Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Asian Games Trials] The Delhi High Court has last week refused to interfere with the exemption granted to wrestlers Vinesh Phogat and Bajrang Punia from the Asian Games trials while dismissing a petition by wrestlers Antim Panghal and Sujeet Kalkal against wrestlers' direct entry into the Indian squad for the tournament. The court said that although the petitioners themselves had also “excelled” in the field of wrestling, the court was not inclined to sit in appeal over the decision taken by an expert committee which unanimously decided that being “elite athletes”, Phogat and Punia should be exempted from trials in order to prevent injury to them. The court said that the unanimous decision taken by the committee on July 12 not to expose Punia and Phogat, who have been termed as elite athletes, to injuries during trials cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. "It is nobody’s case that Respondent No.3 & 4 are not well known in their respective categories. In fact, both the athletes are in the World Top 10 rankings and, therefore, the categorisation of these athletes as elite athletes also cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary", the court added.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Sujeet & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Click here to read more
2. [Yamuna flood relief camps] The Delhi High Court has sought a 'detailed status report' from the Delhi government in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking immediate relief measures like free ration, medical assistance, sanitary provisions and other essentials for people at the Yamuna flood relief camps in the national capital. During the hearing, Advocate KR Shiyas appearing for the petitioner submitted, “This is regarding the flood situation in Delhi. Before my submissions, I would like to share the latest reports of today's morning water level”. On the other hand, Delhi Government’s Standing Counsel Santosh Kumar Tripathi opposed the plea and said, “Firstly, he has filed this petition and circulated it in the media, even before the hearing in the court. The media has published widely about this petition, the prayer etc. Secondly, without approaching the areas, the flood areas, without due diligence the petition has been filed”. “If your Lordships may see, the cabinet has taken the decision to provide financial assistance. Every camp has all basic amenities”, he added.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Case Title: Dr. Akash Bhattacharya v. Delhi Disaster Management Authority through Chairperson Lt. Governor & Anr.
3. [PIL for equal status of Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana] The Delhi High Court has asked the counsel to complete pleadings in a Public Interest Litigation plea seeking direction to declare that the song ‘Vande Mataram’ be honored equally as ‘Jana-Gana-Mana’. Petitioner's contention is that same as the national anthem, the national song had played an important role in history. During the hearing, the court was informed that the CBSE and ICSE are to be impleaded in the matter. The bench said, “Let the pleadings complete”. “Learned counsel is granted time to comply with the order…on the last date of hearing this court has directed the petitioner to file an appropriate application for impleadment of CBSE and ICSE as parties. No such application has been filed. The petitioner is again granted 4 weeks-time to do the needful. List the matter after 4 weeks”, the bench ordered. The bench has now listed the matter for further hearing on November 16.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India & Ors.
4. [Non-compliance of previous orders] The Delhi High Court has directed SpiceJet Managing Director and Chairman Ajay Singh to be “present physically” on the next date of hearing in a case of non-compliance of its 2020 order, wherein he was asked for an affidavit of the company's assets. The bench was dealing with an application by Kal Airways and Kalanithi Maran for urgent hearing of its enforcement petition. The bench issued notice to SpiceJet Ltd. and Ajay Singh and directed them to file an Affidavit disclosing all of their Assets before the next date of hearing i.e. September 5. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, on behalf of Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd. and Kalanithi Maran, submitted that Spicejet is not honoring the orders passed by any of the Courts. “Spicejet has earlier too failed to comply with the order passed by this High Court dated 04.11.2020 directing the Spicejet to file its affidavit of disclosure of its Assets which was reaffirmed by later order dated 29.05.2023 passed by this Court and the same is not filed till date. Spicejet is also not even complying with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 13.02.2023 reaffirmed by the order dated 07.07.2023. He further submitted that Order XXI Rule 41 (iii) of Code of Civil Procedure clearly provides that the Hon’ble Court may for a period not exceeding 3 months pass an order of arrest of the Judgement Debtor for not complying with the order to file Affidavit of Assets”, he submitted. On the contrary, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi appearing for SpiceJet and its MD Ajay Singh submitted that there is no reason for allowing early hearing at this stage and the matter can be taken up on September 5 which is the fixed date.
Bench: Justice Yogesh Khanna
Case Title: Kalanithi Maran v. M/S Spicejet Ltd. & Anr.
