Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Saumya Vishwanathan Murder] The Delhi High Court on Monday last week suspended the life sentences of four individuals convicted for the murder of journalist Soumya Vishwanathan in 2008. The court granted bail to the convicts, Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar, and Baljeet Malik, citing their nearly 14 years and 9 months of imprisonment. The bench has suspended the sentences of the four men till the pendency of their appeals challenging their conviction and sentence. Last month, the court had asked the Delhi Police to respond to appeals filed by four convicts in the case of the murder of journalist Soumya Vishwanathan, challenging their conviction and life sentence. While issuing notice to the police on the appeals by Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljit Singh Malik, and Ajay Kumar. The court had also asked the authorities to file a reply to the convicts' interim application seeking suspension of their sentence. The bench had directed the jail authorities to send the nominal roll of the applicants.
Bench: Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Girish Kathpalia
Case Title: Ravi Kapoor v. The State (NCT of Delhi) along with connected matters
Click here to read more
2. [Truecaller] The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed against the mobile application Truecaller, which provides users with the identity of callers from unknown numbers. A division bench remarked that services like providing names and emails of phone numbers are a facility, citing the precedent of telephone directories publishing names and phone numbers of individuals. The court was hearing a plea filed by Ajay Shukla, alleging privacy violations by Truecaller for disclosing information related to third parties without their consent. Shukla's counsel argued that Truecaller accesses users' phonebooks and discloses addresses, emails, and other details of individuals who haven't consented to its terms and conditions. The counsel also highlighted reputational damage caused by the application, as contact numbers can be marked as 'spam'.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Case Title: Ajay Shukla v. Union of India & Ors
3. [Health Infrastructure] The Delhi High Court has taken a significant step towards addressing the glaring deficiencies in the city's health infrastructure by constituting an expert committee tasked with evaluating and proposing improvements to medical facilities in hospitals operated by both the Central and Delhi governments, as well as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. A division bench issued a comprehensive order acknowledging the severe inadequacies in Delhi's government hospitals, ranging from shortages of medicines, machines, and manpower to the dire lack of critical healthcare facilities. Observing the scarcity of essential medical resources across 19 Delhi government hospitals, which serve a population exceeding three crore, the Court stressed the urgent need for substantial investments and structural reforms in hospital management.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Union of India & Ors.
4. [PFI] The Delhi High Court has re-notified the plea filed by Popular Front of India (PFI) challenging the order of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) tribunal, which upheld the five-year ban imposed on the organization by the Central government for hearing to April 4. The bench issued the order. During the hearing, Advocate Adit Pujari appeared for the PFI and urged the bench to issue notice to the Centre. However, counsel appearing for Centre apprised the court that she is being led by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma. Taking note of the submissions, the bench did not issue notice. On the last hearing, the court directed the organization's counsel to clarify the scope of the petition, emphasizing that the court cannot function as an appellate authority in the matter.
Case Title: Popular Front of India v. Union of India
5. [Khalid Saifi] The Delhi High Court has deferred hearing the bail plea of Khalid Saifi, an accused in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) linked to the 2020 Delhi riots. As the division bench did not assemble, the matter was adjourned to February 29. On February 6, the bench expressed concerns regarding the protracted arguments presented by the prosecution in the bail plea hearing of Khalid Saifi. It also expressed its dissatisfaction with the seemingly endless arguments put forth by the prosecution. Emphasizing that the court is tasked with adjudicating bail pleas and not appeals against convictions or acquittals, the bench underscored the necessity for succinct arguments.
Bench: Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain
Case Title: Abdul Khalid Saifi @ Khalid v. State
6. [JKLF Terrorist Yasin Malik] The Delhi High Court was assured by the Central government that it would ensure all necessary medical treatment for Jailed Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) terrorist Yasin Malik whenever required. Advocate Rajat Nair, representing the Union government, conveyed this commitment, which was duly recorded by the court. "The respondent (Union of India) submits that they are duty-bound to provide necessary medical treatment to the petitioner (Malik) as and when required in accordance with the law," the court ordered. Consequently, the high court disposed of Malik's petition, wherein he sought directions to be transferred to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) for cardiac and kidney ailment treatment.
