Read Time: 01 hours
1. [PIL to expedite Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015] The Delhi High Court has "dismissed" a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to expedite the finalization process of the Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015 which relates to the prohibition of screening procedure in the matter of admission of tiny tots at pre-primary level (nursery/pre-primary) in schools.The division bench on May 17, "reserved order" in the plea. The plea highlighted that the very objective and purpose of the Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015 is to protect tiny tots from exploitation and unjust discrimination in the matter of nursery admission in private schools which is literally defeated by delay in finalizing the same by Central and Delhi Government and making it a law.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium
Case Title: Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Click here to read more
2. [PIL to control fake cases] The Delhi High Court has "dismissed" a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Law Commission of India to prepare a comprehensive report to control “fake cases” and to “reduce the police investigation time and precious time of judiciary”. The court on May 15, had "reserved order" in the PIL. Upadhyay's plea sought directions to the Police to ask the complainant about her willingness to undergo scientific tests like Narco Analysis, Polygraphy, and Brain mapping during the investigation to prove her allegation and record her statement in the First Information Report. It also sought direction to the Police to ask the accused about her willingness to undergo Narco Analysis, Polygraphy, and Brain mapping test to prove her innocence and record her statement in the chargesheet.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI & Ors.
3. [G-20 Summit and high-end vehicles] The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to not insist on requirement of “fitment of speed governors” on high-end vehicles specified in tender issued by Centre to be used for transport of guests for events during the G20 summit. The court was hearing a plea by the Indian Tourist Transportation Association seeking directions to remove the prohibition from registering high-end vehicles as taxis without fitment of speed governors till the time the speed governors for these vehicles are available in the market from two or three manufacturers at competitive rates. A speed governor helps in controlling the speed of machines such as vehicles.
Bench: Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Case Title: Indian Tourist Transportation Association (Regd.) v. Union of India & Ors.
4. [Plea against film 'Adipurush'] The Delhi High Court has posted a plea seeking direction to cancel the certificate of movie 'Adipurush' and immediately ban it for hurting sentiments of Hindu community in the name of creative liberty and artistic representation for hearing on July 27. Earlier, on June 21, the vacation bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju and Justice Amit Mahajan had 'refused urgent hearing' of the plea. During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the petitioner Vishnu Gupta had submitted that the present writ against the screening of the controversial movie 'Adipurush' was listed on a later date however, it needed to be heard urgently. The plea contended that film makers, producers, and actors cannot be permitted to take unimpeded creative liberty to commercialize religious leaders, characters, their faces, personalities and looks including hair, in a sheer violation of religious rights under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Vishnu Gupta vs. Union of India
5. [Penetration proof enough to establish rape] The Delhi High Court has awarded 20 years imprisonment to two men for gang-raping a Nigerian woman in 2014. Court said that mere absence of traces of semen during the DNA analysis does not falsify the victim's claim and penetration was sufficient to prove the offence of rape. The division bench modified the jail term of the two convicts from 30 years to 20 years noting that one of them was unmarried while the other had to look after his children and parents, and the possibility of their reformation could not be ruled out. One of the grounds on which the woman’s testimony was assailed was that despite her claim that the men (appellants) raped her, the DNA analysis report did not support the claim.
Bench: Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba
Case Title: Raj Kumar & Anr. v. State
6. [PMLA Case; Hyd-Bizman- Benoy Babu] The Delhi High Court has 'dismissed' the bail plea of Hyderabad-based businessman Benoy Babu, accused in a case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case. While denying bail, the bench said, "The accused person 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. Allegations are that deliberate loopholes were left to facilitate illegal and criminal activity." "I consider that at this stage there is sufficient material on record that the petitioner (Benoy Babu) was indulging in or knowingly assisting in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence and he's not likely to commit any offence", the court added.
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Case Title: Benoy Babu v. ED
7. [Excise Policy Scam- Abhishek Boinpally] The Delhi High Court has "rejected" the bail plea of Abhishek Boinpally, a Hyderabad-based businessman and accused in the case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case. The bench held, "The learned trial court has examined the case on merits and has reached to a finding which is duly supported by this court. I do not find any illegality in the order of the trial court.....the accused person 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." "The allegations are that deliberate loopholes were left to facilitate illegal and criminal activity. It is also pertinent to note that the investigation has revealed that 65% of stakes were given to the South Group in Indospirits to make it a mechanism of continuous generation and channelization of proceeds of crime", the court said.
