Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Women's Reservation Bill] The Delhi High Court on Monday rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition that sought direction for implementation of the Women’s Reservation Act, 2023, before the upcoming 2024 general elections, which mandates a 33 percent reservation for women in the Lok Sabha. The division bench observed that the Parliament has already specified that the Act's provisions would be enforced after the delimitation exercise, and the courts are limited in their ability to intervene. The bench carefully examined the Act and conveyed that if the petitioner desires early implementation, she should challenge the specific provisions stating that the reservation will be implemented post-census and delimitation. “We cannot go behind Section 334A (the provision mandating implementation of the Act after delimitation). You will have to pray for its quashing. We cannot do anything. Parliament has specified when it will come into force… How can any court act contrary to that?" remarked the court.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna
Case Title: Ms. Yogamaya MG v. Union of India and Ors.
Click here to read more
2. [Haryana Civil Services Paper Leak Case] The Delhi High Court recently rejected the petition filed by a suspended judicial officer, Dr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma, challenging charges framed against him in connection with the alleged leak of the question paper in the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) preliminary examination, 2017. The court, while dismissing the petition, emphasized that the case involving the suspended judicial officer was "of a very sensitive nature," with evidence indicating his possession of the question paper immediately before the alleged leak. Balwinder Kumar Sharma, who served as the Registrar (Recruitment) at the Punjab and Haryana High Court during the incident, faced suspension soon after the allegations surfaced. The Delhi High Court, on December 14, noted that in cases involving digital or electronic evidence, the prosecution's case cannot be dismissed at the initial stage. The court, therefore, upheld the charges against Sharma.
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Case Title: Dr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma v. State of UT Chandigarh
3. [TradeMark Infringement] In a recent verdict, the Delhi High Court clarified that the mere use of trademarks in the Google Ads program does not constitute infringement or passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. A division bench cited their previous ruling in Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (P) Ltd & Ors, emphasizing that the utilization of trademarks as keywords by competitors, without causing confusion or deceit, does not inherently amount to infringing use. The bench rejected the argument that, in the virtual realm, the use of keywords could be equated to applying the trademark to the software powering the Google Ad Program. “The said contention is unmerited and insubstantial. The trademark is not applied to any material when it is used as a keyword. Neither Google nor the advertiser applies the trademark to any material. Neither of them do so to any material intended to be used for labelling or packaging of goods or as business paper. There is no application to any material for advertising goods or services,” ruled the court.
Bench: Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan
Case Title: Google LLC v MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited and Ors.
4. [Mahua Moitra] Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the Government of India's directive to vacate her government-allotted residence after her recent expulsion from the Lok Sabha. In her writ petition, Moitra emphasized that the legality of her expulsion as a Member of Parliament (MP) is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court of India. Moitra contests the validity of the December 11 order issued by the Directorate of Estates, seeking her eviction from the official residence effective January 1, 2024. She urges the Court to either quash the order or grant directions allowing her to stay until the results of the 2024 general elections are declared, pledging to pay any applicable charges for the extended stay.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Mahua Moitra v. Directorate of Estate & Anr.
5. [Expulsion From Lok Sabha] The Delhi High Court has adjourned Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra's plea challenging the Government of India's directive to vacate her government-allotted residence after her recent expulsion from the Lok Sabha for hearing on January 4, 2024. While adjourning the matter, the bench said, "The matter is pending before the Supreme Court. If it decides to accept the interim application and decides to stay, consequences will follow...Now if you're inviting this court to pass an order...it will directly be intrinching to the matter pending in the Supreme Court." "Therefore, in any event, The court opens on January 2, 2024. It is listed in SC on January 3. We'll take up on the 4th", the Judge added. Accordingly, the matter has been adjourned to January 4, 2024.
6. [Princely State Ownership Dispute] The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment, imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 on an individual who petitioned the court asserting ownership of lands encompassing Agra, Meerut, Aligarh, and 65 revenue estates in Delhi, Gurgaon, and Uttarakhand. The petitioner, Kunwar Mahender Dhwaj Prasad Singh, contended that he is the heir of Beswan Avibhajya Rajya, a princely state that, according to him, never amalgamated with the Union of India. Singh claimed that his family retains the status of a princely state, and the territories in question were never ceded to the Indian government. Singh sought court directions for the formal adoption of the merger process with the 'Sovereign State of Beswa Avibhajay Rajya of Beswan.' Additionally, he demanded the reimbursement of revenue collected for these lands since 1950. Among other reliefs, Singh requested the government to refrain from conducting elections in his territory until an official merger takes place. Court scrutinized Singh's submissions, highlighting that the petitioner presented only certain maps and articles that failed to establish the existence of the Beswan family or demonstrate Singh's right to succeed to the purported princely state.