5. [Prayer in religious places located inside protected monuments] The Delhi High Court has asked the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to state its policy on allowing prayers by devotees in religious places located inside protected monuments. Court was hearing a petition against the stopping of prayers by devotees inside the Mughal Mosque which, according to ASI, falls within the category of protected monuments on account of being part of the Qutub complex. The counsel for ASI said that according to his understanding, "there is no question" of permitting prayers in protected monuments. However, the single-judge bench said that the counsel’s statement was “perhaps overboard” and asked him to clarify the ASI’s position. “We will hold ASI to it.. that in all protected monuments all over the country no worship is permitted by any religion. There can’t be different rules for different monuments for different religions unless it is backed up by law.. Let us understand the policy,” the court said.
Bench: Justice Prateek Jalan
Case Title: Managing Committee of Delhi Waqf Board v. Union of Inidia & Ors.
6. [Defamation Case] The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs 2 crores to an Indian Army officer for “loss of reputation” suffered by him on account of a 2001 "expose" by a news portal alleging his involvement in corruption in defence procurement. While deciding the suit filed by Major General M S Ahluwalia, the bench directed that the amount shall be paid by Tehelka.Com, its owner M/s Buffalo Communications, its proprietor Tarun Tejpal and two reporters, Aniruddha Bahal and Mathew Samuel. “The reputation of the plaintiff has suffered as he not only faced lowering of estimation in the eyes of public but his character also got maligned with serious allegations of corruption which no subsequent refutation can redress or heal… Considering the enormity of the nature of defamation, apology at this stage is not only inadequate but is meaningless”, the court said. In March 2001, a story about alleged corruption in defence deals in relation to import of new defence equipment was carried on Tehelka.com. This story was done and recorded by two reporters, Bahal and Samuel, allegedly working undercover by representing themselves on behalf of a fictitious defence equipment Firm based in London keen to introduce new defence equipments in the Indian Army. The sting operation showed Army officers, civilian officers working in the Ministry of Defence and politicians and was also aired by Zee TV.
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: Major General M.S. Ahluwalia v. M/S Tehelka.com & Ors.
7. [Delhi Riots] The Delhi High Court has directed Shahrukh Pathan, an accused in the Delhi Riots 2020 to approach the Trial Court for bail, in the case related to rioting and causing injury to police personnel, including one Rohit Shukla. During the hearing, Advocate Khalid Akhtar on behalf for Pathan submitted, "The witnesses who so ever they state, none are eye-witnesses. It is only on circumstantial evidence or they're assuming that I am the one...there is no CCTV footage of the incident. All those named and identified in the FIR are out on bail and I am still languishing behind bars". "Even in the order of charges, this entire case is fabricated and motivated. They have planted witnesses. In the first statement.... May I take the court through the facts of the case Lordship!", he contended. Akhtar contended, "It is not the case of the prosecution that I had fired...The case against me is under S. 149 IPC because the shooter couldn't be identified. When I was arrested, they did not have any clue who the shooter was, they nabbed me and kept me incarcerated. Then they fill in the blank and add my name". The court said that there have been circumstantial changes in the matter and directed the accused to approach the trial court for bail.
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Case Title: Shahrukh Pathan alias Khan v. The State NCT of Delhi
8. [Penalty on PayPal] The Delhi High Court has set aside a penalty of Rs 96 lakh imposed on American online payment gateway PayPal by the Financial Intelligence Unit-India for alleged non-compliance with the reporting obligations under the law against money laundering.The bench said, "PayPal is a 'payment system operator' within the framework of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and, therefore, obliged to comply with the reporting entity obligations under the PMLA". “The imposition of penalty in terms of the impugned order dated 17 December 2020 is, however and for reasons aforenoted, quashed. The impugned order shall stand set aside to the aforesaid extent”, the court ordered. “In view of the above, the Bank Guarantee as submitted by PayPal shall stand discharged. The Registrar General of the Court is requested to take further steps in light of the above”, it said. The online payment gateway had challenged the order of December 17, 2020 passed by the FIU-India holding it to be a “reporting entity” under the PMLA Act and consequently, proceeded to impose monetary penalties for having failed to comply with the reporting obligations as placed under the Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules 2005.
