Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Terror Funding Case] Kashmiri Separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah has moved the Delhi High Court seeking bail in a terror funding case lodged by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2017. Shah has challenged the order of the trial court denying him bail in the case vide order dated July 7, 2023. The division bench issued notice on Shah’s plea and sought response of the NIA. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, on behalf of Shah, submitted, “This is a new bail application in a UAPA matter, where his period of incarceration is 6 years”. “Chargesheet has been filed. Charges have been framed. Trial has begun. The appeal is against the order on charges is pending. It is coming up on October 12. We would like to argue the bail application earlier because this is no material case, there is no material at all”, the senior counsel submitted.
Bench: Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal
Case Title: Shabir Ahmed Shah v. National Investigation Agency
Click here to read more
2. [PFI Chairman E. Abubacker] The Delhi High Court has directed the Medical Superintendent of Tihar Jail to file a status report on the ‘current medical condition’ of former Popular Front of India (PFI) Chairman, E. Abubacker, who is lodged in the prison curently. The bench was hearing a fresh appeal filed by the former PFI chairman seeking 'actual implementation' of a trial court order passed by the Special Judge directing his admission to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). Advocate Adit Pujari, on behalf of Abubacker, submitted, “This is a fresh appeal, a second round of the same. There are two applications, one for the condonation of delay and the other for the actual implementation of the directions passed by the Special Judge. There is a delay of 24 days”. “The interim relief is one where the learned Special Judge by way of the impugned order actually directed my (Abubacker’s) admission in AIIMS, which has not been done. So, we are asking for the implementation of that”, Pujari contended.
Case Title: Abubacker E. v. National Investigation Agency
3. [2006 Mumbai Blast] The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a plea filed by Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique, a convict in the Mumbai blast case, against the order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) rejecting his RTI plea seeking that the Centre may sanction a “fresh investigation” in the case. Siddiqui was detained in July 2006 by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorist Squad in Mumbai in connection with the 7/11 Mumbai Train Blast case. On November 30, 2006, he was charged with a number of offences under UAPA. He is currently lodged in the Nagpur Central Prison. Court orally observed, “Right to Information is only for seeking information and not for a direction…There is a limit to use of this (RTI)Act. How can this be granted under RTI?” The single-judge bench was dealing with Siddiqui’s plea against a September 13, 2022 order of the CIC, which had rejected his appeal on the ground that the “information regarding the authorities mentioned in the second schedule (of the RTI Act) could not be granted”. Siddiqui had contended that he had been “falsely convicted”.Justice Prasad noted that the information sought by Siddiqui pertained to a sanction or an order by the Centre to the NIA to consider taking up a “fresh investigation” into the July 7, 2006 Mumbai bomb blast case. The court noted that this was not a case of seeking information but for a direction to the Central Government to conduct a fresh investigation which was not within the purview of the RTI Act. “ ..this court was inclined to dismiss the writ petition with costs”, it said. However, the counsel for Siddiqui prayed for withdrawal of the plea.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui v. CPIO, National Investigation Agency
4. [Excise Policy Scam; Vijay Nair] The former Aam Aadmi Party’s communication in-charge Vijay Nair has moved a ‘default bail plea’ before the Delhi High Court in a money laundering case in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam case. It is to be noted that the High Court had denied Nair ‘regular bail’ in the matter. The court had observed that Vijay Nair was a close associate of Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia. Denying bail to Nair, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma had said, "The accused person (Vijay Nair) in the present case, acting in furtherance of a conspiracy, circumvented the policy and got framed the policy in such a way that to continuously generate and channel illegal fund". On February 16, Special Judge MK Nagpal of Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi, denied regular bail to Vijay Nair and four others in a money laundering case related to the Delhi Excise Policy Case.
