Read Time: 01 hours
1. [AAP Leader Sanjay Singh] The Delhi High Court has sought the Directorate of Enforcement's response on AAP MP Sanjay Singh's bail plea in connection with a money laundering case related to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam. The bench issued notice to the ED and scheduled the matter for further hearing on January 29, 2023. Singh is currently in judicial custody till January 10, 2024. Special Judge M. K. Nagpal of Rouse Avenue Court "dismissed" Singh's bail plea on December 22, 2023.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: Sanjay Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement
Click here to read more
2. [MP/MLAs Court] The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by BJP leader and former MLA Manjinder Singh Sirsa, challenging the jurisdiction of a special court designated for cases against MPs or MLAs to try him in a criminal complaint. The court held that the special courts were established to address cases involving legislators, whether current or former. The bench referred to previous orders by the Supreme Court, highlighting that special courts were designed to handle cases against MPs or MLAs, regardless of their current legislative status. The court emphasized that Sirsa's counsel failed to demonstrate how an expedited trial could prejudice him. It affirmed the trial court's decision, which had rejected Sirsa's plea seeking the transfer or return of the complaint due to jurisdictional issues. “This court concurs with the decision of the additional chief metropolitan magistrate (ACMM), whereby it was observed that whether a sitting legislator commits an offence or an offence is allegedly committed by a former legislator, a case can be tried by the Special Court, set up for dealing with cases against the MPs/ MLAs whether sitting or former,” the high court stated.
Case Title: Manjinder Singh Sirsa v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
3. [AI and Deepfake technologies] While dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) addressing the crucial issue of artificial intelligence (AI) and deepfake technologies' non-regulation in India, the Delhi High Court on Monday last week stated that it has greater ramifications and suggested that the Centre apply its mind to it first. A division bench said, "The issue raised in the PIL has greater ramifications. Let the center apply its mind first." While granting time to the Centre to respond to the PIL, the bench scheduled the matter for further hearing on February 19, 2024. On the last hearing, the court had 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.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Case Title: Chaitanya Rohilla v. Union of India
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 February 13, 2024. The bench issued the order. On the last hearing, the court had 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. The court, asserting its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, had highlighted its limited role, focusing on aspects such as natural justice and decision-making.
Case Title: Popular Front of India v. Union of India
5. [Digital Rape] The Delhi High Court has recently reduced the 20-year jail sentence handed down to a 38-year-old man convicted of "digital rape" of a four-year-old girl in 2014. The bench acknowledging the appellant's substantial life ahead and the responsibility of caring for an aging mother, cited satisfactory conduct in jail as grounds for the reduction. "The trial court had sentenced the appellant for 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, observing that the appellant had committed ‘digital rape’ on a child of four years at the time of the incident," the court said. Digital rape refers to penetration using fingers. While upholding the conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the court stated, "In my considered view, ends of justice will be met if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to 12 years. The fine of Rs. 15,000 awarded by the trial court is retained."
Bench: Justice Amit Bansal
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar v. State
6. [Medical Infrastructure] The Delhi High Court expressed concern over the lack of medical infrastructure for critical care patients in government hospitals in the national capital. A bench asked the Delhi government whether funds meant for hospitals were being transferred to some other projects. The bench also asked the Delhi government to file a status report giving details of the amount it has spent on strengthening the health sector in the last five years. During the hearing, the bench was informed about an incident on the intervening night of January 2–3, 2024, when a man who jumped out of a moving Police Control Room (PCR) van died after being denied treatment by four government hospitals. The court was hearing a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated in 2017, focusing on the availability of ICU beds and ventilator facilities in government hospitals.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Union of India & Ors.
7. [Bigamy Case] The Delhi High Court has emphasized that the absence of a law criminalizing adultery does not provide individuals with blanket immunity to marry other persons during the subsistence of their first marriage. The bench stated that the mere lack of a specific law prohibiting adultery should not be exploited as a loophole to evade legal consequences, particularly in cases of bigamy. "The absence of law making adultery an offence cannot provide individuals with a blanket immunity, in a sense that they can marry other persons in secrecy during subsistence of their first marriage, and then argue that the first partner must prove that such second marriage was solemnized after performing essential rites and ceremonies, even for summoning such an accused for the offence of bigamy, and since adultery no longer remains an offence, such a partner would remain immune from any legal consequences", the bench of Justice Sharma observed.
Case Title: Pooja Sharma Bajaj v. Kunal Bajaj & Ors.
