Read Time: 01 hours
1. [2008 Batla House encounter] The Delhi High Court has reserved its verdict on confirmation of death penalty awarded to Ariz Khan following his conviction in the sensational 2008 Batla House encounter case in which decorated Delhi Police Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma lost his life. "Arguments have been heard. Judgment reserved," said THE bench, after the lawyers for the convict and the State concluded their submissions. Khan had filed an appeal in the High Court in July 2021, challenging the order of the Delhi Trial Court which had awarded the death penalty to Khan for killing a Police official. The appeal was filed through Advocate MS Khan challenging the March 15, 2021 order of the Saket District Court. The Trial Court while awarding death penalty to Khan had said, "The convict had forfeited his right to live on account of his despicable act of killing a police officer on duty."
Bench: Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Amit Sharma
Case Title: State v. Ariz Khan alias Junaid alias Anna Alis Salim
Click here to read more
2.[BCD's notification mandating Delhi NCR address on Aadhaar, Voter ID for enrolment withdrawn] The Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) has informed the Delhi High Court that the recent notification mandating Aadhar Card and Voter ID address of Delhi NCR (National Capital Region) for future enrolments has been "withdrawn". A division bench noted, "The notification dated 13.04.2023 by which the Bar Council of Delhi had notified that the person who are not residents of Delhi/NCR will not be registered as an Advocate by the Bar Council of Delhi. Learned counsel for the BCD in open court has made a statement that the impugned notification has been withdrawn. In light of the aforesaid that the notification has been withdrawn by BCD, nothing survives in the present writ petition. The same stands disposed of". During the hearing, the counsel for petitioner requested that such "withdrawal notification" be published on the official site of the Delhi Bar Council. To this, the counsel for BCD stated, "Lordship! We have already sent it for the approval of the Bar Council of India". "Learned Counsel for the Bar Council of Delhi is further directed to notify the subsequent notification by which the earlier notification stands withdrawn", the bench ordered.
Bench: CJ Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Shannu Baghel v. Bar Council of Delhi & Anr.
3. [Monkey menace] The Delhi High Court has asked Advocate Shashwat Bhardwaj, petitioner-in person in plea over monkey menace in the city, to give some solutions in relation to the issue. The division bench was hearing a plea against the alarming infestation of the simian population and a consecutive increase in the cases of monkey bites. During the hearing, the counsel for the Delhi government submitted, “The sterilization process is so tough”. “It’s just not possible”, CJ Sharma said. Bhardwaj submitted that the problem is still existing. “The NDMC is a part to the present plea, they have not taken any stand up till now….Some directions will have to be passed”, he added. “Which directions? Monkeys don’t understand these directions. Please tell us what has to be done”, CJ Sharma said orally. “Only vasectomy of monkeys is the solution… Some areas may be marked as for monkeys. Monkey zones may be created. Monkeys need to be caught in herds…This is an issue of serious concern. No practical solution is coming forward.”, Bhardwaj suggested. “We can mark an area for a human being, but cannot do so for monkeys”, CJ Sharma said. The court asked the petitioner to come up with solutions to the issue and posted the matter for further consideration on November 30, 2023.
Case Title: Shashwat Bharadwaj Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
4. [Plea against inclusion of CAs under PMLA] The Delhi High Court has posted a plea challenging the inclusion of chartered accountants, company secretaries and cost accountants within the ambit of “reporting entities” under the anti-money laundering law and fastening of criminal liability on them in case of non-compliance of the legal provisions, for further hearing on October 4. A division bench noted, “Learned ASG seeks time to seek instructions in the matter. List the matter…” Accordingly, the matter has been posted for further hearing on October 4. Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, on behalf of the petitioner submitted, that this is “violative of privacy”. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma appeared for the Centre. He urged the bench to not issue notice in the plea. “We can assist your Lordship, by a short counter affidavit. "Lordships, may not issue notice, restrict it to the notification, but not the Sections in so far as the prayer 3 is concerned it has to go”, he submitted. The plea filed by Rajat Mohan, a practising chartered accountant (CA), through Advocate Shweta Kapoor, sought quashing of Sections 1(sa)(vi), 11A,12,12A,12AA,13 of the Prevention of money laundering Act (PMLA).
Case Title: Rajat Mohan v. Union of India & Ors.
