Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Plea to Travel to Yemen to negotiate Blood money] The Delhi High Court has initiated urgent hearing and sought a response from the Central government on a plea filed by the mother of a Kerala woman, currently on death row in Yemen, for the murder of a Yemeni national. The petitioner is seeking facilitation of her travel to Yemen to negotiate with the victim's family for the payment of blood money, a form of compensation in cases of murder. The judge issued notice to the central government to respond to the petition. The government's counsel requested time to gather instructions on the matter, expressing concerns about the risks involved in the woman's mother visiting Yemen.
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Case Title: Prema Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.
Click here to read more
2. [Forced Exposure And Detention] The Delhi High Court has sought the response of the police on a petition filed by a 'purdahnashin' (veiled) Muslim woman, seeking an impartial investigation and action against police personnel who allegedly forcibly took her to a police station without her veil and subjected her to degrading treatment. The petitioner, in her plea, alleged that on the night of November 5–6, around 3 AM, police officials forcibly entered her house, conducted an illegal search, paraded her without her purdah or veil to the police station, and detained her for 13 hours, violating the law. The bench issued notice to the city police commissioner on the woman’s petition, which also seeks a directive to sensitize police personnel about the religious and social customs observed by women who wear 'purdah' for religious or personal reasons.
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Case Title: Reshma v. The Commissioner of Police
3. [All India Muslim Mahapanchayat] A plea moved by Mission Save Constitution, an organization seeking permission to hold an ‘All India Muslim Mahapanchayat’ at the Ramlila Maidan, was closed by the Delhi High Court on Friday, last week, after the police said that they had granted permission for the event on December 18, subject to certain conditions for safe and smooth conduct. Disposing of the plea by Mission Save Constitution following the submission by Delhi Police, the court said that no other department would raise any objection to the event or to the availability of the venue on the designated date.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Mission Save Constitution v. Union of India & Ors.
4. [POCSO Act] The Delhi High Court, while upholding the conviction in a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) case, has expressed deep concern over the impact such incidents have on the lives of victims. The court observed that these incidents not only deprive females of educational opportunities but also result in a lifetime of psychological trauma. The case involved an appeal filed by a man convicted under Sections 363, 376(2)(n)(i) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The court in a single-bench ruling, remarked on the profound impact on the minor victims' minds, emphasizing their vulnerability at the tender ages of 12 or 14. The court noted that the victims are often misled into thinking they are entering a marital union, with the assaulters projecting the sexual assault as a marital physical union to coerce the victims. The consequences extend beyond individual victims, causing societal ripples by pulling these girls away from their peers, studies, and lawful guardianship.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: Mohd. Taslim Ali v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi
5. [AI and Deepfake technology] The Delhi High Court has sought the Centre’s response on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) addressing the crucial issue of artificial intelligence (AI) and deepfake technologies' non-regulation in India. A division bench acknowledged the complexity of the matter, emphasizing that the government might be better positioned to address and resolve the intricacies involved in regulating these technologies. "This technology is now available in the borderless world. How do you control the net? I can't police it that much. After all, the freedom of the net will be lost. So there are very important balancing factors involved in this. You have to arrive at a solution that balances all the interests. It is only the government, with all its resources, that can do it. They have the data, they have the wide machinery, and they have to make a decision about it. It is a very, very complicated issue. It's not a simple issue," observed Acting Chief Justice Manmohan.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna
Case Title: Chaitanya Rohilla v. Union of India
6. [Woman's Plea to Travel to Yemen] In a plea filed by the mother of a Kerala woman currently on death row in Yemen for the murder of a Yemeni national, the counsel appearing for the Center informed the Delhi High Court on Monday last week that India has no diplomatic ties with Yemen. At the outset, Advocate Pawan Narang, appearing for the Center, submitted, "Today, they (mother and 10-year-old child) want to go there to negotiate blood money; we don't want this to be converted into a ransom demand situation. We have no Indian presence there. They can't even contact an Indian person. The embassy over there is closed, except for 1 or 2 local clerical people sitting there just to collect letters and send them to Djibouti, where our embassy is...Our connection is with South Yemen only. This issue is in North Yemen". Counsel for the petitioner apprised the court that there are a few families who have stayed there and are currently in India who have a valid visa and are willing to help the woman. He contended that these people are also willing to accompany the family to negotiate the blood money. The bench directed the counsel for the petitioner to file an affidavit of the said persons who stay in Yemen, have come to India to visit their families, and are willing to accompany the petitioner's family.
