HIV bias

In spite of passing the physical and written tests, the petitioner (an armed reserved police constable) was denied appointment as a stipendiary cadet trainee for the post of sub-inspector because he was found to be HIV positive. Rule 70 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual disentitles HIV positive people from appointments in the establishment. Declaring the rule as unconstitutional, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that no person could be denied employment solely because he or she was HIV positive. It further said such persons should not be condemned to ‘economic death’ if they are proved fit to work (Mr X Inhabitant of India, Vizianagaram, vs Chairman State Level Police Recruitment Board).

Minor issue

With respect to a case concerning the rape of a minor, the Supreme Court held that for determining the victim’s age, the evidence given by the parents had greater value than that provided by medical tests. While ossification tests suggested that the victim was aged between 18 and 19 years, the parents deposed that she was 16 years old (a minor). The court relied on their evidence, which was corroborated by birth registers of the municipality and the hospital (Vishnu, alias Undrya, vs State of Maharashtra ).

Death by drowning

The victim’s father filed a writ petition for enhanced compensation as his son drowned in a canal while escaping from the police after an altercation over a traffic violation. He was the sole earning member of his family. While the Single Bench held that the quantum could only be decided by the civil court, the Division Bench held that the writ court could also do so if the case involved the violation of fundamental rights and negligence of duty by public functionaries. It further said the police should have ensured his safety. The compensation was raised from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 4 lakh (K. Kabali vs State of Tamil Nadu ).

SOLON