Read Time: 28 minutes
1. [Defamation Case] YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh last week assured the Delhi High Court that he would take down the tweets that he posted against Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. A vacation bench was hearing a suit filed by the Dera Sacha Sauda Chief seeking an interim stay on the streaming of a video and the deletion of a video on YouTube that was uploaded by Singh. The video on YouTube is titled “How Gurmeet Ram Rahim Fooled His Bhakts?” The counsel for the plaintiff said that a legal notice was sent by his client on December 21 to YouTube and Shyam Meera Singh, who uploaded the alleged video. He submitted that the video was “clearly derogatory, disparaging, and denigrating.”. “He (Shyam Meera Singh) is a habitual offender... After we put him to notice, he puts out a comment on Twitter (now known as X) saying, ‘I’m not going to delete these videos’. Totally defiant. He has also been accused by the UP administration of insulting the Chief Minister. An FIR came to be registered at the instance of a UP resident,” the counsel said.
Bench: Justice Manoj Jain
Case Title: Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan Shishyeva Gaddinashin Shah Satnam Singh ji Maharaj v. YouTube LLC and Anr.
Click here to read more
2. [Trademark Dispute] The Delhi High Court has recently emphasized that an order of injunction in a trademark infringement suit against a registered trademark can only be granted if the court is convinced of the invalidity of the defendant's registration. The court observed so while dealing with an application filed by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) seeking to injunct Girdhar Industries from using its registered marks. The bench held that the Trade Marks Act treats the registration of a trademark as prima facie evidence of its validity. The single judge bench outlined a stringent standard for plaintiffs to contest infringement, stating that the pleadings must not only allege the invalidity of the defendant's registration but also present convincing grounds prima facie to satisfy the court.
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case Title: Khadi & Village Industries Commission v. Girdhar Industries & Anr.
3. [Parliament Security Breach] The Delhi High Court has 'dismissed' a plea by Neelam Azad, the accused woman arrested in the December 13 Parliament security breach case, who alleged that her police remand was illegal as she was not allowed to consult a legal practitioner of her choice to defend her during the trial court proceedings. At the outset, the counsel for the Delhi Police opposed the plea on maintainability. "The prayer is not maintainable, whereas this issue is already pending before the trial court," he added. Counsel for Neelam Azad submitted, "We are challenging the remand order. I was not allowed to talk to my lawyer. They restrained me from talking to the lawyer. It is an admitted fact; its in the status report." A division bench said, "For the relief sought in the present petition, the petitioner has already moved an application before the trial court...Petition is not maintainable and dismissed accordingly".
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain
Case Title: Neelam Azad v. State of (NCT of Delhi)
4. [Remarks Against Justice S. Murlidhar] The Delhi High Court has closed proceedings in the suo-motu criminal contempt case initiated against Dr. Anand Ranganathan and others in 2018 in connection with relief provided by Justice S. Muralidhar to UAPA-accused Gautam Navlakha. The court noted that S Gurumurthy, Vivek Agnihotri, and the publication Drishtikone, which levelled allegations against Justice Muralidhar, have already been "discharged" in the case after they tendered unconditional apologies. The bench said, "It is not in dispute that S. Gurumurthy (now Respondent No. 2) supported the articles published by Respondent No. 3, and thereafter the other respondents 13 (Anand Ranganathan) and 14 (Editor of Swarajya Magazine) also supported the right to speech of the said contemnor."
Bench: Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain
Case Title: Court in its Own Motion v. S. Gurumurthy
5. [FIR in cases of Sexual Assault] The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the FIRs in cases involving sexual assault and rape committed upon minors are not mere printed papers but a trauma writ large experienced by a living human being, which is difficult to be portrayed on a piece of paper. The bench said that courts must remain sensitive to the emotional and psychological state of such victims, as they may struggle to provide precise details of the incident due to trauma. The court observed so while setting aside a trial court order rejecting a minor victim's plea for preservation of CCTV footage and the call data record of the accused on the ground of discrepancy in her statements with respect to the date of the alleged incident. Justice Sharma said that in cases of sexual assault of minor victims, such as the present one, the extreme stressful situation and life-turning experience faced by a victim should not be dealt with in a “mechanical manner” by the courts.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: Jaspreet Kaur v. State of NCT of Delhi
6. [Cruelty] The Delhi High Court has recently held that the deprivation of conjugal relationships is an act of extreme cruelty. The bench said, “It needs no reiteration that the bedrock of any matrimonial relationship is cohabitation and conjugal relationships. For a couple to be deprived of each other’s company proves that the marriage cannot survive, and such deprivation of conjugal relationships is an act of extreme cruelty.” While granting a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) to the husband, the court held that a relationship that has come to an end only brings suffering and distress, and to allow the same would constitute mental cruelty. "The marriage ties which keep lingered on account of protracted litigation only brings more cruelty and acrimony," it said.