5. [Union Govt to regulate social media platforms for use of vulgar language] The Union government has told the Delhi High Court that it will incorporate rules/regulations to regulate social media platforms, and intermediaries for making them safer from the use of vulgar language including profanity, bad words, etc. On perusal of the report by the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY), the bench noted, “It is stated that it is a policy decision and having taken note of the concerns of this Court expressed through its directions, the concerned Ministry, while undertaking its regular exercise of policy making, will incorporate rules/regulations to regulate the social media platforms, intermediaries for making it safer from the use of vulgar language including profanity, bad words, etc., as per the judgment of this Court”. The court was dealing with a compliance report on behalf of MeitY that has been filed pursuant to the order passed by the High Court dated April 12, 2023 whereby it had sought compliance of its judgment dated March 6, 2023.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: X v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
6. [EoW's plea against interim protection from arrest to NewsClick Founder] The Delhi High Court has issued notice to NewsClick's founder and editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha in the plea filed by Delhi Police's Economic Offence Wing (EOW) seeking directions to vacate the interim order asking it to not take "any coercive action" him. The bench issued notice in the matter and sought Prabir Purkayastha's response on the plea. On July 7, 2021, the high court had granted Purkayastha interim protection from arrest and directed him to join the investigation. According to the EOW FIR, a case was registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC and an investigation was launched. During the investigation, the sleuths gathered evidence indicating criminal acts. “The accused persons, in conspiracy with their accomplices based abroad, devised a deceitful scheme to obtain and receive funds for undertaking activities as per instructions from their foreign-based benefactors, by disguising the funds received as Foreign Direct Investment”, EOW said.
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Case Title: Prabir Purkayastha v. State of NCT of Delhi
7. [Stray dogs birth-control] A division bench of the Delhi High Court has directed the respondents to ensure that they continue with their efforts and drive for sterilization and immunization of stray dogs, as the same is an important public function and is required to be performed in all its earnestness. The court was dealing with a plea filed by Conference for Human Rights seeking direction to the respondents to perform duties as envisaged under Sections 9, 11 of the ‘Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Rules 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001. The plea had sought direction to carry out regular Sterilization and immunization/vaccination Programmes in terms of Rule 3 (3), Rule 5 (a) and Rule 6 (2) Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 for the Stray dogs at regular intervals of time, (using humane methods as prescribed under clause 4 of Rule 7), to contain their population and to prevent them from being afflicted by Rabies. It further sought directions to disclose all data/material for the assessment done of the progress made regarding implementation of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, in terms of Clause (4) of Rule 6, which is a mandatory clause.
Bench: CJ Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Jasmeet Singh
Case Title: Conference for Human Rights (India) (regd.) v. Union of India and Ors.
8. [Cattle smuggling] The Delhi High Court has granted time to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to file written submissions in response to a bail plea of Sukanya Mondal, arrested in a money laundering case related to cattle smuggling in West Bengal. Sukanya is daughter of Trinamool Congress leader Anubrata Mondal, who too is in judicial custody in the same case. The bench listed the matter for further hearing on September 11. It is alleged that Sukanya, a teacher in the West Bengal government, was actively involved in business activities as per data collected so far and the total cash proceeds of crime deposited in her various bank account and her business entities were worth several crores.
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Case Title: Sukanya Mondal v. Directorate of Enforcement
9. [Khiladi v. Khiladi] The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the use of the word "Khiladi" by a Telugu film for its title, as it rejected a plea by the production house behind Akshay Kumar starrer films "Khiladi" and "Main Khiladi Tu Anari". The bench dismissed the application by Venus Worldwide Entertainment alleging violation of its trade mark by the makers of the Telugu movie. The court said that although the plaintiff's 1992 "Khiladi" was a huge success, no case of any "deceptive similarity and confusion" between the two films was prima facie present. "No doubt that the movie ‘KHILADI’ was a huge success and also gave a pedestal to the lead actor and earned him the sobriquet of ‘Khiladi Kumar’... but it is settled that whether or not a trademark has acquired a secondary meaning is a matter of trial and secondly, this factor cannot give monopoly to the Plaintiff over the word ‘KHILADI’ for the purpose of claiming infringement, in the absence of registration in the word ‘KHILADI’," the court said in its recent interim order dated August 17.
Bench: Justice Jyoti Singh
Case Title: Venus Worldwide Entertainment Private Limited v. Popular Entertainment Network (PEN) Private Limited & Anr.
