Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Mediation Centres to prepare settlement agreements in Hindi also] The Delhi High Court has recently directed the in-charge of Mediation Centres to ensure that the mediated settlement agreements are prepared in the Hindi language also. Noting that since in the majority of cases, the parties do not comprehend English and their spoken language and mother tongue is Hindi, the bench directed, “Concerned In-charge of Mediation Centres will ensure that the mediated settlement agreements are prepared in the Hindi language also, in addition to the English language, as far as possible”.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharna
Case Title: Sh. Chhatter Pal & Ors. v. State & Anr.
Click here to read more
2. [No sympathy or compassion for employees submitting forged documents] While observing that employees guilty of submitting forged documents to their employer have to be dealt with strictly and no sympathy or compassion can be shown to such persons, the Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a woman from service.The bench was dealing with the plea of a woman, who was earlier given a compassionate appointment in the Bihar Bhawan in the Group IV category after the death of her husband, seeking to set aside a 2014 order by the employer terminating her service.
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna
Case Title: Kiran Thakur v. Resident Commissioner Bihar Bhavan
3. [PIL against exchange of Rs. 2000 currency note without obtaining requisition slip and identity proof] The Delhi High Court has “reserved order” in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against permission to exchange Rs. 2,000 denomination banknotes without obtaining any requisition slip and identity proof. While reserving the order, a division bench said, “We will pass appropriate orders”.The PIL filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay challenged the two notifications issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on May 19 and the State Bank of India (SBI) on May 20, as arbitrary, irrational, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
4. [BBC Documentary on PM Modi] The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in a plea by an NGO seeking damages, claiming its documentary "India: The Modi Question" casts a slur on the reputation of India and makes false and defamatory imputations against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Indian judiciary. Besides BBC (UK), the bench also issued notice to BBC (India) on the plea filed by Gujarat-based NGO 'Justice On Trial'. Senior Advocate Harish Salve appearing for the plaintiff contended that BBC (UK) is the national broadcaster of the United Kingdom and has released the news documentary - "India: The Modi Question" which has two episodes and BBC (India) is its local operations office. It said the two episodes have been published in January 2023.
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
Case Title: Justice on Trial v. British Broadcasting Corporation (India) & Anr.
5. [Rs. 200 crore extortion case] The Delhi High Court has posted Mumbai-based former TV anchor Pinky Irani's plea challenging the trial court’s order denying her bail in connection with Rs. 200 crore money laundering case involving conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar for hearing on July 12, 2023. On a joint request of both the parties, the bench adjourned the matter to July 12. Allegedly, Irani used to portray Sukesh as a business tycoon and she was instrumental in facilitating certain Bollywood personalities getting in touch with him.
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Case Title: Pinky Irani v. Govt of NCT of Delhi
6. [Domicile of Law graduate not a condition for enrolment with State Bar Council] The Bar Council of India (BCI) through an affidavit told the Delhi High Court that neither under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 nor under the Bar Councils of India Rules, the domicile of a law graduate is a condition for enrollment with the State Bar Council. The affidavit was filed in two pleas, one by Shannu Baghel, a practicing Advocate, and another by a lawyer namely, Rajani Kumari, a resident of Bihar, who graduated from Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi challenging the recent notification of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) mandating Aadhar Card and Voter ID address of Delhi NCR (National Capital Region) for future enrolments.
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Case Title: Shannu Baghel v. Bar Council of Delhi & Anr. and Rajani Kumari v. BCD
7. [Gujarat IPS Officer Satish Chandra Verma] The Delhi High Court has dismissed Gujarat IPS Officer Satish Chandra Verma’s plea against the Union Government’s dismissal order. A division bench upheld the order of the Union government dismissing Verma, who probed the Ishrat Jahan encounter case, a month before his scheduled retirement. “In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed”, the court said while pronouncing the order. Verma was dismissed from service on August 30, 2022, after a departmental inquiry found him guilty of various charges. He was accused of engaging with the public media on March 2 and 3, 2016 in an interview with a news channel, without any authorization or permission from the competent authority, and spoke unauthorizedly on matters that were not within the scope of his duties. He was also charged with communicating official information regarding the interrogation of a senior officer in the Government.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Case Title: Satish Chandra Verma v. UOI & Ors.