8. [Adani & Essar Power Companies] The Delhi High Court has recently kept in abeyance its earlier order directing 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. While dealing with an application filed by Adani Power Limited seeking recall of paragraph 52 of the judgment dated December 19, 2023, the division bench was informed that the Commissioner of Customs had filed a review plea before the apex court against this order, and the same was pending adjudication. The bench had issued the above direction while dealing with public interest litigation (PIL) petitions filed by activist Harsh Mander and the NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Common Cause'. "In view of the fact that review petition preferred by the department is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court; the directions passed by this Court in para 52 of judgment dated 19.12.2023 in respect of M/s Adani Power Maharashtra Limited and M/s Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (now M/s Adani Power Limited), are kept in abeyance awaiting outcome of the said review petitions", the court said in its order dated January 5.
Bench: Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
9. [PMLA Case] The Delhi High Court ruled that oral communication of grounds for arrest suffices as proper compliance with Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, particularly considering the prospective nature of the Supreme Court's directions in the Pankaj Bansal case. The court's decision upheld the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) arrest of former Bhushan Steel Managing Director Neeraj Singal on June 8, 2023. The bench in the judgment pronounced on January 8, clarified that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Pankaj Bansal case, making it mandatory to communicate the arrest grounds in writing, are prospective. The court stated, "At the time of petitioner’s arrest, oral communication of the grounds of arrest was proper compliance of the provisions of Section 19(1) of the PMLA.” Neeraj Singal, challenging his arrest, argued that he was only provided with the 'arrest memo' during search proceedings.
Bench: Justice Vikas Mahajan
Case Title: Neeraj Singal v. Directorate of Enforcement
10. [Internal Assessment Marks Correction] The Delhi High Court has ruled that once a school uploads a student's internal assessment marks on the website of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), it cannot request corrections, even in cases of errors. The court stated that allowing schools to rectify errors after uploading marks could lead to chaos, with the CBSE compelled to conduct independent verifications for each case. The bench issued the order on January 5, stating, "Utter chaos would result if schools were permitted to commit errors while uploading students’ marks on the website of the CBSE and thereafter, call upon the CBSE to correct the marks awarded at their end. The court added that it would be "debatable" if the CBSE could announce final results in such cases.
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case Title: Nilkanth Das and Ors. v. CBSE and Ors.
11. [Defamation Case by Sacha Sauda Dera Chief] The Delhi High Court has asked YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh to take down the defamatory video on YouTube that was uploaded by him titled “How Gurmeet Ram Rahim Fooled His Bhakts?” The video is currently in 'private mode' as per the directions of the court. The bench also granted liberty to the YouTuber to upload a fresh video, giving a disclaimer. During the hearing today, Singh apprised the single judge bench that in the video uploaded by him on YouTube, he has quoted judgments of various courts and the contents of a book titled "Dera Sacha Sauda and Gurmeet Ram Rahim: A Decade-long Investigation", authored by Anurag Tripathi. The YouTuber also informed the court that the contents of the video are not his personal opinion but based on material that is already in the public domain.
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh
Case Title: Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan Shishyeva Gaddinashin Shah Satnam Singh ji Maharaj v. YouTube LLC and Anr.
12. [Contemptuous Allegations Against Sitting Judges] The Delhi High Court has sentenced Advocate Virendra Singh to six months of simple imprisonment for criminal contempt of court after Singh made "contemptuous allegations against the sitting judges of the high court and the district judiciary". A division bench noted that Singh was given the opportunity to offer an unconditional apology, but he steadfastly refused, standing by the allegations he had made. The court, in its observation, highlighted that this refusal demonstrated a lack of repentance for his conduct. "Having considered the material placed on record, submissions of contemnor, this Court is of the opinion that contemnor has no repentance for his conduct and actions. Consequently, we hereby sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of 7 days. The contemnor is directed to be taken into custody by SI Prem (Naib Court), who, along with SHO, Police Station Tilak Marg, shall hand over his custody to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail, Delhi,” the court ordered.