10. [Ban on plying over-age vehicles] The Delhi High Court has ordered the release of several seized "end-of-life" vehicles on an undertaking by the owners to either permanently park them in private spaces or remove them from the city limits. While dealing with a batch of petitions against the seizure of cars by authorities for being in violation of judicial orders banning the use of petrol and diesel vehicles that are over 15 years and 10 years of age, respectively, the bench asked the Delhi government to "frame a policy on dealing with such vehicles" when owners are willing to assure that they would not be used and give "due publicity" to the same. The Judge observed that the intention behind the policy was not to scrap the cars but to ensure that the national capital is pollution free, and a balance has to be maintained between the right to use one's property and environmental interests. "I am of the view that the petitioners' grievances can be balanced with the implementation of the orders of the NGT and Supreme Court by directing the release of the vehicles to owners subject to an undertaking to remove the vehicle from the territory of NCT of Delhi and not to ply/park them in public spaces within the NCT of Delhi," the court ordered. "For parked cars, the petitioners will file an undertaking that they will not be plied or parked in public space. Petitioners will provide evidence of private space either owned or leased,”, the court said.
Bench: Justice Prateek Jalan
Case Title: Sushma Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (a batch of petitions)
11. [NDPS Act] The Delhi High Court has reiterated that procuring call detail records of police officials, including their tower-wise location, prejudice their safety and privacy. The court was hearing a batch of pleas against order of ASJ, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, wherein directions were issued to the investigating officer (IO) for procuring call records and location via mobile tower of all members of the raiding party, secret informer, IO himself and the accused, apprehended with offences under the NDPS Act, 1985. While setting aside the impugned orders dated 04.12.2017, 06.04.2018 and 31.03.2018, The bench observed, “The concerned police officers may be involved in dealing with cases of different nature, including sensitive or heinous cases or cases of national security, and orders, such as those impugned before this Court, can directly encroach upon the privacy of the police officials. Further, the impugned orders also have the capacity to put at risk and expose the identities of the ‘secret informers’ and risk their safety and security. Thus, the learned ASJ has not passed reasoned orders, and the same opens up windows for possibility of risking confidential information which may be brought on record through call detail records of the investigating officers and other police officials.”
Case Title: State v. Haripal
12. [Kashmiri separatist leaders plea against refusal of examination of defence witness] Kashmiri Separatist leader Asiya Andrabi and two others have moved an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court order refusing the examination of defence witness summoned in connection with a case registered under several Sections of the Indian Penal Code and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The proxy counsel appearing for the appellants submitted, “This is an appeal under Section 21 of NIA”. Initially, he sought a passover, as the arguing Senior counsel was stuck in traffic. He submitted, “We filed an application under Section 21 of the NIA act for summoning two defence witnesses namely United Nations Resident Co-ordinator and Registrar General, Supreme Court through Record Clerk along with documents. It was duly allowed by Additional Sessions Judge Shailendra Malik, Patiala House Court. Later, when the witnesses arrived at the court, then the Judge disallowed them to further give the evidence”. The division bench posted the matter for hearing on September 14, 2023.
Bench: Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anish Dayal
Case Title: Asiya Andrabi & Ors. v. National Investigation Agency
13. [Bennett Coleman group's plea against Republic TV & Arnab Goswami] The Delhi High Court has dismissed a contempt application filed by the Bennett Coleman Group against Republic TV and Arnab Goswami. The bench was hearing an application under Order 39 Rule 2A seeking initiation of contempt of court proceedings against ARG Outlier Media Private Limited and its directors. Bennett Coleman & Co. Limited (BCCL) had filed a contempt application, alleging violation of the order dated October 23, 2020 whereby the court had refused to pass an interim order against usage of the tagline ‘NATION WANTS TO KNOW’. In the October 2020 order, the high court while refusing to pass an interim order had however, directed the Republic/the defendants to maintain accounts of usage of the tagline in case the same is used as a trademark in relation to goods/services, and file the same by way of an affidavit once every six months. The operative part of the order reads thus. “Regarding the tagline NATION WANTS TO KNOW, no interim order is passed at this stage in favour of the plaintiff. As submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 is free to use the same as part of his speech/presentation of any news channel, etc. However, if the defendants choose to use the same as a trade mark with respect to any of their goods/services, the said defendants will maintain accounts for such usage. Such accounts shall be filed in court regularly on an affidavit of one of the directors of defendant No. 3 once in every six months.” BBCL, in the contempt plea, alleged that ARG while using the tagline ‘NATION WANTS TO KNOW’ as a trademark, was not maintaining and filing the accounts of such usage as directed by the high court.