8. [Cattle Smuggling Case] Trinamool Congress Leader Anubrata Mondal’s daughter Sukanya Mondal has moved the Delhi High Court seeking the quashing of the ED complaint as well as the consequential proceedings in connection with the multi-crore Cattle Smuggling Case. Counsel for Sukanya submitted, “It's a quashing petition, seeking the quashing of the ED complaint as well as consequential proceedings. I am also challenging the arrest”. 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.
Case Title: Sukanya Mondal v. Directorate of Enforcement through its Assistant Director
9. [Excise Policy Case] Former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party Leader Manish Sisodia “withdrew” interim bail pleas filed by him before the Delhi High Court in the Delhi excise policy scam case to take care of his ailing wife. The bench ordered, “Noting that the condition of the petitioner’s wife has improved and is stable, the interim applications are dismissed as withdrawn”.
Case Title: Manish Sisodia v. CBI and Manish Sisodia v. ED
10. [2018 Contempt Case] The Delhi High Court has granted author, Dr. Anand Ranganathan, four weeks' time to file an affidavit in a criminal contempt case of 2018 over his alleged remarks against a judge. The division bench was hearing the suo-motu criminal contempt case initiated against him and others in 2018 in connection with relief provided by Justice S. Muralidhar to UAPA-accused Gautam Navlakha. During the hearing, Advocate J Sai Deepak appeared for Ranganathan, who was present before the court. Deepak submitted that the tweet that he put out was not with respect to the contempt, nothing related to the judge. He also submitted that he would file an affidavit clearing his position in the case. Ranganathan, appearing in person, said, “I am a free absolutist. Honored to be here. I did not comment on what the Judge said. I made a general statement on the contempt. That’s it.”
Bench: Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh
Case Title: Court in its Own Motion Vs S. Gurumurthy
11. [NSUI Secy Lokesh Chugh] Ph.D. research scholar and National Students Union of India (NSUI) Secretary, Lokesh Chugh moved the Delhi High Court against Delhi University’s alleged "inaction and delay" in processing his Ph.D. thesis, despite the court setting aside DU’s order debarring him from taking his exams for his alleged involvement in the screening of the banned BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi- “India: the Modi Question” at the Faculty of Arts on January 27. The bench issued notice on Chugh’s plea and sought response of the Delhi University and other authorities. Court directed the University to comply with the previous order if there is no stay.
Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Case Title: Lokesh Chugh v. University of Delhi & Ors.
12. [Section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act] The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking stay over termination notice issued by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) against the petitioners, due to non-performance of the terms and conditions of the contract. Emphasis was laid on legislative amendments to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in relation to infrastructural projects and the power of courts while hearing a Section 9 petition under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The main dispute was whether the contract was terminable at the behest of respondents or not – in other words, whether the contract was determinable in nature.
Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Case Title: Roadway Solutions v. National Highway Authority of India
13. [Right to own firearms not a fundamental right] The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to own a firearm is not a Fundamental Right in India. While hearing an advocate’s plea against the Delhi lieutenant governor’s decision rejecting his application seeking an arms licence, the bench stated that an arms licence is a creation of the statute and the licensing authority is vested with the discretion whether to grant or not grant such a licence, depending upon the fact situation in each case. “An application by an advocate merely based on the ground of appearance on behalf of the accused persons, in the opinion of this Court, would not be sufficient to grant an arms license”, the court said. “All lawyers/advocates who are appearing on the criminal side for the accused or the prosecution cannot claim a right to own an arms license, inasmuch as this could result in the issuance of arms licenses indiscriminately,” the court added.
Case Title: Adv. Shiv Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
14. [Man accused of forceful religious conversion] The Delhi High Court has directed a man namely Azmat Ali Khan accused of forceful religious conversion of a woman to take down all social media posts, including images and videos he made about the woman. The court was hearing a petition filed by Khan asking for the removal of news articles and videos that had been posted online by the woman he had been romantically involved with for seven years who later claimed that he had tried to convert her to Islam. During the hearing, the complainant woman appeared in person and interacted with Justice Singh in her chambers. She stated that Khan had her phone and that he had posted some videos on social media (Instagram) which are not appropriate. After the interaction with the complainant woman, Justice Singh said that she appears to be traumatized and asked counsel Khan to advise his client to remove all posts related to her.