Case Title: Kunwar Mahender Dhwaj Prasad Singh v Union of India
7. [Delhi Riots] The Delhi High Court has granted bail to two individuals, Arif and Anish Qureshi, and denied bail to Mohd. Mustaqeem in connection with the death of Rahul Solanki, an innocent bystander during the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. A single-judge bench made the rulings based on the available evidence and the circumstances of each accused.The court observed that the evidence against Arif and Anish Qureshi suggested, at best, their involvement in an unlawful assembly, with no indication that they were armed with dangerous weapons. Noting that the only additional allegation against Arif was breaking a CCTV camera, Justice Bansal stated that mere participation in an assembly does not imply knowledge or intent for murder.
Bench: Justice Amit Bansal,
Case Title: Arif v. State (another connected matter)
8. [Jacqueline Fernandaz] Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez has approached the Delhi High Court, seeking direction for quashing the FIR lodged against her in the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) Rs 200 crore money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar. The petition, scheduled for a hearing this week, also seeks to quash the second supplementary charge sheet filed by the ED in the case and related proceedings pending before a trial court. In her plea, Fernandez contends that the evidence presented by the ED would establish her as an innocent victim of Sukesh Chandrasekhar's targeted attack. She asserts that there is no indication of her involvement in aiding Chandrasekhar in laundering purportedly ill-gotten wealth. The petition argues against the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Bench: Justice Jyoti Singh
Case Title: Jacqueline Fernandez v. Directorate of Enforcement
9. [PIL Seeking Replacement Of Term ‘Central Govt’ With ‘Union Govt’ In All Official Communication] The Delhi High Court has rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition that sought directives for the uniform replacement of the term 'Central Government' with 'Union Government' across all laws, legislation, and official communications. A division bench made the decision, asserting that the terms Union of India, Union Government, or Central Government are commonly employed interchangeably, and there is no apparent issue with such usage. The court, emphasizing the insignificance of the matter, remarked, "It does not matter how you address them (government). We have far more important matters to deal with." It drew a parallel by mentioning that the Supreme Court of India is also interchangeably referred to as the Apex Court. "Please understand. We call the Supreme Court of India, the Supreme Court, and the Apex Court as well. This is not a case for a PIL. These terms are used interchangeably," the court clarified before dismissing the petition. It further stated that a detailed order outlining the decision will be issued.
Case Title: Atmaram Saraogi v. Union of India
10. [Transwoman's plea for re-issuance of passport] The Delhi High Court on Tuesday 'deferred' the hearing in a transgender woman’s plea seeking direction to the authorities to re-issue her passport with her revised particulars, including her new name and gender, since her appearance changed after undergoing sex reassignment surgery. The matter is scheduled for further consideration on April 24, 2024. Notably, in November, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) informed the Court that it needs more time to consider the suggestion for a policy that enables individuals who undergo sex change surgery outside India to get fresh passports without hassle. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said that it has suggested to the MEA that it come up with a policy to fast-track the process of passport issuance to individuals who undergo sex reassignment surgery abroad, as biometrics do not change after such medical procedures.
Case Title: Anahita Chaudhary v. Union of India & Anr.
11. [Kapil Dev] The Union of India informed the Delhi High Court that the amendment bill concerning animal cruelty laws has undergone public consultation and is currently under thorough examination. The Ministry of Law and Justice has received approximately 7,000 suggestions and 1,20,000 representations, indicating that the review process will require additional time. Acknowledging this, the bench has scheduled the matter for further consideration on March 13, 2024. The petitioners, namely Kapil Dev, his wife Romi Dev, and animal rights activist Anjali Gopalan, have moved the High Court through Advocates Shraddha Deshmukh, Nikhil Singhvi, Shikhar Kishore, Bilal Ikram, Parth Aggarwal, and Milind Raj Dixit. The plea has been filed on account of repeated instances of barbaric treatment meted out to animals, showing the “most brutal and cruel face of humanity” and the “utter effete” response of law and the law-enforcing agencies.
