Read Time: 01 hours
1. [7 Suspended BJP MLAs] Seven Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLAs, out of a total of eight in the Delhi Assembly, who were suspended for disrupting the Lieutenant Governor's address last week, have moved the Delhi High Court challenging the decision. The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before a division bench. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for the MLAs, contended that they had not been allowed to participate in the assembly proceedings on Friday, Saturday, and now today, Monday. "It is our constitutional right to participate. The motion is unconstitutional; we can demonstrate it is contrary to the rules of the house. The very highest I can be sent for 3 days, and today is the third day," he added. Taking note of the submissions, the bench allowed the matter to be listed for hearing.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Mahawar & Ors. v. Legislative Assembly of the NCT of Delhi & Anr. (connected matters)
Click here to read more
2. [JMM President Shibu Soren] Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) President Shibu Soren has moved the Delhi High Court challenging a single-judge bench order refusing to interfere in Lokpal proceedings initiated against him in a disproportionate asset case. The matter came up for hearing today before a division bench. The bench adjourned the matter for hearing tomorrow, i.e., February 20, as Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal was busy with another matter at the Supreme Court. During the hearing, the court was informed that the matter is coming up for hearing before the Lokpal tomorrow. Notably, in January, Justice Subramonium Prasad refused to interfere in the Lokpal proceedings, and remarked orally, "The plea is premature at this stage."
Bench: Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain
Case Title: Shibu Soren v. Lokpal of India & Anr.
3. [PIL challenging Manual Scavenging] The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Central government on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the constitutional validity of laws permitting manual scavenging and cleaning of sewers and septic tanks.The division bench ordered the government to respond to the plea within eight weeks and scheduled further consideration of the case for July 4. The PIL, filed by one Kallu, a sewer/septic tank cleaner whose brother died while cleaning sewage, challenges various sections of the Manual Scavenging Act, 2013, and associated rules. Kallu's petition seeks rehabilitation for workers and their families engaged in sewage/septic cleaning, alleging that existing provisions still allow manual scavenging and perpetuate untouchability, violating constitutional provisions. Advocate Pawan Reley, representing Kallu, argued that the Act and Rules fail to fully prohibit manual scavenging and create artificial classifications, depriving workers of benefits.
Case Title: Kallu v. Union of India & Anr.
4. [Right to Adopt Children: Not a Fundamental Right] In a recent verdict, the Delhi High Court upheld alterations to Adoption Rules under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, clarifying that the right to adopt children is not a fundamental right. The bench ruled on a case concerning regulations barring parents with two children from adopting a ‘normal child.’ The court endorsed the Steering Committee of the Central Adoption Resource Authority's (CARA) decision to apply the new policy even to pending adoption applications, aiming to prioritize children with special needs for adoption. Emphasizing a balanced approach to address the disparity between available adoptable children and prospective adoptive parents (PAPs), Justice Prasad stated, "A balanced approach therefore ought to be welcomed which attempts to reduce the wait for parents with a single child or devoid of even that, in anticipation of adoption and the interests of the child while being matched with a family with lesser number of already existing biological children."
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Debarati Nandee v. Ms. Tripti Gurha & Anr. (Connected matters)
5. [Lokpal Proceedings] The Delhi High Court 'dismissed' Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) President Shibu Soren's plea challenging a single-judge bench order refusing to interfere in Lokpal proceedings initiated against him in a disproportionate asset case. The division bench said, "We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order, holding that the writ petition filed by the appellant was premature. The appeal being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed with all accompanying applications." The court was hearing an appeal filed by Soren against the single-judge's order refusing to interfere in Lokpal proceedings initiated against him in a disproportionate asset case. The bench noted that, based on specific allegations levelled by respondent no. 2 (complainant), it is evident to us that the complaint pertains not only to the purchase of properties, which the appellant claims were purchased more than 7 years ago, but also to ongoing incidents of amassing wealth by misuse of power by the appellant.