7. [PIL challenging utilization of civil servants and defense personnel for the promotion of government initiatives] The Delhi High Court suggested that there might be no apparent wrongdoing in the government's promotion of its schemes through the engagement of civil servants and defense personnel. The court expressed a prima facie favorable stance towards the Ministry of Defence's directive to establish selfie points at various defense institutions and sainik schools, aiming to showcase the achievements of the Ministry. Addressing concerns raised in a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the utilization of civil servants and defense personnel for the promotion of government initiatives, the court specifically considered two government orders.
Case Title: Eas Sarma & Anr. v. Union of India
8. [Sukesh Chandrashekhar] The Delhi High Court posted a plea by conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar, seeking directions to quash the FIR (ECIR) along with a prosecution complaint filed against him in a money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the 2017 Election Commission bribery case for hearing on December 6. Chandrasekhar was alleged to have taken money from former AIADMK leader TTV Dhinakaran in order to secure for the VK Sasikala faction the party's 'two leaves' symbol for contesting a by-poll in Tamil Nadu. The matter came up for hearing before the bench which posted the case for hearing on December 6, 2023. Justice Sharma transferred it to the bench dealing with cases involving legislators. The matter will now be heard by the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on the next date.
Bench: Justice Amit Sharma
Case Title: Sukash Chandrashekhar @ Sukesh v. Directorate of Enforcement
9. [Anti-Tobacco Warning] The Delhi High Court took a stern stance, reprimanding a lawyer who had filed a petition against the display of anti-tobacco warning messages during movies and TV shows. The bench directed the lawyer to submit an affidavit of regret within two days. The court explicitly instructed the lawyer to express regret for the petition, stating, "He must give an affidavit of regret for what has happened, and then we will expunge these observations. Absolute regret is needed in this matter, nothing less than that." The court, hearing the lawyer's appeal against observations made by a single judge who had previously dismissed the petition, affirmed complete agreement with the single judge, deeming the petition utterly misconceived. "This man needs a course correction. What the learned single judge has said, it is absolutely correct. The petition should have never been filed," remarked Justice Manmohan.
Case Title: Divyam Aggarwal V. Union Of India & Anr
10. [Terror Funding Case] The Delhi High Court has directed the Jail Superintendent of Tihar Jail to produce Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) terrorist Yasin Malik from jail through video conferencing in a plea filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) seeking the death penalty for him. Malik has been sentenced to life imprisonment in connection with a terror funding case. A division bench then posted the matter for further hearing on February 14, 2024. In August, the court directed the JKLF terrorist, who is presently serving a life term in the case, to be produced before it through video conferencing mode from Tihar Jail instead of physical appearance pursuant to the production warrant issued earlier this year.
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur
Case Title: State (National Investigation Agency) v. Mohd. Yasin Malik
11. [Defamation case] The Delhi High Court has re-notified the defamation suit filed by TMC MP Mahua Moitra against two defendants—BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai—to December 11. The bench noted that the formal application under Section 6(17) CPC was not moved along with the amended suit. Directing Moitra's lawyer to file the proper application to amend the suit, the court posted the matter for hearing on December 11. It is to be noted that on October 31, Moitra sought to delete, as parties, several media houses from her plea. The court had directed Moitra's counsel to amend the memo of parties.
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
Case Title: Mahua Moitra v. Nishikant Dubey and Ors.