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Case Title:Vijay Nair v. Directorate of Enforcement
5. [Plea against attachment of APHC office] The Delhi High Court has granted more time to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to respond on Hurriyat leader Nayeem Ahmad Khan’s plea challenging the trial court order directing the attachment of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) office in Srinagar in a UAPA case. During the hearing, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Akshai Malik appearing for NIA submitted, "Unfortunetly, the investigation officer was not available. We are seeking 2 or 3 weeks more time to file a reply". The bench said, "NIA seeks time to file a reply to this application. Is granted 3 weeks from today....list after 4 weeks". The matter has been posted for further hearing on September 12, 2023.
Case Title: Nayeem Ahmad Khan v. National Investigation Agency
6. [Plea seeking removal of unauthorised religious structures from public spaces] The Delhi High Court has sought responses from Centre and the Delhi government on a plea seeking removal of unauthorised religious structures from public spaces in the city. A division bench also issued notice to Delhi Police, PWD and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and sought their responses on the plea. The PIL filed by five petitioners namely Preet Singh, Sunil Antil, Neeraj Chauhan, Rajesh, and Ashok Kumar Mittal, through Advocates Hari Shankar Jain, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Parth Yadav, Mani Munjal and Amita Sachdeva stated that several “illegal mosques, mazars and dargahs have been raised on public land, public parks and prominent public places unauthorisedly and illegally”, which is in violation of the directions of the Supreme Court. “…. such illegal activities are rapidly increasing with intention to capture more and more land illegally and unauthorisedly in the name of pseudo religion due to which the national integrity and National Interest is being jeopardised”, the plea stated.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Case Title: Preet Singh & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
7. [Plea seeking effective implementation of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017] The Delhi High Court has sought the presence of Secretary (Health) of Delhi government before it, over non-constitution of a State Mental Health Authority, on the next date of hearing i.e. September 15. The court said that in spite of an assurance made last year, it was "unfortunate" that till date a permanent State Mental Health Authority under the Mental Health Act has not been constituted by the Delhi government. “Therefore, this Court is left with no option, but to direct that the Secretary (Health), GNCTD, remain present in Court on the next date of hearing”, the bench ordered. In November 2022, the Delhi government had told the court that the process for reconstitution of the State Mental Health Authority as per the requirements of Sections 45 and 46 of the Act and its rules was underway and shall be finalised soon.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Amit Sahni v. Govt of NCT Delhi and Ors.
8. [PIL against conversion of OFB into corporation] The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the Centre's decision to convert the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) into seven corporations. The court said that the “policy decision had been taken in larger public interest and in the interest of the nation to strengthen the defence production in the country”. “In the present case, corporatization of the OFB, in no way, is violating or infringing the constitutional rights guaranteed to the citizens and the policy decision has been taken in larger public interest and in the interest of the nation to strengthen the defence production in the country ensuring quality products and a regular supply of arms & ammunitions to the Armed Forces”, the division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said. Stating that no case for interference was made out on the petition by the Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh, the court observed that policy-making power was in the sole domain of the executive and it did not violate the constitutional rights guaranteed to citizens. "The policy framed by Government of India is in national interest keeping in view the defence requirements, and therefore, the question of interference by this court does not arise. The policy decision in the present case, by no stretch of imagination, is violative of Article 21 nor any other constitutional provision," the court observed in its order dated August 3, 2023.
Case Title: Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh v. Union of India, Ministry of Defence through its Secretary Department of Defence Production & Anr.
9. [Settlement agreements in Matrimonial cases] The Delhi High Court has recently taken serious objection to drafting of settlement agreements in matrimonial cases on “printed proforma” by mediation centres and said that the settlement deed should show application of mind. “It is pertinent to mention here that this court while dealing with petitions of matrimonial quashing often comes across settlement agreements being drafted by the mediation centres which are on a printed proforma. This court takes serious objection to it,” said the single judge bench. The bench directed the mediation centres and family courts to ensure that settlement deeds are “drafted properly” and not on a printed proforma. While quashing an FIR by a wife against her husband and in-laws under Section 498A, 406, and 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the single judge bench said that settlement on the printed proforma sometimes gives an impression that there is no application of mind and the settlement deed has been drafted mechanically. In January 2015, the couple got married and after about 11 months of their marriage, they started living separately due to certain temperamental differences and disputes that cropped up between them. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged against the husband in 2016.