Case Title: Azmat Ali Khan v. Union of India & Ors.
15. [2016 Contempt Case] While noting that Managing Director and Editor-in-chief of Republic TV Arnab Goswami had tendered an "unconditional apology" the Delhi High Court recently discharged him in a contempt case filed against him by former TERI Chief, late RK Pachauri. Goswami's affidavit read: "I hereby tender my apology to this Hon'ble Court and request that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to accept the apology and close the instant proceedings against the deponent." The affidavit further read that Goswami is a respectable citizen of the country, who abides by the law and holds all courts in high esteem. Pachauri filed a petition for contempt of court in February 2016 against multiple media organizations for violating court orders that prohibited the publication of sexual harassment accusations against him in a deliberate and contemptuous manner.According to the petitioner, the media was holding a trial against him, and the articles they published were both damaging to his case and defamatory. The present petition was filed when Arnab Goswami was the editor of Times Now and Prannoy Roy was the executive co-chairperson of NDTV.
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam singh Arora
Case Title: Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri v. Indu Jain & Ors.
16. [Appeal by Vodafone-Idea to set aside the Telecom Regulatory Authority's (TRAI) recommendation] The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Vodafone-Idea to set aside the Telecom Regulatory Authority's (TRAI) recommendation to fine it approximately Rs 2,000 crore for failing to provide interconnectivity to Reliance Jio. A division bench said that the TRAI recommendations from 2016, as well as the Central government order dated September 29, 2021, imposing the fine, were already being challenged before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). The court further noted that the TDSAT had previously stayed the Central Government's order and that the TDSAT is authorised to handle the issue.
Case Title: Vodaphone Mobile Services Ltd & Anr vs. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India.
17. [POCSO Matter] The Delhi High Court recently asked the Delhi police as to what action it had taken against a Twitter user for his alleged offensive tweet about fact-checking website Alt-News co-founder Mohammad Zubair in 2020, prompting an FIR under the POCSO Act to be filed against him. The bench said, “You went hammer and tongs against him (Zubair). But the case has now ended in a whimper, as it should have... because there was no evidence. But what action have you (police) taken against this man?” The single-judge bench directed the Delhi Police to file a status report on the action taken against the person who had posted the tweet against Zubair. “Let a status report be filed within six weeks with a copy to the opposite counsel,” the court said.
Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Case Title: Mohammed Zubair Vs. State of GNCT & Ors.
18. [Govt. servants cannot be excluded from protection of rights guaranteed under Part III of Constitution] The Delhi High Court has observed that government servants cannot be excluded from the protection of rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution of India. Observing thus, court set aside the 2019 Memorandum Order (M.O.) that de-recognized the Central PWD Engineers Association. Court said that by virtue of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, the right to form Associations or Union or Cooperative Societies is a fundamental right even though recognition of such Associations by the Government may not be a fundamental right. The division bench said that the decision for ‘non-continuation of recognition’ could not have been taken by DG, CPWD without the prior approval of the Competent Authority i.e. the Central Government, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs in view of Rule 2(a) of CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993.
Bench: Justice Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendirata
Case Title: Central PWD Engineers Association & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
19. [Pleas Challenging IT Dpt's decision of transferring tax assessments to Central Circle] The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a batch of petitions by Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Aam Aadmi Party, and others challenging the Income Tax department’s decision of transferring their tax assessments from faceless assessment to its Central Circle. A division bench upheld the Income Tax authorities’ decision while observing that the transfer was in accordance with the law. However, the bench clarified that it did not examine the matters on merits. The bench said that the parties are free to approach the appropriate statutory authority and that the transfer of their assessments to the Central Circle is for a “coordinated investigation”. “The writ petitions along with pending applications are dismissed without no orders as to cost”, the court ordered.
Bench: Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Case Title: Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) & Ors and a batch of connected matter
Please Login or Register