12. [DV Act] In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court emphasized that the purpose of maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) is to uplift victims rather than imprison those failing to pay maintenance. The court made this observation while determining that individuals cannot be summoned under Section 31 of the DV Act for non-compliance with maintenance orders issued under Section 20 of the Act. The bench explained that Section 31 of the DV Act specifically addresses breaches of "protection orders," which differ from the "monetary" relief provided for maintenance under Section 20. The court firmly asserted that a person cannot be summoned by a criminal court under Section 31 for non-compliance with monetary orders, such as those for payment of maintenance.
Case Title: X v. Y
13. [Ban on Dangerous Dog Breeds] The central government has assured the Delhi High Court that it would swiftly deliberate on the demand for a ban on licenses for breeds of dogs deemed dangerous. Following this assurance, the bench disposed of a petition advocating for a prohibition on such breeds. The petition, filed by The Legal Attorneys & Barristers Law Firm, identified dangerous breeds, including Pitbull, Terrier, American Bulldog, Rottweiler, Japanese Tosa, Bandog, Neapolitan Mastiff, Wolf Dog, Boerboel, Presa Canario, Fila Brasileiro, Tosa Inu, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, and crossbreeds involving these dogs. The counsel representing the Union of India informed the court that a decision would be made expeditiously, preferably within three months, following consultations with all stakeholders.
Case Title: The Legal Attorneys and Barristers Law Firm v. Union of India & Ors.
14. [Need for Additional Public Prosecutors] The Delhi High Court highlighted the pressing requirement for recruiting more public prosecutors for trial courts in the national capital. The court expressed concern over the "consistent shortfall" in their numbers, leading to an overwhelming workload for the existing prosecutors across multiple courts. Justice Manmohan pointed out the serious challenges arising from the scarcity of public prosecutors, noting instances where judges remain unproductive as prosecutors shuttle between different courtrooms for varied legal proceedings. The court disagreed with the Delhi government's assertion of a surplus in the number of prosecutors and urged government counsel to visit trial courts to witness the daily struggles. "This is a serious problem. We need an adequate number of prosecutors," emphasized the bench.
Case Title: Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association (Regd) v. Rajiv Mehrishi & Anr.
15. [EWS Quota] In a significant move, the Delhi High Court has ordered the Delhi government to reconsider the income threshold for availing reservations under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota in private schools. Court urged the government to align the threshold with existing living standards, suggesting an increase from Rs. 1 lakh per annum to an amount reflective of contemporary economic conditions. Until the assessment is conducted, the court mandated an interim increase to Rs. 5 lakhs, noting that several states have already set the limit at Rs. 8 lakhs. Justice Kaurav expressed concern that the current Rs.1 lakh threshold does not accurately represent the economic challenges faced by families in modern times. The court observed that this situation compels common people to resort to unfair means to secure admission for their children, emphasizing the need for a dynamic adjustment to economic structures.
Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Case Title: Master Singham v. Directorate of Education & Anr.
16. [Asola Bhatti Sanctuary] The Delhi High Court restrained the forest department from organizing the 'Walk with Wildlife' event within the Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary situated in the southern ridge. The event, which included a walkathon scheduled for December 9 and 10, faced scrutiny in court following concerns raised by the amici curiae appointed in a case related to Ridge conservation and encroachment removal. The bench which had reserved judgment on the matter earlier this week, announced the restraining order, stating, "The respondents are restrained from conducting the proposed event till further orders." "In view of the above and for the aforesaid reasons, the respondents are restrained from conducting the proposed event, i.e., the Cyclothon and Walkathon, till further orders," the court added.
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh
Case Title: Devinder v. The Lt. Governor & Ors.
17. [Kidnapping Case] The Delhi High Court firmly stated that cases involving the kidnapping or trafficking of children are grave offences that cannot be compromised or quashed based on settlements between the perpetrators and the child's parents. Court, therefore, dismissed a plea seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the accused involved in the kidnapping of a minor girl. The court expressed concern over the settlement reached between the kidnappers and the child's parents, describing it as "concerning" and highlighting the ethical and legal issues associated with such arrangements. While acknowledging the parents' decision to reach a settlement, the court emphasized that offences like kidnapping and trafficking of children have far-reaching consequences for society and the well-being of the child. The judgment stated, "This Court...cannot condone a practice that treats a minor girl as a tradable commodity."