Bench: Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar
6. [SC/ST Atrocities Cases] The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that bail cannot be granted in cases registered under the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, without affording an opportunity for the victim or complainant to be heard. Court, in an order issued on February 14, emphasized that granting bail without serving notice to the complainant is subject to cancellation. Highlighting the mandatory nature of compliance with sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A of the SC & ST Act, the court asserted that any bail granted in contravention thereof is susceptible to being set aside solely on that ground. "Compliance with sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A of the SC & ST Act is mandatory in nature, and the bail granted in contravention thereof is liable to be set aside only on that ground," it said. Court's ruling stemmed from a petition filed by the victim challenging a trial court's decision to grant bail to an accused facing charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including rape, criminal intimidation, and disrobing a woman in public. Additionally, Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act were invoked against the accused.
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla
Case Title: X v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.
7. [Educational Institutions] The Delhi High Court has underscored that educational institutions should not serve as platforms for propagating party politics, emphasizing the importance of discipline among students. The bench articulated that while students have the right to engage in political activities, it should not disrupt the normal functioning of educational campuses. The judge asserted that the primary function of educational institutions is to educate future leaders, and any political engagement should not compromise this core objective. The court's remarks came while addressing a case involving the suspension of a Ph.D. student at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) for allegedly manhandling a security guard. The judge expressed concern over several instances where disciplinary actions against students were overturned due to procedural lapses by college administrations.
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case Title: Swati Singh v. JNU
8. [Plea for Women's representation in SCBA] The Delhi High Court recused himself on Wednesday from hearing a petition urging the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to reserve at least two positions in its Executive Committee for women lawyers. During the hearing, Justice Prasad cited his past membership with the SCBA as a reason for his recusal from the case. The matter has been scheduled for a hearing before another bench on February 26. The plea, filed by advocate Yogamaya MG, highlighted her attempt to initiate discussions on amending SCBA rules to ensure gender representation. Despite her written requests to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the SCBA President, seeking a general body meeting for this purpose, no response was received. Advocate Yogamaya now seeks the High Court's intervention to compel the SCBA to convene a meeting and address the issue.
Case Title: Ms. Yogamaya MG v. Supreme Court Bar Association
9. [FEMA Case] The Delhi High Court has 'reserved order' in Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra's plea seeking direction to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to desist from divulging sensitive and unverified information to the media regarding the agency's investigation into her alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Maintenance Act, 1999 (FEMA). The bench said, "Heard you. Orders Tomorrow". During the hearing, Senior advocate Rebecca John appeared for Moitra. The senior advocate for Moitra submitted, "I was summoned for the first time by the summons dated Feb 14, 2024. It was received at a Calcutta residence that is unoccupied by me. The news article begins to say even before the summons reached me." The judge said, "It is news, is it not? You're a personality, you're a public person. In any case, it's only a factual assertion." He also inquired, "How does the press know that your matter is coming up in the High Court?"
Case Title: Mahua Moitra v. ED & Ors.
10. [PMLA] The Delhi High Court has stayed an order of a single judge bench that mandated the return of seized property if an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) exceeds 365 days without resulting in a prosecution complaint. A division bench granted the stay following an appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The stay will be effective until March 11, 2024, the date set for the next hearing on the matter. Notably, on January 31, the single-judge bench of Justice Navin Chawla ruled that if the investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) extends beyond 365 days without resulting in a prosecution complaint, the seizure of the property must be deemed lapsed, and it should be returned to the individual from whom it was confiscated.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement & Anr v. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal
11. [Delhi Assembly Budget Session] Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for the 7 BJP MLAs suspended from the Delhi Assembly Budget Session, informed the Delhi High Court on Thursday that they met the Speaker yesterday. "Except to say that by 1 o'clock today, I must give a response to the privileges committee, and at 2:30 pm today, the committee will proceed," he submitted. The bench asked the privileges committee of the Delhi assembly to hold off its proceedings against seven BJP MLAs who have been suspended indefinitely for interrupting Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena’s address at the start of the Budget session. Justice Prasad said since the court is hearing the matter on merit, the committee should not continue with the proceedings. “Since I have started hearing today, the privileges committee should not continue. All further proceedings must be kept in abeyance,” he said orally to the senior counsel appearing for the assembly. The court, which began hearing the petitions on merit on Thursday, said their suspension was resulting in their constituencies going unrepresented in the House. “He is a representative of the people in the assembly. There is a constituency that is going unrepresented,” Justice Prasad remarked.