Bench: Justice Yashwant Varma
Case Title: PayPal Payments Private Limited v. Financial Intelligence Unit India & Anr.
9. [Plea raising issue of decline of population of vultures] The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to file a short affidavit in a plea raising issue of the decline in the population of vultures in India. A division bench was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by Advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal raising concern over the issue of the decline in number of vultures in India. The counsel for the Centre contended that this petition has now become "infructuous". "There were two drugs which the petitioner sought banning of, because of the fact that they were fed to the Cattles. So, the expert committee has now recommended to the central government that these two drugs should be banned. Now the due process will fall under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act because the recommendation is being sent to the Ministry now. They'll come with a notification if the ministry agrees and thereafter so and so....", he submitted. Advocate Gaurav Bansal, the petitioner-in-person, contended that there is also a need for an effective mechanism for safety testing of the drugs on wildlife. Accordingly, court said, "Centre is directed to file a short affidavit. Lists the matter for September 1".
Case Title: Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
10. [PIL for implementation of Uniform Banking Code] The Delhi High Court has asked the Centre and Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to file their respective reply in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking directions to implement Uniform Banking Code. During the hearing, counsel for RBI sought more time to file its reply in the plea. The division bench granted 6 weeks' time to RBI and Centre to file their responses in the PIL. The PIL raises the issue of a Uniform Banking Code for foreign exchange transfers to control black money generation and benami transactions. The plea filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay stated that the "immigration rules for Visa are same whether a foreigner comes in Business Class or Economy Class, uses Air India or British Airways and comes from USA or Uganda. Likewise, deposit details in Indian banks, including foreign bank branches for Foreign Exchange Transaction must be in the same format whether it is export payment in a current account or salary, in a savings account or donation, in charity's current account or service charges payable in YouTuber's accounts."
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
11. [Coaching Centres in Mukherjee Nagar] The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to close down all coaching centres operating without a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the fire services department. The division bench observed that "fire safety is a must" and all coaching centres are under an obligation to comply with their statutory requirements under the Delhi Master Plan, 2021, and other applicable regulations. The court was dealing with a batch of petitions concerning the operations of coaching centres in Mukherjee Nagar, a coaching hub for government job aspirants. The court was also hearing a suo moto plea after a June 15 blaze at a coaching centre in north Delhi’s Mukherjee Nagar which resulted in the injury of 61 students.
Case Title: Kanchan Gupta v. Lt. Governor, State of Delhi & Ors (a batch of petitions)
12. [Mosque encroachment] The Delhi High Court has directed the Railways to not take any action pursuant to its notices pasted on two mosques on Tilak Marg and Babar Road for removal of "unauthorised" structures and "encroachment" from its land. The bench granted time to the central government counsel, on his request, to take instructions on the petition by the Delhi Waqf Board. The Board claimed that the notices were "generic" and the two mosques; Masjid Takia Babbar Shah near Railway Bridge on Tilak Marg and Masjid Bachchu Shah on Babar Marg, which is also known as Bengali Market Mosque – are not unauthorised and the land does not belong to the Railways. The plea contended that the impugned action of the Railways proposing to demolish the mosques is clearly malafide, arbitrary, capricious and without any real reason.
Case Title: Delhi Waqf Board v. Union of India, Ministry of Railways & Anr.
13. [PIL for Holistic Integrated Medicinal approach] The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to file its reply in six weeks in a plea seeking adoption of an Indian Holistic Integrated Medicinal Approach. The division bench was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by a practicing lawyer, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking directions to the Centre to adopt Indian holistic integrated medicinal approach rather than a colonial segregated way of Allopathy, Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Sidda, and Homeopathy to secure the right to health. The matter will be heard further on October 16.
14. [Coal Scam Case] The Delhi High Court has given interim bail to former Rajya Sabha MP Vijay Darda, his son Devendra Darda and businessman and Director of JLD Yavatmal Energy Pvt Ltd Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, who were sentenced to four years in jail in a case related to irregularities in the allocation of a coal block in Chhattisgarh. Court issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation and sought its response on appeals filed by the three men challenging their conviction and sentence in the case within eight weeks. The court also asked the CBI to file its response to the convicts' pleas seeking suspension of their four-year jail term. Justice Sharma granted interim bail to the three on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10 lakh each and two sureties of the same amount.