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: Prem Kumar v. Kalpana Kumar
7. [Passwords of Electronic Devices] The Delhi High Court has recently emphasized that an accused cannot be coerced to reveal or disclose the password(s) of their electronic devices and online accounts when trial is ongoing. Citing protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right against self-incrimination, the bench made this observation while granting bail to an accused in a case involving allegations that E-Sampark Softech and its directors orchestrated a $20 million scam by placing fraudulent calls to US citizens from call centers based in India. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had opposed the bail plea, contending that the accused, a director of the company, was a key figure in the scam and had refused to provide passwords for his devices, email, and crypto wallet accounts. The single-judge bench highlighted that the case primarily revolved around electronic evidence seized by the investigating agency, including laptops, mobile phones, and sophisticated gadgets, emphasizing their secure status. It acknowledged the expectation for the accused to cooperate in the investigation but stressed that constitutional protections cannot be compromised.
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Case Title: Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
8. [Mahua Moitra] The Delhi High Court last week asked expelled Lok Sabha member and TMC leader Mahua Moitra to approach the Directorate of Estates for permission to continue occupation of the government-allotted accommodation. Court noted that the rules permitted the authorities to permit the overstay of a resident for a certain time period in exceptional circumstances. "Move a representation before the Directorate of Estates, and their action will be taken in accordance with the law," the judge said. Consequently, the court allowed Moitra to withdraw the present petition while observing that the law mandated providing notice to a resident before her eviction from a premises. "Needless to say that the government will take steps to evict the petitioner in accordance with the law," the court added.
Bench: Justice Subramoniun Prasad
Case Title: Mahua Moitra v. Directorate of Estate & Anr.
9. [Dating App] The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man accused of rape under the pretext of marriage involving a woman he had met on the dating app "Hinge". The bench emphasized that the exchanges between the accused and the complainant did not reveal any marriage proposals, highlighting the "consensual nature" of their relationship. The court observed that the complainant and the accused initially connected on the dating app "Hinge" rather than a matrimonial platform. Numerous WhatsApp messages were exchanged between them, and the court noted that none of these messages indicated any promise or proposal of marriage by the petitioner. During the examination-in-chief, the complainant disclosed that despite discovering the accused's false educational qualifications, she continued to stay with him at an Airbnb for four days, engaging in repeated consensual sexual encounters.
Bench: Justice Vikas Mahajan
Case Title: Anil Nirwan v. State of NCT of Delhi
10. [Sanjay Singh] AAP MP Sanjay Singh has moved the Delhi High Court seeking bail in connection with a money laundering case related to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam. Singh is currently in judicial custody till January 10, 2024. Notably, Special Judge M. K. Nagpal of Rouse Avenue Court "dismissed" Singh's bail plea on December 22, 2023. "The Court is of prima facie view that the case against him is genuine. Evidence shows his involvement in the alleged offence of money laundering. There are reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of the alleged offence of money laundering," the special judge said. The trial court judge expressed his prima facie view and said, "The evidence and material show involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence of money laundering because he is shown to have been, directly or indirectly, involved in the process or activities connected with proceeds of crime generated through the scheduled offences case of CBI."
Case Title: Sanjay Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement
11. [PM Modi Selfie Points] The Central government on Friday last week defended before the Delhi High Court its decision to install "selfie points" in public places to publicise its defence policy initiatives, asserting the "selfie system is a gift of technology," which helps familiarise the public about government schemes and policies in a cost-effective way. The Centre rejected suggestions about there being any political motive behind the selfie points initiative and argued there was no mention of any political party or insignia at such programmes. The selfie booths, it said, only highlighted the achievements in the defence sector, like the inclusion and active participation of women in the armed forces and the Agnipath scheme. The Center made the submissions before a bench which was hearing a PIL against the alleged use of public servants and defence personnel to spread "political propaganda" by showcasing the achievements of the government in the last nine years.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Case Title: Eas Sarma & Anr. v. Union of India
12. [Organ Transplantation] The Delhi High Court has underscored the significance of a time-bound approach in organ transplantation protocols, stating that it is crucial for the integrity and effectiveness of the process and the furtherance of the right to health under the Constitution. The bench directed the Center to streamline the organ transplantation process after consultation with stakeholders. The court emphasized the need for expeditious processing of applications, verification of documents, completion of documentation, and interviews by the authorization committee before organ donation. To ensure the purpose of the transplantation process is not defeated, the court recommended that the entire process, from submission to decision, ideally should not exceed 6 to 8 weeks. The single-judge bench noted that non-adherence to timelines has led to extended waiting periods of 2 to 3 years in some cases, contravening the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act and its rules. Such delays cause significant mental and physical anguish for donors, recipients, and their families.
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Case Title: Amar Singh Bhatia v. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital
13. [Right Not to Procreate] The Delhi High Court has allowed a widow to terminate her 29-week pregnancy, citing "immense trauma" and "suicidal tendencies" following the death of her husband. The bench has directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to conduct the procedure, despite the woman exceeding the usual 24-week limit set for termination of pregnancy. The rules in India specify a maximum of 24 weeks of gestation for pregnancy termination, particularly for special categories of women, including survivors of rape or incest, women with disabilities, minors, and other vulnerable individuals. Court relied on a 2022 Supreme Court judgment emphasizing a woman's prerogative to evaluate her life and make decisions based on changes in her material circumstances. Highlighting the "right not to procreate," court emphasized that the right to reproductive choice includes the option to refrain from having children, thus leading to the conclusion that the widow should be permitted to terminate her pregnancy.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: R v. Union of India & Ors.
Please Login or Register