Case Title: Vivek Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr.
10. [POSCO Act] The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, is not gender based and is neutral as far as victim children are concerned and it is most insensitive to argue that the legislation is being misused. The court was dealing with a plea filed by a man accused of sexual assault of a seven-year-old girl in 2016 and charged with several offences under the POCSO Act as well as Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was challenging trial court’s order dismissing his application to recall the minor victim and her mother. “To say the least, POCSO Act is not gender based and is neutral as far as victim children are concerned. Moreover, to argue that the legislation is being misused and using the language such as “as the complainant by keeping a gun on her minor daughter’s shoulder had implicated the applicant in the present case so as to coerce him to re-pay a friendly loan that he had taken from her husband” (as mentioned in the petition) have been found to be most insensitive by this Court”, said the Judge. Justice Sharma said that any law whether gender based or not, has the potential of being misused. “However, only because laws can be misused, the legislature cannot stop enacting laws nor judiciary can stop applying such laws since they have been enacted to curb the larger menace of commission of such offences and getting justice to genuine victims”, the Judge added.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: Rakesh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
11. [NIA's plea for Death Sentence for Yasin Malik] The Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) terrorist Yasin Malik on Wednesday was produced through Video conference (VC) before the Delhi High Court from Tihar Central jail in connection with the National Investigation Agency's plea seeking death penalty for him in a terror funding case. As the division bench did not assemble today, the matter was posted for hearing on December 5. Last week on Friday, the division bench had directed the JKLF Terrorist who is presently serving a life term in the case, to be produced before it through video conferencing mode from Tihar Jail instead of physical appearance pursuant to the production warrant issued earlier this year. "In that view of the matter, the order dated May 29, 2023 is necessarily modified to the extent that the Jail Superintendent is directed to produce Yasin Malik@ Aslam the respondent in the present appeal through Video Conferencing alone on August 9, and not in person", the court had ordered.
Case Title: Yasin Malik v. NIA
12. [Plea against political parties names with caste/religious connotations] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted the Centre another 4 weeks' time to file its response on a petition for de-registering political parties having names with "caste, religious, ethnic or linguistic" connotations and flags that resemble the national tri-color. During the hearing, the counsel for the Centre, Ministry of Law submitted, "They prima-facie say that they want to examine it and seek two week's time for that". "Learned counsels for the respondents pray for 4 weeks' time to file reply. List the matter thereafter", the court ordered.The matter will be next heard on October 18, 2023. Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in the plea stated that the use of names with religious connotations or symbols similar to the national flag or emblem might prejudicially affect the poll prospects of a candidate and would amount to a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951. The plea sought directions to ECI to review the political parties, registered with caste, religious, ethnic, or linguistic connotations and ensure that they are not using a flag, similar to the national flag, and de-register them if they fail to change it within three months.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI & Ors.
13. [Vijay Nair; Default Bail plea] The Delhi High Court on Thursday "issued notice" to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in former Aam Aadmi Party’s communication in-charge Vijay Nair's ‘default bail plea’ in a money laundering case in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam case. Court sought ED's response in the plea and posted the matter for further hearing on September 6, 2023.During the hearing, Senior Advocate Rebecca John appeared for Vijay Nair and Special Public Prosecutor Zoheb Hossain appeared for ED. John, on behalf of Nair, submitted that the chargesheet filed before the Special Judge is a piecemeal and that the ED is continuously filling supplementary chargesheets in the matter. "Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be admitted to the statutory bail", she contended. The senior counsel contended that bail is an important right, where liberty of an individual is involved.
Case Title: Vijay Nair v. Directorate of Enforcement
14. [Cattle Smuggling Case] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday posted Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Anubrata Mondal’s daughter Sukanya Mondal's bail plea in connection with the multi-crore cattle smuggling case for hearing on August 22. "Meanwhile both the parties are directed to file their written submissions", the judge ordered. Notably, on July 5, Justice Sharma had issued notice in Sukanya's bail plea. "Issue Notice. Learned Special Public Prosecutor accepts notice. Status report is to be filed. List it on August 9", the court had ordered. The court had then noted that the petitioner was a young lady of around 31 years of age, who was arrested on April 26, and that one co-accused lady, Tanya Sanyal had been released on bail in the same case. Sukanya was denied bail by the trial court on June 1, 2023. She was arrested in the case by ED on April 26.