Case Title: Abhishek Boinpally v. ED
8. [Excise Policy Scam-Manish Sisodia] The Delhi High Court has 'denied' bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia in a case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam case. While denying bail to Sisodia, the bench said, "The allegations are that deliberate loopholes were made to facilitate illegal and criminal activity. It is also pertinent to mention that investigations have revealed that 65% stakes were given to 'South Group' in Indo Spirits to make it a mechanism of continuous generation and channelization of proceeds of crime". The court noted that the ED has alleged that emails were planted by Manish Sisodia to show that there was public support to the recommendation of the group of meetings (GoM). It also noted that there was Sisodia's role in the conspiracy to allow illegal benefits in lieu of kickbacks of Rs. 100 crore. "In view of the high political power held by the accused (Manish Sisodia) and his position in the party (Aam Aadmi Party) in power in Delhi, the possibility of influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out. The twin conditions in the PMLA are in addition to the triple test. This court is of the considered view that petitioner has not only been able to pass the twin conditions provided u/S. 45 of PMLA, but has also not crossed the triple test. I consider in the view of discussion made herein above that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The petition is accordingly dismissed", the court ordered.
Case Title: Manish Sisodia v. ED
9. [Excise Policy Scam-Vijay Nair] While observing that Vijay Nair was a close associate of Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, the Delhi High Court has 'denied' bail to former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) communications in-charge Vijay Nair in connection with the money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a case related to the Delhi excise policy scam.Denying bail to Nair, the bench 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". "It has also come record that the accused Vijay Nair was a close associate of Chief Minister GNCT of Delhi (Arvind Kejriwal) and Shri Manish Sisodia, the then Deputy CM", the court added. "The investigation has further revealed that Vijay Nair arranged video call through face time with Chief Minister of GNCT of Delhi (Arvind Kejriwal), where the CM said that Nair is his boy and ....the allegations are extremely serious in nature. The alleged conspiracy has been well spun and there are prima facie credible material on record", Justice Sharma said.
Case Title: Vijay Nair v. Directorate of Enforcement
10. [Army Quota] The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the Centre's decision to give higher priority to wards of ex-servicemen than those of serving personnel in admission to various educational institutions under army quota of five per cent. The court was dealing with a petition filed by the husband of a serving lieutenant colonel in the Indian Army. He moved the High Court seeking to quash the order of May 21, 2018 of the government of India giving the categories of priority within the reservation provided in the Army quota of 5 per cent for admission to various colleges. The bench said that no arbitrariness or mala fide was brought forth in the policy which provided nine categories of "Priority" for wards and wives of former and serving personnel for providing reservation in medical/professional/non-professional courses throughout the country. The court said that there was no ground to interfere and it was a policy decision of the Centre to define how the reservation in different categories shall be availed.
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: Viney Chaudhary v. UOI & Anr.
11. [Cattle Smuggling] The Delhi High Court has allowed Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Anubrata Mondal to withdraw his habeas corpus petition claiming his ongoing custody in jail in a money laundering case related to cattle smuggling in West Bengal to be illegal. The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Mondal for producing him before a court in person, alleging that he is in “illegal custody or unlawful detention”. The division bench told the counsel for Mondal that his petition, which argued that there was no valid judicial order remanding him in judicial custody, would not be maintainable. The bench also granted him liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in law while ordering, "The petition is dismissed as withdrawn".
Bench: Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Gaurang Kanth
Case Title: Anubrata Mondal v. Directorate of Enforcement
12. [POSH Act] The Delhi High Court has recently held that there is "absolutely nothing" that limits the scope of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 to cases where a woman employee is sexually harassed by another employee working in her own office or department, but also extends to cases where the delinquent employee is employed elsewhere. While observing that in an era where women are equalling men in every professional achievement, there can be no compromise on objectives of the PoSH Act, the division bench said equalising of sexes in every aspect of life is a constitutional imperative and the working environment is required to be as safe and secure for women as it is for men. "Even an apprehension, by a woman, that her safety might be compromised or endangered in the workplace is, therefore, abhorrent to our constitutional ethos," the court said.
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Manoj Jain
Case Title: Dr Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr.
13. [Plea seeking strict implementation of law of Bakra-Eid] While observing that in absence of any specific instance by the petitioner showing as to how rules are violated, a writ of mandamus cannot be passed in the air, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking strict implementation and enforcement of provisions issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, on the occasion of Bakra-eid. The bench refused to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner, Ajay Gautam also sought directions to the respondents to ensure that no cattle markets are held in Delhi without obtaining prior permission of the competent authorities as per law on the occasion of Bakra-eid. The plea was filed before the Bakra-eid this year which was celebrated on June 29, 2023.
Case Title: Ajay Gautam v. Delhi State Advisory Board for Animal Welfare & Anr.
14. [Empanelment of Government Counsel] The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by an advocate challenging the process of empanelment as Government Counsel for the Union of India. A division bench, while dismissing the petition, observed, “It seems that the Petitioner, who is an Advocate, has filed the present petition after being a beneficiary of the very same process which has been assailed in the present Writ Petition only because he has been denied extension or reappointment. A litigant can always choose a lawyer to represent him and the Government of India, which is one of the largest litigant in the country, has the freedom to appoint its own lawyers. This Court is of the view that the present petition is nothing but a Publicity Interest Litigation.”