Bench: Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma
Case Title: Smt. Rubina & Ors v The State (Govt of NCT Of Delhi) & Ors
18. [BBC Documentary on PM Modi] While hearing Delhi University's plea against an order setting aside the debarring of NSUI Secretary Lokesh Chugh for a year for his alleged involvement in screening on the campus a controversial BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots, the Delhi High Court on Thursday last week directed DU to place on record the video footage of the incident. A division bench scheduled the matter for further consideration on May 9, 2024. On July 14, the court issued notice to Lokesh Chugh, a Ph.D. scholar and national secretary of Congress' student wing, on the appeal filed by the varsity against the order passed by a single-judge bench of the high court.
Case Title: University of Delhi v. Lokesh Chugh
19. [Shashi Tharoor] The Delhi High Court has given Congress Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor the last chance to submit his arguments in a plea challenging the defamation proceedings initiated against him following a complaint by a BJP leader regarding his alleged ''scorpion on Shivling'' remark targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Court adjourned the matter until March 15, 2024, accommodating the request of Tharoor's counsel and instructing the lawyer to file written submissions. The court clarified that if the matter is not argued on the next hearing date, the petition will be decided based on the written submissions. On October 16, 2020, the high court stayed the criminal proceedings against Tharoor on the defamation complaint, issuing notice and seeking the response of complainant Rajiv Babbar on Tharoor's plea challenging the summons from the trial court.
Case Title: Dr. Shashi Tharoor v. State & Anr.
20. [Data of Sexual Assault Cases] The Delhi High Court has directed the state government to provide detailed information on the number and trial stage of sexual assault cases involving both minors and adults. Court instructed authorities to specify the location, facilities, manpower, and roles of personnel in One Stop Centers (OSCs)—facilities established to support women affected by violence. OSCs play a crucial role in providing assistance to victims within families, communities, and workplaces. The court directed the Delhi government to submit a fresh affidavit outlining the actual status of complaints received, conversion into FIRs under the Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and the progress of cases, differentiating between adults and children.
Bench: Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Girish Kathpalia
Case Title: Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors.
21. [RTE Act in LL.B. Curriculum] The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) in response to an application seeking incorporation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) as a mandatory subject in LL.B. courses. The bench scheduled the hearing for January 24, 2024, after the BCI allegedly failed to respond to previous representations. The application originated from an earlier Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the organization Social Jurist through Advocates Ashok Agarwal and Kumar Utkarsh. The PIL, filed earlier this year, was disposed of in March 2023 when the BCI assured the court that it would examine the representation.
Case Title: Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Bar Council of India & Ors.
22. [Verification of Doctors' Educational Certificates] The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a time-bound verification of the educational certificates of all doctors in the national capital. The division bench sought responses from the Union government, the Delhi government, the Delhi Medical Council (DMC), and the National Medical Commission. The case has been listed for further hearing on January 24, 2024. The PIL alleged an unchecked rise in medical quackery in Delhi, citing instances such as the recent exposure of a fake doctor scam at a nursing home. During the hearing, the Court emphasized the significance of the issues raised in the PIL. It urged the DMC to proactively address instances of medical quackery without waiting for complaints, expressing concern over the lack of ground-level supervision.
Case Title: Master Devarsh Minor, through his mother & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
23. [PFI challenges Ban imposed on It] The Popular Front of India (PFI) has approached the Delhi High Court to contest the order of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) tribunal, which upheld the five-year ban imposed on the organization by the Central government. The bench directed the organization's counsel to clarify the scope of the petition, emphasizing that the court cannot function as an appellate authority in this matter. The court, asserting its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, highlighted its limited role, focusing on aspects such as natural justice and decision-making. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma objected to certain grounds in the petition, calling for the "sanitization" of pleadings and cautioning against using the platform for "ramble-rousing." Sharma expressed concerns over the petition, characterizing the ban as an "abuse of process," "disgraceful," and "tyrannical."
Case Title: Popular Front of India v. Union of India
Please Login or Register