Case Title: Sukanya Mondal v. Directorate of Enforcement
15. [POCSO Case-Bail] While granting bail to a 23-year-old boy in a Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) case arising from his consensual physical relationship with a minor girl, the Delhi High Court has said that putting a "young boy" in the company of hardened criminals will do more harm than good to him. Court observed that the minor girl, aged 17 years and a half at the relevant time, had “sufficient maturity and intellectual capacity”, and was prima facie in a consensual romantic relationship with the accused. “The physical relationship between them was of their own free will”, the court said in its order dated July 28. The judge noted the high court had said in an earlier verdict that the intention of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) was to protect children below the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation and it was never meant to “criminalise consensual romantic relationship between young adults”. The court observed, "The petitioner is in custody since October 15, 2021 and has clean antecedent...Keeping him in jail will not serve any useful purpose, rather subjecting young boy in the company of hardened criminals would do more harm than good to him". “This Court is cognizant of the fact that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident but at the same time it cannot be overlooked that the prosecturix was aged 17.5 years and was thus, of sufficient maturity and intellectual capacity”, the court said.
Bench: Justice Vikas Mahajan
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
16. [Suo moto cognizance of Sexual Assault of 3 yr-old] The Delhi High Court has taken suo moto cognizance of the sexual assault on a three-year-old girl allegedly by a cleaner working in a school in South Delhi. “It has been brought to the notice of this Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad, a news item published in the Times of India in respect of a three year old girl child who was sexually assaulted by a school cleaner in South Delhi”, a division bench noted. “Let a status report be filed positively within two weeks from today in respect of action taken in the matter by the Delhi Police as well as by the Education Department, GNCTD,” the bench directed. “Mr. Santosh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Government of NCT of Delhi, while filing the status report, will mask the name of the girl child as well as the names of the parents of the girl child, and shall undertake all necessary measures to protect the identity and right to privacy of the girl child. He shall take care that the media acts in compliance with the statutory provisions as contained in Section 23 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), 2012”, the court said in its order dated August 2. The matter has been posted for hearing on September 1.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Government of NCT of Delhi
17. [Prisoner's Right to Dignity, Emotional & Mental Health] The Delhi High Court has observed that a prisoner's right to dignity as well as mental and emotional health should be protected to enhance the chances of social re-integration post release. “While imprisonment restricts right to liberty, it does not restrict other human rights of the convict. It is crucial to ensure that the right of prisoners to dignity and their mental and emotional health is protected so that chances of their social re-integration after their release from the prison are increased”, said the Judge. The court directed all jails in Delhi to depute a counsellor or psychiatrist for the benefit of inmates throughout the year. Justice Sharma said that the prison administration should be sensitised about issues of mental and emotional health of inmates, and asked the Delhi State Legal Services Authority to regularly hold workshops for mental health therapies for the convicts. Long incarceration would deprive a convict of "positive emotions" and "satisfaction with life", the Judge said. “Fear, anxiety, frustration and anger may drive such convicts to behave differently as they may consider it as a setback and may not be able to cope with it due to long incarceration”, she added. The single-judge bench said that an inmate may feel lonely, unloved, unwanted and useless due to long incarceration. She suggested that the Superintendent Jail, warden and other officials can play a crucial role in identifying such prisoners/convicts and take steps to achieve the bigger goal of protecting the mental integrity and soundness of mind of the convicts in prison, especially those who are incarcerated since long.