Bench: Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Shalinder Kaur
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Virendra Singh Advocate
13. [DCPCR's Plea against Withholding Funds] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the response of the Lieutenant Governor (LG) in a plea filed by the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) challenging an order withholding funds pending an inquiry and a special audit over allegations of misuse of government funds. The bench reviewing a press note detailing the LG's actions against the child rights body, remarked that certain portions of the document appeared to have taken on a "political colour." Justice Prasad asked the LG's counsel to seek instructions on the matter. The court has scheduled the next hearing for January 19. "I would’ve said, 'audit, go ahead.' (But page) 154 takes a political colour. That’s when my problem bigens…The usual foundation and motive problem (is there)," the judge said. The contentious section highlighted that DCPCR’s former chairperson, Anurag Kundu, and six members were politically affiliated with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Delhi Commissioner for Protection of Child Rights and Anr. v. Lieutenant Governor
14. [Cruelty] The Delhi High Court has ruled that attempting suicide and then trying to put the blame on the husband and his family members is an act of extreme cruelty by the wife. A division bench observed that in such instances, the family remains under the constant threat of being implicated in false cases. The bench stated that the Supreme Court has also held that repeated threats to commit suicide or attempting to commit suicide amounts to cruelty. The court passed the order while upholding a family court order granting divorce to a man on the ground of cruelty by his wife. The division bench noted that the marriage between the couple was troubled from the beginning, and the wife even consumed a mosquito repellent liquid in an attempt to commit suicide but later tried to wriggle out of the situation by claiming that she was compelled to do it.
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: Payal Sethi v. Rohit Sethi
15. [PIL on Sale of Expired Food] While responding to alarming instances of expired food products being repackaged and sold in markets, the Delhi High Court recently took suo motu cognizance, initiating a public interest litigation (PIL) on the matter. A division bench on January 8 sought responses from the Central government, the Delhi government, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), and the Delhi Police on the matter. The court has directed the concerned authorities to submit their replies by February 8, the next scheduled hearing for the case. Additionally, the bench has appointed Advocate Shwetasree Mazumdar as an amicus curiae to provide expert insights into the matter. The suo motu PIL gained momentum after Justice Prathiba M Singh, a single judge, referred the issue to the Acting Chief Justice, highlighting its gravity and relevance to public health. The reference was made during the course of a suit filed by Hershey’s, a prominent chocolate company, seeking to restrain counterfeiters engaged in rebranding and selling Hershey's products, often beyond their expiry dates.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Atul Jalan Trading as Akshat Online Traders and Ors.
16. [Pepsico's Patent Claim] The Delhi High Court has affirmed PepsiCo's right to claim a patent for the potato variety essential to the production of its popular Lay's potato chips. The division bench overturned a previous single-judge order from July 5, 2023, which had dismissed Pepsi's appeal against the revocation of its patent-protected potato variety. PepsiCo had filed an appeal under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, challenging the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Authority's order dated December 3, 2021. This order had revoked Pepsi's patent protection for the FL 2027 potato variety utilized in the manufacturing of Lay's chips. Following the dismissal of the appeal by a single judge on July 5, PepsiCo escalated the matter to the division bench.
Bench: Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma
Case Title: PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd v. Kavitha Kuruganti
17. [Drainage System] The Delhi High Court has expressed strong dissatisfaction with the "absolutely pathetic" state of the drainage system in the national capital, calling on authorities to address the pressing issue of waterlogging urgently. The court emphasized the dire condition of the drainage system, noting instances of collapse and severe waterlogging in new construction areas. A division bench conveyed their frustration during the hearing of two suo motu petitions on the waterlogging problem in Delhi and the issues related to rainwater harvesting and traffic congestion during monsoons and other periods. Referring to an underpass near Bharat Mandapam, the court questioned the effectiveness of the drainage system and criticized the authorities for the collapse of the infrastructure. Justice Manmohan remarked, "The drainage system is in a very bad state of affairs. It had totally collapsed. Do we have a drainage system in Delhi or we don't have it? It is absolutely pathetic. Look at the new areas which have been set up. The new construction gets flooded today."
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Union of India and Ors.
18. [Mental Cruelty] While granting a divorce decree to a man on the ground of mental cruelty inflicted upon him by his estranged wife, the Delhi High Court said that there was no chance of reconciliation between them given the long separation of over 11 years peppered with false allegations levelled by the woman. A division bench said, "The marital discord between the parties has pinnacled as there is a complete loss of faith, trust, understanding and love between the parties. Such long separation brings with it deprivation of conjugal relationship and cohabitation, which is the basic foundation of any matrimonial relationship. The separation for more than eleven years, for no fault of the appellant (man), in itself is an act of cruelty.” The court made the observation while allowing the man's appeal challenging a family court's decision refusing to grant him divorce on grounds of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. The couple, who married in November 2011, faced issues shortly after their wedding and lived together for only six months. The man alleged that his estranged wife pressured him to visit her parental home and threatened self-harm if he refused. When she left the matrimonial home, she adamantly refused to return.