Case Title: Kapil Dev & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
12. [Cash For Query Row] The Delhi High Court has reserved its verdict in the defamation suit filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey and Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai. Moitra sought interim relief against allegations that she accepted bribes from businessman Darshan Hiranandani to pose questions in parliament. Court presiding over the case, inquired about any quid pro quo between Moitra and businessman Hiranandani. The court was addressing the defamation suit brought forth by Moitra against Dubey and Dehadrai. Dehadrai and Dubey alleged that Moitra exchanged questions in parliament for favors and expensive gifts after sharing her parliament account login credentials with Hiranandani. The Lok Sabha Ethics Committee recommended Moitra's removal from the lower house based on these claims, resulting in her expulsion from parliament on December 8.
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
Case Title: Mahua Moitra v. Nishikant Dubey and Ors.
13. [Public Prosecutor Recruitment] A Delhi High Court bench has directed the establishment of a monitoring committee comprised of government officials to periodically assess the need and recruitment of public prosecutors for trial courts in the national capital. The bench emphasized the crucial requirement of recruiting additional public prosecutors (PPs) due to concerns over the increasing backlog of cases in lower courts. Expressing alarm over the rising number of pending cases and attributing it to a shortage of PPs, the bench challenged the notion of a surplus, stating that officials making such claims had not visited the courts. It pointed out that trial courts faced delays as judicial officers had to wait for public prosecutors, who were "shared" between multiple courts. The court mandated that the monitoring committee include officials from various departments, including finance, law, and justice.
Case Title: Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association (Regd) v. Rajiv Mehrishi & Anr.
14. [Women Safety in DTC Bus] The Delhi High Court has sought clarifications from the Delhi government regarding the feasibility of enhancing safety measures for women on DTC (Delhi Transport Corporation) buses. The court proposed the installation of cameras on buses and alert buttons on driver and conductor seats to bolster women's safety. A bench directed a series of questions to the counsel representing the Delhi government during the hearing. The inquiries encompassed the presence of cameras on DTC buses, the installation of push-to-talk buttons on CCTV poles, the duration for which CCTV footage is retained, and whether any audits are conducted on the functioning of CCTVs in the national capital. This initiative stems from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated by the court in 2012, focusing on women's safety and security following the brutal gang-rape incident on December 16, 2012, where a 23-year-old woman succumbed to her injuries.
Bench: Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Union of India Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, and Anr.
15. [Release Of Seized End-Of-Life Vehicles] The Delhi High Court has directed the city government to provide an update within four weeks on the formulation and implementation of a policy for the release of seized end-of-life vehicles to their owners. Court expressed concern about the absence of a policy, stating that the court receives numerous petitions daily from aggrieved individuals and emphasizing that while the government aims to control pollution, citizens should not be unduly harassed. "This is troublesome. Don't harass the citizens. Every day I have five petitions (on such seizure and non-release of vehicles)," remarked Justice Singh. In response to a batch of petitions against the seizure of end-of-life vehicles for violating orders prohibiting the use of petrol and diesel vehicles over 15 years and 10 years old, respectively, the court, on August 22, directed their release.
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh
Case Title: Sushma Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
16. [PIL To Link Properties With Aadhaar] The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Centre and the Delhi Government to consider representation within three months in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to link movable and immovable property documents of all citizens with their Aadhaar number to curb corruption, black money generation, and 'benami' transactions. Accordingly, the bench, disposed of the PIL. The bench also said, "We will pass a deatiled order." In April, the then Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma had remarked orally.“It is a good matter; let replies come”. Notably, on September 14, 2022, Upadhyay sought time to implead the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Ministry of Rural Development, and Ministry of Law, Government of India as parties or respondents in the present case. The court had granted a week's time to do the same. The court had then granted four weeks to the Delhi government to file its detailed reply.
Bench: Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors.
17. [Rohini-Ashram] The Delhi High Court has ordered a woman residing in an ashram established by self-styled spiritual preacher Virender Dev Dixit to be present before the court. The woman's parents raised concerns, alleging that their "highly educated" daughter was being misled and affected by "overvalued ideas." The parents sought the court's intervention to facilitate an interaction with their daughter, who has been residing in Adhyatmik Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Rohini, without their consent. However, the court emphasized that the daughter is an adult with her own mind, and coercing her to meet her parents is not permissible. The petitioners' counsel requested the court to order a psychological analysis of the daughter based on a report from a committee led by the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Rohini, which examined the ashram's residents.
Case Title: Dumpala Meenavathi and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
18. [PMLA] The Delhi High Court has sought the reply of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez's plea seeking direction for quashing the FIR lodged against her in the ED's Rs 200 crore money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar. The bench sought the ED's response in the matter and scheduled it to be heard on January 29, 2024. The petition also seeks to quash the second supplementary charge sheet filed by the ED in the case and related proceedings pending before a trial court.
