraduate Medical Education Board to act on a representation made by two NGOs representing the queer community seeking the removal of discriminatory and inhuman references about the LGBTQIA community in MBBS textbooks. The plea was filed by two NGOs named “Queerythm” and “Dhisha”. They primarily challenged the curriculum and contents of the medical textbooks. The writ petition was filed to expose the discriminatory remarks and inhuman references used in the medical textbooks prescribed for Medical Courses in India which stereotypes the Queer community’s sexual or gender identities as an offence, mental disorder, or perversion. Such references are made in the textbooks even though the queer community’s rights are recognized by the Supreme Court of India and decriminalized homosexual sex between consenting adults. The research wing of the petitioner organizations made detailed research among the medical textbooks prescribed for studies and references under the Kerala University of Health Sciences. They found that many textbooks under the university were perpetuating queerphobia, providing unscientific data and contains inhuman, derogatory remarks against the transgender community and sexual minorities. The Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly orally remarked that this was a “serious issue” and directed the ‘Undergraduate Medical Education Board’ to take immediate action on the petition. Before doing so, the ‘Undergraduate Medical Education Board’ was also directed to obtain the remarks and views of the Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur. Such exercise shall be done within 8 weeks. In an earlier order regarding the rights of LGBTQIA+ persons, the Madras High Court had also called for the revamp of the MBBS curriculum to avoid stereotypical references about the LGBTQIA community. Supreme Court: Magistrates cannot extend the time to complete investigation in UAPA cases In the Sadique & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Supreme Court held that magistrates would not be competent to extend the time to complete investigations in Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) cases. The only competent authority to consider such request would be “the Court” as specified in Section 43-D (2)(b) of the UAPA. The appellants were arrested on in December 2013, under Sections 307, 34, 467, 468, 481 and 120-B of IPC, Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, Sections 3,10,13,15,18, 19,20,23,38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. On 20 March 2014, while dealing with an application moved on behalf of the Investigating Machinery under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA, an appropriate extension was granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bhopal. On completion of 90 days of their actual custody, applications on behalf of appellants were moved under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail on the ground that no charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Agency within 90 days. The High Court by its judgment (which is presently under challenge) rejected the prayer. It was observed by the High Court that since the CJM, Bhopal had passed an appropriate order on 20 March 2014, the period available for the Investigating Machinery to complete the investigation stood extended to 180 days. After considering various provisions of the relevant statutes, the Supreme Court concluded that “so far as all offences under the UAPA are concerned, the Magistrate’s jurisdiction to extend time under the first proviso in Section 43-D (2)(b) is non- existent”. Consequently, the only competent authority to consider such request would be “the Court” as specified in the proviso in Section 43-D (2)(b) of the UAPA. In view of the above, the apex court accepted the plea raised by the appellants and held them entitled to the relief of default bail. The apex court directed that appellants are to be produced before the concerned Trial Court within three days and shall be released on bail subject to such conditions as the Trial Court may deem appropriate to impose to ensure their presence and participation in the pending trial. Allahabad HC: Quashed order canceling retailer’s license for selling beef, hurting sentiments In the case Ikrar Husain Vs. State of U.P.