12. [BharatPe Co-founder dispute] The Delhi High Court has disposed of an appeal filed by BharatPe co-founder Shashvat Nakrani against a previous order denying his request to restrain the firm's former Managing Director, Ashneer Grover, from selling or transferring shares Nakrani had sold to him. A division bench comprising opted not to overturn the single-judge's decision but expedited the trial proceedings for Nakrani's case. Both parties' counsel presented arguments before reaching an agreement that the appeal could be resolved by directing an expedited trial. Consequently, the bench instructed the single-judge to frame the issues in the matter by February 28, with the appointment of a local commissioner for evidence recording, to be completed within eight weeks. Furthermore, both sides were directed to submit affidavits of evidence based on the issues framed by the single-judge. "After evidence recording, the single-judge is directed to promptly proceed with the final arguments," the court said. The bench clarified that all legal questions remain open for further consideration.
Bench: Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal
Case Title: Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover
13. [Defamatory Morphed Images] The Delhi High Court recently issued an interim order directing multiple media outlets, including Facebook, Google, YouTube, and unidentified entities, to remove news reports and media links containing allegedly defamatory and morphed images of a female Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA from Bihar. In an order pronounced on February 20, the court also prohibited several news platforms from publishing the contentious images, which depicted the legislator in what was described as "close proximity" with a former political associate with whom she is currently at odds. The MLA asserted that the images had been manipulated. Justice Jalan clarified that, while the order did not restrict news platforms from reporting on the viral controversy surrounding the images or the ensuing legal proceedings, such reports should refrain from casting doubt on the authenticity of the images. Additionally, equal weight must be given to the MLA's claim that the images were doctored. "The order will also not come in the way of publication of any images if the concerned publisher has verified the veracity of the images and seeks to take the defence of justification in respect of the images in question," it said.
Bench: Justice Prateek Jalan
Case Title: R.V v. Navbharat Times & Ors.
14. [Shab E-Barat celebration] The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the Managing Committee of Delhi Waqf Board, seeking permission for locals to celebrate Shab e-barat on the land where the 600-year-old Akhoondji/Akhunji mosque, graveyard, and madrassa once stood.The DDA reportedly razed the mosque and Behrul Uloom madrasa in Mehrauli on January 30, claiming the mosque's construction occurred during the Delhi sultanate period. The Managing Committee sought approval for locals to access the property from 30 minutes before sunset on Sunday, February 25, to 30 minutes after sunrise on Monday, February 26. However, the court rejected the plea, citing that the court was currently seized with the main writ petition scheduled for March 7. The Court declined to issue any directions at this stage, considering the present circumstances.
Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Case Title: Managing Committee of Delhi Waqf Board v. The Government of NCT (GNCT) Delhi & Ors.
15. [Mahua Moitra] The Delhi High Court has dismised Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra's plea seeking direction to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to desist from divulging sensitive and unverified information to the media regarding the agency's investigation into her alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Maintenance Act, 1999 (FEMA). Notably, the court on Thursday had 'reserved order' in Moitra's plea. During the hearing, Senior advocate Rebecca John appeared for Moitra. The senior advocate for Moitra had submitted, "I was summoned for the first time by the summons dated Feb 14, 2024. It was received at a Calcutta residence that is unoccupied by me. The news article begins to say, Even before the summons reached me." The judge had said, "It is news, is it not? You're a personality, you're a public person. In any case, it's only a factual assertion." He had also inquired, "How does the press know that your matter is coming up in the High Court?"
Please Login or Register