Case Title: Vijay Darda v. CBI; Manoj Kumar Jayaswal v. CBI and Devendra Darda v. CBI
15. [Tweet by Rahul Gandhi revealing identity of rape victim] The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) told the Delhi High Court on Thursday last week that social media posts by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi "revealing the identity" of a minor Dalit girl, raped and killed in 2021, was in violation of the law protecting the identity of the victim. The NCPCR presented its stand before the bench in an affidavit filed by it on a petition seeking registration of an FIR against Gandhi for publishing a photograph with the parents of the victim that led to her identification. "Shri Rahul Gandhi posted a picture of his meeting with the parents of the minor victim girl on his social media accounts thereafter revealing the identity of the minor girl. The tweet/post of .. Shri Rahul Gandhi is in the violation of provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which makes it explicitly clear that any information including family details should not be published in any form of media which could lead to the identification of any minor victim," said the reply affidavit by NCPCR. The bench was hearing a petition seeking direction to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and Commissioner of Police Delhi to take appropriate legal action against Congress Ex-President Rahul Gandhi for disclosing sensitive information about a rape victim and her family members by publishing a photograph of her parents on his Twitter handle @RahulGandhi.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Makarand Suresh Mhadlekar vs Rahul Gandhi and Ors.
16. [Acid Sale] The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to ensure “proper implementation of the existing legal framework” on ban on the sale of acid and take swift action against the offenders. The division bench observed that an outright ban on the sale of acid may not be the “appropriate approach”. The court was hearing a PIL seeking directions for a total ban on over-the-counter sale of acid in retail stores across the city. “A total ban could have unintended consequences, affecting sectors where acid is responsibly and safely utilized. Therefore, striking a balance between public safety and the legitimate uses of acid for industrial and other regulated purposes is crucial”, the division bench said. The court said that acid serves various legitimate uses and applications in different industries, and a blanket prohibition could inadvertently affect businesses and individuals who require it for lawful purposes. “At the same time, we must and do acknowledge the threat posed by uncontrolled acid sales and the need for stringent measures to prevent such heinous crimes”, it said. “Therefore, on the basis of material before us, we are of the opinion that an outright ban on the sale of acid may not be the most appropriate approach”, the court opined.
Case Title: Shaheen Malik v. State of GNCTD through Prinicipal Secretary & Ors.
17. [Service Charges] The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 1 lakh costs on each, the National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) and the Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India (FHRAI), for complete "non-compliance of the directions" as per its previous order. Court said, “One last opportunity is granted to the Petitioners to properly file these affidavits within four days subject to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as costs in each of the petitions which shall be paid to the Pay and Accounts Office, Department of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi by way of a Demand Draft. Without the cost being deposited, the affidavits shall not be taken on record”. During the hearing on July 24, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma told the court that approximately 4,000 more complaints had been received from consumers who were complaining about the service charges being imposed by the petitioners and their members. The court was also apprised that an affidavit was filed by the National Restaurant Association of India on July 21. However, the Union Government was not served. It was also informed by the Central Government’s counsel that the service of the affidavit filed by the Federation of Hotels and Restaurant Associations of India was made at an incorrect email address despite the correct email address being shown on the index where he had been filing affidavits. The single-judge bench noted that the clear impression that it got was that the petitioners were in complete non-compliance of the orders dated 12th April 2023 and had filed the affidavits without serving the respondents properly so as to ensure that the hearing did not proceed before the high court.
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Case Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union of India & Anr.
18. [Asian Games 2023] The Delhi High Court has "reserved orders" in the plea filed by wrestlers Antim Panghal and Sujeet Kalkal over the exemption granted to Vinesh Phogat and Bajrang Punia for direct entry to Asian Games 2023 trials by the WFI ad-hoc. The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad said, "Heard. Reserved. Pronouncement tomorrow through VC by evening". While reserving the order, the court asked the ad-hoc panel running Wrestling federation of India (WFI) to file an affidavit by today evening that there is no record of a withdrawal of exemptions in a meeting of August 25, 2020. Court said that he will not deal with the issue of who is a better wrestler. "We will only see if the procedure has been followed or not", he added. Notably, on Thursday the court had sought response of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) in the plea by the wrestlers.
Please Login or Register