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Case Title: Mohammad Yasin Malik v. Union of India & Ors.
7. [Sampling and Testing of Food] The Delhi High Court has directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to devise a comprehensive plan for sampling and testing all food products across the national capital. A division bench emphasized that the FSSAI, as the apex authority on food safety, must draft a tailored plan specifically for Delhi to conduct a thorough food safety audit. "This court directs FSSAI to prepare a plan for sampling and testing of all food products in Delhi. Let a plan be placed on record. We will get it implemented by the Delhi government," the bench ordered. The court's directive stems from a suo motu case initiated in 2010, triggered by reports of pesticide misuse in vegetable cultivation, potentially leading to severe health issues.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. UOI Through Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture
8. [Divorce] The Delhi High Court has recently granted a divorce to a man, citing cruelty inflicted upon him by his wife, who was allegedly under the undue influence of her parents, hindering the establishment of a marital bond. The bench observed that there was substantial evidence indicating "unwarranted interference" by the wife's parents and family members in the couple's married life, causing significant distress to the husband. "From the evidence of the parties, it is evident that there was an unwarranted interference of the parents and the family members of the respondent in the matrimonial life of the appellant, as has been asserted by him," the court noted. The decision came in response to the husband's appeal against a previous family court verdict that had denied him a divorce. The High Court also noted that the parties had been living separately for approximately 13 years, during which time the husband faced deprivation of conjugal relations and endured various complaints filed against him, which constituted acts of cruelty.
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: Nikhil Wadhwan v. Priti Wadhawan
9. [Deer Park] The Delhi High Court has intervened in the matter concerning the fate of the spotted deer population in the capital's 'Deer Park'. The division bench issued directives to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to conduct a comprehensive census of the deer inhabiting the park. The court's intervention came in response to a petition challenging the decision of the Central Zoo Authority (CZA) to revoke the recognition of the facility as a "mini zoo." Noting the concerns raised about the overpopulation of deer within the park, the bench suggested the possibility of relocating some of the animals to other green spaces in Delhi to alleviate the burden on the existing facility. During the proceedings, the bench emphasized the importance of maintaining such facilities for the benefit of the city's residents, particularly children who have the opportunity to observe and learn about wildlife. Expressing concern over the potential loss of this educational resource, the bench urged authorities not to hastily dismantle the facility.
Case Title: New Delhi Nature Society v. Director Horticulture DDA and Ors.
10. [Axis Bank-Max Life Deal] Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy has initiated a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Delhi High Court, alleging a colossal scam of nearly Rs. 5,100 crore involving Axis Bank. The PIL asserts that Axis Bank made "undue gains" through transactions in shares of Max Life Insurance. The petition has been filed through Advocates Satya Sabharwal and Tanya Arora. According to the plea, there were blatant fraudulent activities observed in Max Life Insurance and Max Financial Services, allowing Axis Bank Limited and its affiliated entities, Axis Securities Limited and Axis Capital Limited, to reap "undue profits/gains" from the purchase and sale of Max Life's equity shares in a non-transparent manner. Swamy contends that these transactions violated the mandatory directives of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI). Swamy argues that the magnitude of the alleged scam warrants a thorough investigation by a committee of experts. The PIL was heard by a division bench.
Case Title: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India & Ors.
11. [NewsClick] The Delhi High Court has issued notice in NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha's plea seeking direction to quash the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) FIR against him. He was arrested in a case lodged under the UAPA following allegations that the news portal had received money for pro-China propaganda. While issuing notice in the plea, the bench scheduled the matter for further hearing on July 10, 2024. Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan appeared for Purkayastha, and Special Public Prosecutor Zoheb Hossain, along with Akhand Pratap Singh, appeared for the State. SPP Hossain opposed issuance of notice for two reasons: one, that the offences as stated in the FIR were made out, and another, that there had been a subsequent development in which one of the co-accused (Amit Chakraborty) had become an approver.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: Prabir Purkayastha v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.