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case Title: Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. ARG Outier Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
14. [Prosecution agencies cautioned against filing appeals in routine manner] The Delhi High Court has cautioned the prosecution agencies against filing of appeals in a routine manner. The observations were made in an appeal against judgment dated August 20, 2019 passed by Court of Sessions, whereby the accused persons were acquitted for offences under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 but held guilty for offence under Section 23, Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, on the basis of the deposition by doctor who conducted post mortem of the deceased child. A Division Bench, while calling it a classic example of terrible investigation, observed, “...the prosecution has failed to prove that accused are guilty of the offence under Section 23 of the Justice Juvenile Act, 2000 and the learned trial court has thereby erred in convicting them. Hence, in the interest of justice, the respondents /accused are acquitted of the offences under Section 23 of the Justice Juvenile Act, 2000 also.” It was further added that the recovery of iron rod used for hot water and danda from the house of accused person, does not in any manner establish link to prove that the injury was caused to the victim child. “The unfair investigation has made the accused suffer the ordeal of long trial and undergo the sentence for the crime which was never committed by them. This Court wishes to give a word of caution to the prosecution agencies to carry out investigation in a prudent manner and expects that the trial courts shall judiciously assess the material placed on record so that no innocent has to bear the torment of incarceration”, Court also noted.
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: State v. Usha Devi
15. [Gargi College sexual harassment case] The Delhi High Court has voiced its “unease” over the impending closure of a case of of alleged sexual harassment of girl students during a cultural festival at the all-women Gargi College of Delhi University in February 2020 in which the police have filed an ‘untraced report’ before a trial court. A division bench said, “This Court voices its unease regarding the impending closure of a grievous incident without holding any individual accountable. While some testimonies have been collected, the lack of definitive evidence under Section 164 of CrPC poses challenges”. The court was dealing with a PIL pertaining to a deeply distressing incident that transpired at Gargi College, Siri Fort Road, New Delhi. On 9th February 2020, an unauthorized group accessed the college premises during the festival and reportedly engaged in unwarranted behaviour, including alleged sexual harassment of female students. The incident came to light after some students took to Instagram to narrate their ordeal and alleged that security personnel did nothing to control the unruly groups.
Case Title: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) & Ors.
16. [Transgender woman's plea for re-issuance of passport] A transgender woman, presently residing in Chicago (US) has recently moved the Delhi High Court seeking direction to the authorities to re-issue her passport with her revised particulars, including her new name and gender, since her appearance changed after undergoing sex reassignment surgery. “Transgender people, who choose to undergo sex reassignment surgery, face difficulties in acquiring a fresh passport due to change in appearance, an issue which needs to be streamlined”, the Judge remarked orally. “Similar problems are arising in several matters and these people are suffering because of lack of passport after they changed their gender. Because then their appearance changes. It needs some streamlining,” the judge said while asking the authorities to look into it. The matter will be heard further on August 28, 2023. The petitioner Anahita Chaudhary in her plea sought directions to the authorities to re-issue her passport with revised particulars changing her name, gender, and appearance as per her application of January 18, 2023. The plea stated that the application had been pending with the respondent authorities for over six months.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Anahita Chaudhary v. Union of India & Anr.
17. [2024 Lok Sabha Elections] The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to carry out fresh 'First Level Checking' of EVMs & VVPATs in the presence of the authorised representatives of the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee for their use in the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections. The plea also sought directions to supply the details of the EVMs & VVPATs, like making, serial numbers and manufacturing companies etc. Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, on behalf of petitioner submitted, "There are two issues in this. One is the duration of notice is reduced from 7 days to 2 days...The critical issue is that we have repeatedly said that please give us the details of the machines that we'll come to inspect. Those details have not been given to us. Repeatedly we've written to all SDMs. Details have not been given. No reasons why they couldn't be given...". Opposing the PIL, the counsel appearing for the ECI argued, “Kindly see the memo of parties, State Election Commission. It has nothing to do with the general elections/ assembly. It's only municipal. All the prayers are against the State Commission". “This has been filed very casually. If they would have been serious....they are not challenging the guidelines of the ECI”, he contended. Taking note of the submissions, the division bench told the senior counsel, “Please look at the body of the petition. All sentences, all paragraphs. The entire petition is directed towards the State Election Commission and they have got nothing to do with it. If you appreciate that, please withdraw it and file a fresh one”.