19. [Defamation Case] The Delhi High Court has directed Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat to respond to an appeal filed by former Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot against his summoning in a criminal defamation complaint. Court scheduled the matter for further hearing on January 22, 2024. Gehlot has contested a session court's order, which rejected his appeal against the summons in the complaint filed by Shekhawat. The session court had determined that the summons issued by an additional chief metropolitan magistrate was free from factual mistakes, illegality, or impropriety. In the defamation complaint, Shekhawat alleged that Gehlot publicly defamed him through press conferences, media reports, and social media posts by linking him to the Sanjivani scam in the state.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: Ashok Gehlot v. Gajendra Singh Shekhawat
20. [Cruelty] The Delhi High Court recently ruled that the decision not to observe the Karwa Chauth fast is an individual choice and does not constitute cruelty or justification for ending marital ties. A division bench highlighted that diverse religious beliefs and the omission of specific religious practices do not automatically amount to cruelty. "Fasting or not fasting on Karwa Chauth may be an individual choice and, if dispassionately considered, may not be termed an act of cruelty. Having different religious beliefs and not performing certain religious duties, perse would not amount to cruelty or would not be sufficient to sever a marital tie,” it observed. The court's decision came as part of a divorce case where the family court had granted the husband a divorce on the grounds of cruelty. Despite the acceptance of the non-observance of Karwa Chauth as an individual choice, the court upheld the divorce, emphasizing the wife's overall lack of respect for the marital bond.
Bench: Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: Beena Nautiyal v. Kamal Kishore Nautiyal
21. [Over-Invoicing By Adani And Essar Power Companies] The Delhi High Court has issued directions to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to thoroughly and promptly investigate allegations of over-invoicing by power companies affiliated with the Adani Group, Essar Group, and others. The order was delivered by a division bench in response to public interest litigation (PIL) petitions filed by activist Harsh Mander and the NGOs Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Common Cause. "In the peculiar facts of these cases, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to meticulously and expeditiously look into the allegations of the petitioners to unearth the actual factual position and take appropriate actions against the erring companies, if any, as per law," it said. Court instructed the authorities to delve into the allegations and uncover the factual position, emphasizing that appropriate actions should be taken against any companies found to be at fault.
Case Title: Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
22. [Plea Over Disclosure Of Rape Victim's Information] Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has informed the Delhi High Court that he will delete a social media post in which the identity of a 9-year-old Dalit girl, allegedly raped and killed at a crematorium in 2021, was revealed. This came after the court indicated it might order the removal of the post to protect the victim's identity. Rahul Gandhi's counsel provided an undertaking before a division bench expressing the intent to take down the post on X (formerly known as Twitter). The court emphasized the importance of protecting the victim's identity and urged Gandhi to remove the post voluntarily.
Case Title: Makarand Suresh Mhadlekar vs. Rahul Gandhi and Ors.
23. [Pickpockets Remark] The Delhi High Court has instructed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to initiate appropriate action against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi within eight weeks for referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and businessman Gautam Adani as "pickpockets" during a public speech. The direction came in response to a plea filed by lawyer Bharat Nagar, seeking action against Gandhi for various public comments. The bench was informed that the ECI had issued a notice to Gandhi regarding the matter but had received no response. The court commented on the poor taste of Gandhi's remarks and urged the ECI to take suitable action in compliance with the law within the stipulated eight weeks. While the court refused to order the registration of a criminal case against Gandhi or establish strict guidelines for election speeches, it acknowledged that such speeches may be in "poor taste" but emphasized that aggrieved parties, namely PM Modi, Amit Shah, and Gautam Adani, should take appropriate action.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna,
Case Title: Bharat Nagar v. Union of India and Ors.
24. [Parliament Security Breach] The Delhi High Court has stayed the trial court order directing the Delhi Police to supply a copy of the FIR to accused Neelam Azad in the Parliament security breach case. While staying the trial court order, the bench issued notice to the accused and scheduled the matter for hearing on January 4, 2024. During the hearing, the counsel for the Delhi Police submitted that, as per law and the directions passed by the Supreme Court, in sensitive cases, the accused has to first approach the Commissioner of Police, which constitutes a three-member committee to examine whether the FIR is to be supplied or not. "If the committee decides the FIR cannot be provided, only then can the accused approach the court," he added. The matter was mentioned for urgent hearing this morning before a bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna by the counsel for the police.
Case Title: State v. Neelam Azad
Please Login or Register