Case Title: Prahlad Kumar v. Deepa
19. [Marathi News Channel LokShahi] Two days after the suspension of Mumbai-based news channel Lokshahi Marathi's license by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry, the media outlet moved the Delhi High Court to contest the ban. Advocate Jayant Mehta, representing Lokshahi Marathi, mentioned the matter before a bench urgently seeking its listing. The Information and Broadcasting Ministry had suspended the channel's license for 30 days, effectively halting its broadcast. The I&B Ministry has shut down the channel, citing the non-submission of certain documents relating to the company. The license has been suspended by the government for 30 days on the grounds that the operators of the channel were not the same as those in whose name the licence was issued
20. [Kidnapping and Rape Case] The Delhi High Court has ruled that true love between two individuals, one or both of whom may be minors or minors on the verge of majority, cannot be controlled through the rigours of law or state action. The bench said, “When the scales of justice have to be weighed, they are not always on the basis of mathematical precision or mathematical formulas, but at times, while one side of the scale carries the law, the other side of the scale may carry the entire life, happiness, and future of toddlers, their parents and parents of their parents.” The court added that the scale that reflects and portrays such pure happiness sans any criminality will definitely equal the scale carrying law, as the application of law is meant for maintaining the rule of law.
Case Title: Arif Khan v. The State & Anr.
21. [Dowry Death Case] In a significant ruling pertaining to a dowry death case involving alleged harassment of a daughter-in-law over the birth of a girl child, the Delhi High Court recently underscored the need for educating perpetrators about the genetic science governing the determination of a child's gender. Court emphasized that perpetrators must recognize that it is their son, not their daughter-in-law, whose chromosomes, through the union of a married couple, dictate the birth of a daughter or a son. Court highlighted the disregard for "genetic science," elucidating that genetic determination involves the combination of X and Y chromosomes, with females possessing XX chromosomes and males having X and one Y chromosome each. “Surprisingly, the genetic science in this regard is ignored according to which, the genetic determination of gender of the unborn child when the child is conceived involves the combination of X and Y chromosomes, with females possessing two X chromosomes (XX) and males having one X and one Y chromosome (XY).” “According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the outcome of fertilisation depends on whether an unfertilised egg fuses with a sperm carrying an X or Y chromosome, resulting in the birth of a girl or boy, respectively,” the court said.
Case Title: Hardesh Sharma v. State
22. [Right to Reside or Settle] The Delhi High Court has clarified that foreign nationals cannot assert a right to reside or settle in India under Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India. The division bench highlighted that the fundamental rights accorded to foreigners, or suspected foreigners, are confined solely to the right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The court said, "We may also note that a foreign national cannot claim that he has the right to reside and settle in India in terms of Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India... Fundamental Right of any such foreigner or suspected foreigner is limited to the one declared under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, i.e., Fundamental Right for life and liberty." The bench relied on a pivotal 1955 judgment from the Supreme Court in Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta, wherein the apex court affirmed that "the power of the Government of India to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited, and there is no provision in the Constitution fettering such discretion."
Bench: Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain
Case Title: Kinadhan Chakma v Union of India and Ors.
23. [BJD's symbol use to promote welfare schemes] The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea by BJP leader Jatin Mohanty, seeking action against the Biju Janta Dal (BJD) government in Odisha for allegedly employing its party symbol, the 'conch,' in promotional material for government welfare schemes. The court directed the petitioner to approach the Orissa High Court, questioning the choice of Delhi High Court for redressal when the advertisements were originating in Odisha. "Why are you here? Go to Odisha and raise it before the appropriate court," the bench remarked. Emphasizing the issue's ubiquity across states, the court asserted that it is not unique to a specific region. As the bench displayed a disinclination to entertain the plea, Mohanty's counsel requested the liberty to withdraw the petition and file it in a jurisdiction having authority over the matter, a request that was granted.
Case Title: Jatin Mohanty v. Election Commission of India & Ors.
24. [Bonded Child Labourers] The Delhi High Court has issued a series of directions outlining the procedures to be followed by both central and state agencies for the recovery of back wages and the provision of financial assistance to bonded child labourers. The division bench emphasized the need for a systematic approach to ensure the welfare of rescued children. The court mandated that upon the rescue of a child and their placement in a childcare or juvenile home, a savings account should be promptly opened in the child's name, jointly with the superintendent or in-charge of the childcare institution (acting as the temporary guardian). If the parents or guardians of the rescued child are located in the future or if repatriation occurs, the financial assistance and recovered back wages must be transferred to their accounts within one week. In cases where the child attains the age of majority while under the care of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), the court asserted that the individual could apply directly to the bank to operate the account independently.
Case Title: Kaum Faqeer Shah v. Ministry of Labour and Employment and Ors.
Please Login or Register