Case Title: Shri Anil Kumar v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
18. [Excise policy scam] The Delhi High Court has directed that businessman Amandeep Singh Dhall, lodged in jail in cases related to the Delhi excise policy scam, be taken to the AIIMS on Saturday i.e. August 26 for medical examination and treatment. The bench was hearing Dhall's plea seeking interim bail for two weeks on medical grounds. The court issued notice to the CBI and the ED and sought their respective responses on Dhall's interim bail plea. Dhall, a director of Brindco Sales was arrested by the CBI and the ED in separate cases linked to the liquor policy. Notably, the trial court recently refused to grant bail to Dhall in both CBI and ED cases related to the excise policy scam. Dhall had moved the High Court challenging the trial court order in a money laundering case related to the Delhi excise policy scam and the same is under consideration before the same bench. Special Judge MK Nagpal of the Rouse Avenue Court had stated that prima facie evidence led the court to form an opinion that the allegations made by the prosecution against the applicant were serious in nature and he was not entitled to be released on bail even in the scheduled offence case of CBI. Dhall was the executive director of Brindco Sales Private Limited and was arrested on March 1, 2023 by the ED. He was, in April also, arrested by the CBI.
Case Title: Amandeep Singh Dhall v. Central Bureau of Investigation
19. [Times Now's Airing of Operation Paap programme] The Delhi High Court has refused to set aside the trial court order restraining news channel Times Now Navbharat from broadcasting 'Operation Paap', a programme of an alleged conversation between AAP MLA Naresh Balyan and gangster Kapil Sangwan aka Nandu. While refusing to entertain the plea, the bench said that if the news channel (Times Now Navbharat) approaches trial court on or before August 28, by filing its reply, the matter shall be decided finally within a week. The court also clarified that all the parties shall cooperate with the trial court and not seek adjournments. Notably on August 17, Times Now Navbharat ran a show under the heading 'Sarji ka Vidhayak Gangster ka Sahayak'. A leaked audio was run on the programme alleging that Balyan was talking to Sangwan and planning extortion.
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Case Title: Times Now Navbharat v. Naresh Baliyan
20. [Plea against appointment Alka Goel, Director of Prosecution of Delhi Govt] The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and Principal Secretary (Home) on a plea challenging appointment of Alka Goel as Director (Prosecution) of the GNCTD. A division bench also issued notice to Alka Goel and listed the matter, filed through Sarvesh Singh & Rajeshwari Mitra, Advocates, for further consideration on October 18. The plea sought directions to declare the Director (Prosecution) Recruitment Rules, 2021 as void on the ground that it is ultra vires to Section 25A of Cr.PC. It said that the post of Director (Prosecution), GNCTD is "statutory post" created under Section 25-A of Cr.PC which provides that a person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Director of Prosecution or a Deputy Director of Prosecution, only if he has been in practice as an advocate for not less than ten years and such appointment shall be made with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Chiranjit Singh Bisht v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
21. [Plea challenging appointments of Junior Judicial Assistants] The Delhi High Court, last week, requested the Attorney General of India, R. Venkataramani to assist the court as an ‘amicus curiae’ in a plea challenging the appointment of several Junior Judicial Assistants. Advocates Amita Singh Kalkal, Aditi Gupta and Devrat Pradhan for the petitioners submitted that the regularisation of the respondents as Junior Judicial Assistants (Data Entry) ex-cadre was not in accordance with the law and was contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court. The counsels stated that during their contractual service the petitioners had submitted representations for regularization of their services on various occasions, which were rejected by the Selection Committee of the High Court vide Minutes of Meetings held on August 13, 2014, November 17, 2014 and December 19, 2016 on the ground that such regularisation would be in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court.
Bench: Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna
Case Title: Meenakshi Chaudhary and Ors. v. Delhi High Court thr Registrar General and Ors.