Case Title: Sartaj@ Allaharakha v. State of NCT of Delhi
18. [ED's plea against interim protection to NewsClick and its Founder] The Delhi High Court has issued notice in the plea filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) seeking directions to vacate the interim order asking ED not to take "any coercive action" against PPK NewsClick Studio Private Limited, which owns a news portal NewsClick and its founder and editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha, in connection with a money laundering case. Court issued notice to NewsClick and Purkayastha in the plea and sought their response on the plea within two weeks. "As the ED has now unearthed additional documents which reveal the commission of the offence of money laundering as well as commission of the scheduled offences by the petitioner. Prima facie, in the opinion of the court the above contentions raised by the ED have merit and require deliberation. In view thereof, issue notice", the court ordered. The Judge noted, "This is a miscellaneous application filed by the ED seeking vacation of the orders dated 21.06.2021 and 29.07.2021, whereby a direction to the effect that no coercive steps against the petitioner be passed, was passed by this court....the stay of the orders is sought primarily on the ground that the present representation seeking quashing of the ECIR, which is an internal document and not a statutory document and in thus, is per se not maintainable".
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Case Title: M.S PPK NewsClick Studio Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.
19. [Sale of Chinese Manjha] The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi police to ensure there is no sale of Chinese manjha in the national capital during the forthcoming Independence Day period, a "kite-flying season". Court noted that the Delhi police has taken several steps to stop the sale of Chinese manjha and even registered 284 cases from February 16 to August 3 in an effort check the menace. The court also noted that the Delhi Police have also interacted with the e-commerce websites and have sensitised them of the danger of selling Chinese manjha. Awareness programs have also been conducted by the Delhi Police and FIRs have also been registered, in an effort to curb the sale of Chinese manjha, pointed out the judge. "Accordingly, it is directed that Delhi Police shall continue to take steps to restrain the sale of Chinese manjha in Delhi even during the forthcoming Independence Day period, which is the kite-flying season," said the court in its order dated August 8. The court further directed the Delhi Police to file a fresh status report before the next date of hearing, i.e. October 5.
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Case Title: Ishwar Singh Dahiya v. State of NCT Delhi and Ors.
20. [Excise Policy; Raghav Magunta Bail Plea] The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Raghav Magunta, son of YSR Congress Party MP, in connection with a money laundering case related to the alleged excise policy scam. Court recorded that the relief was granted as the Enforcement Directorate did not oppose his bail plea. SPP Zoheb Hossain, on behalf of ED, submitted that since the accused was cooperating in the investigation and assisting in tracing the Proceeds of Crime, which would have been otherwise difficult, he might be granted bail. Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appearing for Magunta submitted that since the bail application was not being opposed by Public Prosecutor, the twin conditions as prescribed by Section 45 (1) (ii) of PMLA would not be applicable. "In view of the statement made and the facts narrated herein above, the interim bail granted vide order dated 18.07.2023 for four weeks on medical grounds is made absolute," said the court in an order dated August 10. The single-judge bench granted Magunta regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2 lakh with two sureties of like amount. "Let the petitioner be released on regular bail furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court ," the court said.
Case Title: Ragahav Magunta v. Directorate of Enforcement
21. [Guidelines for termination of pregnancy of Rape survivors] The Delhi High Court has issued guidelines for doctors and Delhi police in cases of medical termination of pregnancy of rape survivors. Court said, "Doctors play a crucial role in such sensitive cases, especially when minors are involved. They must prioritize the health and well-being of their patients while being mindful of the legal and ethical complexities surrounding the procedure. “When a minor seeks a medical termination of pregnancy, doctors must ensure that the process is conducted in compliance with the prevailing laws and regulations, with utmost sensitivity to the minor's age and maturity level”, Justice Sharma said. “Doctors also have a duty to communicate effectively with such minor patients, explaining the medical procedures, potential risks, and available alternatives…Doctors should also provide clear instructions on post-operative care, including any necessary medications, activity restrictions, and signs of potential complications”, she added.The court was dealing with the bail plea filed by a man, Nabal Thakur. He had been accused of repeatedly raping a 16-year old, who was found to be four weeks and five days pregnant.
Case Title: Nabal Thakur (In J.C) v. State
Please Login or Register