12. [DCPCR] The Delhi High Court criticized the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) for what it deemed as irresponsible behavior in filing a petition against the alleged cessation of funding by Lieutenant Governor (LG) VK Saxena, citing a purported press release. The court expressed dissatisfaction with DCPCR's response to the LG's assertion that there was no order to withhold funding. Justice Prasad deemed the petitioner's reliance on a non-existent press release as "wishy-washy" and emphasized the need for greater responsibility when levying accusations against a constitutional authority. The court criticized DCPCR for its lack of seriousness, stating, "You are relying on a press release that is non-existent. You filed a writ petition on the basis of a press release that is non-existent." It stressed the importance of maintaining the integrity of constitutional offices and warned against undermining the stature of the LG's office. "From where did you get the press release, which is not in the public domain? What is the basis of this petition?”, the court inquired.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Delhi Commissioner for Protection of Child Rights and Anr. v. Lieutenant Governor
13. [Coaching Centre] The Delhi High Court has mandated that coaching centres accommodating more than 20 students relocate from residential areas to commercial premises to ensure student safety and compliance with fire safety regulations. A division bench responding to a petition filed by the Coaching Federation of India, expressed grave concerns over the safety risks posed to students attending coaching centres situated in residential buildings lacking essential safety infrastructure, such as two staircases. During the hearing, the bench emphasized the necessity for coaching centres with sizable student populations to operate from commercial buildings rather than residential ones. “There must be hundreds of students attending your classes. You should not be in a residential building. Move to a commercial building," the bench orally remarked. The court underscored the imperative of safeguarding the lives of students, asserting that coaching centres should not compromise on safety standards.
Case Title: Coaching Federation of India v. DDA & Anr.
14. [Teachers Sexually Harassing Students] The Delhi High Court has voiced serious apprehensions regarding the alarming rise in cases of sexual harassment perpetrated by teachers and professors against their students. The Court underscored the gravity of such offenses, describing them as a severe abuse of power. The court emphasized the sacred duty entrusted to teachers in nurturing young minds and imparting knowledge, stressing that this authority should not be misused. Justice Singh lamented the betrayal of trust inherent in acts of sexual harassment by educators, particularly considering the expectation of parents that their children will be safe under the care of teachers. "Teachers are gifted with the power to impart wisdom and shape the minds of children who are the future, and it is imperative that such power is not misused. As a society, it is important to understand that parents of such students send their children away from their homes in the hope that their children would be in a safe and conducive environment under the guidance of their teachers, however, the act of sexual harassment by teachers has witnessed a widespread occurrence, which is a serious offence and abuse of a position of power," he said.
Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Case Title: Dr Amit Kumar v. Bharati College
15. [Mosquito Breeding] The Delhi High Court has directed the Central government to promptly consider the proposal forwarded by the Delhi government to elevate fines from Rs. 500 to Rs. 5,000 for activities contributing to mosquito breeding, emphasizing the urgency of tackling the mosquito menace in the capital. A division bench also directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to furnish a comprehensive status report within three weeks, detailing the prevalence of dengue cases across all 12 zones of Delhi. The court scheduled the matter for further hearing on March 19, 2024. The order was issued during the hearing of two suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) petitions addressing the issue of mosquito-borne diseases in the city. Amicus Curiae Rajat Aneja apprised the court of a recent report submitted by the MCD, revealing a staggering 300% surge in dengue cases in certain zones of Delhi over the past three months. Aneja highlighted the Court's longstanding oversight of the matter and expressed concern over the persistent rise in cases despite ongoing monitoring efforts.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Please Login or Register