22. [Tajinder Bagga defamation case] Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal will be representing Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy before the Delhi High Court in his plea challenging summons issued by a trial court in a defamation complaint filed by BJP leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga over a tweet claiming it to be false and defamatory. During the hearing, Advocate Satya Sabharwal, on behalf of Swamy, told the court that as Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal will be arguing the matter, an adjournment was required because the senior counsel was busy before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the Article 370 matter. Taking note of the submission, Justice Sharma adjourned the matter to October 4, 2023. Bagga has alleged that Swamy, who has over 10 million followers on Twitter, put out a “false and incorrect” tweet accusing him of being jailed after joining the BJP. The tweet made by Swamy read: “Delhi journalists inform me that before joining BJP, Tajinder Bagga had been jailed many times for petty crime sin New Delhi Mandir Marg police station. True? If so Nadda should know”.
Case Title: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga
23. [Maternity Benefit Act applicable to contractual employee] The Delhi High Court has held that since the Maternity Benefit Act, 2017 is a welfare legislation, the argument that a woman will be bereft of benefits on account of being a contractual employee, is completely devoid of merit. While deciding the case of a woman claiming maternity benefits on account of being employed with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) on contract basis on the Juvenile Justice Board, the court has reiterated a catena of judgments that lay out the objective of the Act. It has stated, “The liberty to carry a child is a fundamental right that the Constitution of the Country grants its citizens under Article 21…. to stand in the way of exercise of this right by a woman, without procedure or intervention of law, is not only violative of the fundamental rights granted by the Constitution of India but also against the basic tenets of social justice”. Court has added, “It is clear, upon considering the view that has been repeatedly taken, that the Maternity Benefit Act is a welfare and social legislation and the intent of the legislature in no manner could have been to limit or restrict the extent and scope of reliefs that may be granted to all those falling within the ambit of the Act. There is nothing in the language of the Act or in its provisions which suggests that a working expecting woman would be barred from getting the reliefs due to the sole reason of the nature of their employment,” the Court pointed out.
Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Case Title: Anwesha Deb Vs. DSLSA
24. [Parents of lesbian woman to undergo counselling to accept their daughter] The Delhi High Court has recently directed the parents and maternal uncle of a 22-year-old lesbian woman to undergo counselling in order to prepare themselves to accept her "as per her wishes". The division bench was hearing a habeas corpus petition by the woman's friend who claimed that she was "missing". After interacting with the parties involved, the court directed the police to take the woman to a shelter home in order to reflect and introspect about her future. The court also directed the police to make necessary arrangements for her boarding and lodging there. The woman told the court that she was not willing to accompany her parents or any of the relatives and would either go with the petitioner or to the shelter home. The court directed the Shelter home to admit the woman for her stay and provide necessary facilities, including food, shelter, etc. “The Director is also directed to provide counselling session to the woman”, it added. “It is further directed that parents of the woman shall also be counselled at least on an alternative day to prepare them to accept her as per her wishes. The parents and maternal uncle are directed to approach the aforesaid shelter home on 23.08.2023 at 11:00 am for counselling, who shall be counselled by the Director and if they wish for further counselling, they shall be counselled accordingly, on the alternate days, thereafter”, the bench ordered.
Case Title: X v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
25. [Physical relationship with 15 year old wife not rape] While upholding the acquittal of a Muslim man accused of raping his minor wife, the Delhi High Court has observed, “Physical relationship with a child victim (wife) who was almost fifteen years of age, cannot be termed as rape". According to Muslim law, a Muslim girl over the age of 15 years, is competent to enter into a contract of marriage with the person of her choice and sex with such a girl is not considered an offence. The bench said, “We find that since the child victim was the wife who was almost fifteen years of age, the physical relationship of the respondent with the victim, cannot be termed as rape. The respondent has been rightly acquitted”. The bench dismissed an application filed by the State seeking Leave to Appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated November 15, 2016. An first information report (FIR) was registered by the Delhi Police on the complaint of the mother of the minor victim, stating that in the month of October and November 2014 while her child was alone, Mohd Kayun, who was also the victim's sister's husband i.e. “jija”, came to her house four to five times and committed rape upon her. When she felt pain in in her abdomen, her mother took her to hospital, where her pregnancy was confirmed. In the month of December, 2014 the minor victim, along with her mother, Kayum and his wife had gone to native place in Bihar to attend the marriage of their cousin sister. After attending the marriage she got married to accused Kayum. The mother was unaware of this marriage. Therefore, in the month of February, 2015 her mother called the police and on the same day she along with her mother went to the police station, where her mother made a complaint.
Case Title: State Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd Kayum
Please Login or Register