Case Title: Rajinder Nischal v. Union of India
15. [Cattle Smuggling; Sukanya Mondal] The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in Trinamool Congress (TMC) Leader Anubrata Mondal’s daughter Sukanya Mondal's bail plea in connection with the multi-crore cattle smuggling case. Counsel for Sukanya submitted, "This is an application for grant of regular bail. The only request is that the connected matter where arrest has been challenged is coming up on August 9, in the same ECIR". The bench noted that the petitioner is a young lady of around 31 years of age, who was arrested on April 26, and that one co-accused lady, Tanya Sanyal has been released on bail in the same case. The single-judge bench issued notice to the ED in the bail plea. "Issue Notice. Learned Special Public Prosecutor accepts notice. Status report is to be filed. List it on August 9", the court ordered.
Case Title: Sukanya Mondal v. ED
16. [Striking off a doctor's name from the Indian Medical Register ] The Delhi High Court has said that striking off the name from the Indian Medical Register partakes the character of a civil death in the professional career of a doctor. It said that such an action is bound to have far and wide reaching societal ramifications for the rest of his career. The above observations were made by a single-judge bench which was considering a writ petition filed by one Dr. Pramod Batra challenging the decision of MCI to temporarily strike his name from the Indian Medical Register for a period of three months. The High Court said that “the scalpel cannot be wielded by a shaking hand.” Baseless targeting of doctors, unmindful of the consequences, is bound, in the ultimate eventuate, to seriously prejudice public interest, it observed. In the instant case, the petitioner was discharged by the MCI in respect of the charge of medical negligence of death of one 21 year old lady, but was punished with the temporary removal of his name on the ground of falsification of records.
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case Title: Dr. Pramod Batra v. Medical Council of India & Anr.
17. [Uniform for auto and taxi drivers] The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea against the mandatory uniform for auto-rickshaw and taxi drivers in the national capital. While rejecting the plea, the bench orally observed that the instant plea amounted to gross misuse of a public interest litigation (PIL). The court was dealing with a plea by Chaalak Shakti, a drivers’ union, which challenged mandatory uniforms for auto rickshaw and taxi drivers and alleged that such labelling was in violation of the Constitution of India. During the course of the hearing in the matte, the counsel for the petitioner contended that prescribing a uniform curtails the drivers’ freedom of expression and it also acts as a symbol of their status. On the contrary, the counsel for the state government stated that certain discipline has to be followed in relation to uniforms of drivers.
Case Title: Chaalak Shakti & Ors. V. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
18. [Blockades on Mathura road crossing] While dismissing a plea seeking directions to the police to remove certain blockades on the Mathura road crossing, the Delhi High Court has observed that the traffic authorities are the best judges to decide the issue of regulation of traffic in the city. The division bench also said, “this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to sit over as an Appellate Authority over the decisions taken by the traffic authorities for regulating the movement of traffic in the city”. The court was dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), by Advocate Mamta Rani, who sought removal of barricades placed on the crossings of Mathura Road, preventing a right turn while approaching either the Supreme Court main building or the Delhi High Court from the additional building of the Supreme Court. The plea stated that due to the barricades, a distance of about 300-400 meters while travelling from the apex court’s additional building to its main building has increased to more than 5 kilometers, which is not only time consuming but also causes wastage of fuel.
Case Title: Mamta Rani v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
19. [More Juvenile Justice Board in Delhi] The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to establish three Juvenile Justice Boards in the national capital within two years. The court was dealing with a suo-moto case which was initiated in 2013, after an incident of vandalism took place in the juvenile detention centre at Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi on August 8, 2013. It was reported that the inmates set fire inside the home by burning blankets and a couple of cars which were parked outside were also damaged. The report indicated that the inmates accused the administration of treating them badly and not providing them food on time. On perusal of the recent status report, the bench observed that Delhi is ready to lay foundation stone to set up Vatsalya Sadan, Alipur and an integrated complex as enumerated in revised guidelines Mission Vatsalya for effective implementation of Juvenile Justice Act comprising of various Juvenile Justice Institutions and Statutory Bodies for care and protection of children within a single premises.
Case Title: Court in its own motion v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors
20. [2018 Contempt Case against S Gurumurthy ] The Delhi High Court has said that it is important to put a quietus to the contempt proceedings initiated against Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ideologue S Gurumurthy in 2018 for his tweet on Justice S Muralidhar for the judgement in INX Media case. Court noted that Gurumurthy has already appeared in the matter and expressed his remorse. "Our view is that this gentleman (S. Gurumurthy) against whom you're alleging contempt has appeared before the court, he has expressed his remorse. Sometimes it is important to put a quietus to all this", said the division bench. The court was dealing a contempt plea filed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) seeking criminal contempt proceedings against Gurumurthy over his tweet wherein he questioned whether Justice S Muralidhar was Senior Advocate P Chidambaram’s junior. The tweet was posted following the decision of a division bench led by Justice Muralidhar to award temporary protection to Karti Chidambaram in the INX Media case.
Bench: Justice Sidharth Mridul and Justice Gaurang Kanth.
Case Title: Delhi High Court Bar Association through its Secretary v. S. Gurumurthy
21. [Plea against attachment of APHC office] The Delhi High Court has sought National Investigation Agency’s (NIA’s) response on Hurriyat leader Nayeem Ahmad Khan’s plea challenging the trial court order directing eattachment of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) office in Srinagar in a UAPA case. During the hearing, Advocate Tara Narula appearing for Khan and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra along with Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Akshay Mallik appeared for NIA. Khan has challenged the trial court order dated January 27, 2022. His plea stated that the prosecution has in no way made a case that would allege any misdoing in relation to the property in the past, present, or future and that the principles of natural justice stand violated in the present case.
Case Title: Nayeem Ahmad Khan v. NIA
22. [Retrospecitive application of Trademarks Rules, 2017] The Delhi High Court has referred the question as to whether the Trademarks Rules, 2017 dealing with procedural aspects and relating to the filing of evidence would apply retrospectively to proceedings initiated under the Trademarks Rules, 2002, to a larger bench for consideration. A single-judge bench also referred the question as to whether failure to file evidence in support of the trademark application would tantamount to ‘anything done under the Trademarks Rules, 2002’, which is saved by Rule 158 of the Trademarks Rules, 2017 and would continue to be governed by the Trademarks Rules, 2002. In the present case, the High Court was considering whether the stipulations of 2002 Rules relating to timelines for submission of evidence are of a mandatory or directory nature.
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Sap Se v. Swiss Auto Products & Anr.
23. [Nirmal Singh Maharaj (Guruji) birth anniversary ] The Delhi High Court has allowed 500 devotees to visit the residence of late Nirmal Singh Maharaj (Guruji) on his birth anniversary today i.e. July 7. Guruji passed away in May 2007. The single-judge bench was hearing a plea filed by one Sudha Ahuja, who stated that for last 27 years devotees have been visiting her residence, where late Nirmal Singh Maharaj used to live. She moved the High Court as the Resident Welfare Association (RWA) was causing hinderance or obstruction in the visiting of the devotees.During the hearing, the court was apprised that on July 3 Ahuja had proposed to elaborate measures including permitting limited identifies devotees in a rotational manner at her resident, however, the RWA rejected it.
Bench: Justice Rekha Palli
Case Title: Sudha Ahuja v. Empire Estate Residents Welfare Society & Anr.
24. [IT Amendment Rules, 2023] A plea has been moved by an NGO namely Social Organization for Creating Humanity (SOCH) before the Delhi High Court challenging constitutional and legislative validity of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 in relation to online gaming.The division bench posted the matter for hearing on July 13 and also sought assistance of Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma in the matter. The Noida-based NGO has filed the present plea through Advocate Sakshi Tikmany. The plea stated that the Union government’s enactment of Rules has led to “regulatory confusion and dual set of laws relating to online gaming”. It also stated that presently, there is no clarity on whether the Centre or State laws should be followed with respect to online gaming.
Case Title: Social Organization for Creating Humanity (SOCH) v. Union of India
25. [News18 v. Times Now] The Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that the term “Bhaiyaji” is a generic term of widespread use and News18 India cannot claim exclusive rights over the mark “Bhaiyaji”. The court was hearing a suit filed by News18 India seeking to restrain Times Now Navbharat show “Bhaiya Ji Superhit” from infringing its trademarks “Bhaiyaji Kahin”, for passing off and other ancillary reliefs. News18 contended that it had adopted the device mark “BHAIYAJI KAHIN” with effect from 29th December, 2016 under classes 38 and 41. Under the trademark, “Bhaiyaji Kahin”, over 1,200 episodes have been broadcasted its channel, it said. Further, it claimed that “Bhaiyaji Kahin” marks have attained immense goodwill and reputation amongst the show’s audience and some of the episodes have garnered over 11 million views.In January 2022, Times Now Navbharat launched a show titled “Bhaiya Ji Superhit”, which is also available on Youtube, where newsworthy issues were brought to light through humour and satire.
Bench: Justice Amit Bansal
Case Title: TV 18 Broadcast Limited v. Bennett, Coleman and Company and Company Limited
Please Login or Register
