Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Recommendations in Private Schools] The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to constitute a high-powered committee to supervise the implementation of recommendations and guidelines of the sixth and seventh Central Pay Commission (CPC) dealing with salaries and arrears to staff of private unaided schools and recognized private unaided minority schools. Terming education as “an invincible weapon” for empowering the next generation, the bench said that the regulating authority has to exercise certain control to ensure that a uniform quality of education is provided to every student in the country. “Education is an invincible weapon for empowering the next generation of the nation, and … regulating authority has to exercise certain control to ensure that uniform quality of education is provided to every student of the country. The aspect of autonomy in administration of unaided or aided school, therefore, does not come into play since the state has to ensure that there is quality education provided to the children. Hence, the unaided minority schools are bound by certain regulations of the appropriate authority", it said.
Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Case Title: Anjali Vaid and Ors. v. Adarsh World School & Ors.
Click here to read more
2. [Luxuries Act, 1996] The Delhi High Court has affirmed that the Delhi Gymkhana Club is subject to tax liability under the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996 (DTL Act). The Commissioner of Entertainment and Luxury Tax had held the club responsible for luxury tax payments for the assessment years 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12. The court emphasized that based on the factual context the case falls within the purview of the 1996 Act and not the subsequent 2012 Act. The bench, consisting observed, "In fact, the word 'luxury' did not even exist on the statute book prior to its insertion by virtue of the 2012 Amendment Act. In view of the above and bearing in mind the statutory position which prevailed at the time when the assessment orders came to be passed, we find no justification or ground to interfere with the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the first respondent."
Bench: Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Case Title: Delhi GymKhana Club v. Commissioner (Luxury Tax), New Delhi & Ors.
3. [Defamation Case: Raghav Chadha] Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Raghav Chadha moved the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court order dismissing the appeal filed against the summons in a criminal defamation complaint lodged by Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Chhail Bihari Goswami. During the hearing, the counsel for Chadha apprised the bench that some additional documents need to be filed in the matter. Taking note of the submission, the single-judge bench said, "Then, I will not issue notice in the matter". Accordingly, the court posted the matter for further consideration on December 11.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: Raghav Chadha v. Chhail Bihari Goswami & Ors.
4. [Intellectual Property Appellate Board] The Delhi High Court has directed the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) to initiate appropriate action against lawyer Sanjay Aggarwal, accused of creating a fabricated order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The directive was issued by a division bench in suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the high court. “We hereby direct the Bar Council of Delhi to take appropriate action, as per law, against the said Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate, if he is found guilty of manufacturing the order dated 02.03.2016 purported to be by IPAB," the court said. The contempt proceedings were instigated after a purported IPAB order was presented before the court during a trademark suit hearing. Upon conducting a vigilance inquiry, it was revealed that the order in question did not exist. Consequently, a single judge referred the matter to the Chief Justice for the initiation of contempt proceedings.
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur
Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion v. Vicky Aggarwal and Ors.
5. [JAG Selection] A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Delhi High Court challenging the mandatory requirement of appearing in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) for individuals seeking selection as officers in the Indian Army's Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch. The bench, consisting granted the Central government's counsel time to seek instructions, scheduling the matter for hearing on November 28. The PIL contends that this mandate is arbitrary, unjustified, unconstitutional, and violates Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. It draws attention to the fact that the notification itself acknowledges that CLAT marks will play no role in the selection procedure. The petitioner, Subham Chopra, through Advocate Prashant Vaxish stated that the notification, JAG 33, issued by the respondent (Union of India) through the Ministry of Defence, brings unreasonable classification and further promotes inequality, rather than providing equal opportunity and promoting equality before the law to all the candidates.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna,
Case Title: Shubham Chopra v. Union of India
6. [Uniform Civil Code] The Delhi High Court has was informed by the Centre that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. The division bench was hearing a batch of petitions filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Danish Eqbal, and others seeking direction for drafting of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) by the Law Commission. At the outset, the bench said that there was a direction given by the court that had not been complied with. Noting that the petitioner-in-person did not appear, the court adjourned the matter for further hearing on December 1. On April 25, court had asked Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay to place before it the prayers made by him before the Supreme Court in similar matters.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India & Anr, Danish Eqbal v. UOI and Ors.
7. [Defamatory Article] The Delhi High Court has 'reserved order' in Delhi Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar's defamation case against a news portal, 'The Wire'. The bench reserved order in an interim plea seeking directions to The Wire to take down the article that allegedly casts aspersions on him in connection to the land acquisition by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for the Dwarka Expressway project. While reserving order in the application seeking an ad-interim injunction, the single-judge bench also issued summons in the suit. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh for Kumar contended that as soon as the story was published on The Wire, social media got activated and tarnished his image. “You build a connection in your dream, and then you concoct everything. The article was published so that social media gets active to target my reputation. I am not a political person… He was instrumental in getting these inquiries in the excise policy done, and the Supreme Court has now said that there seems to be at least ₹350 crore bribe which the ED has been able to show in the excise scam. I do not want to say anything, but this seems to be one of the foundations for the article,” the senior counsel submitted.
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
Case Title: Shri Naresh Kumar v. The Wire & Ors.
8. [Grant of Probate] The Delhi High Court has clarified that a court can reject a will only if "substantial changes" are identified through "cuttings and overwriting." A single-judge bench emphasized this principle in an order dated November 17. The court stated that the impact of unsigned cuttings and overwriting would be contingent on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Justice Palli added that when a will contains cuttings and overwriting, the court must assess its effect, irrespective of whether it conforms to Section 71 of the Succession Act. Section 71 of the Act states that any alterations made to a will after its execution shall not have a legal effect unless its words or meaning have become illegible and undiscernible. These observations were made during the hearing of a plea by three individuals seeking the Grant of Probate for a will executed in 2012 by an unmarried woman who passed away in 2015. A grant of probate is a court's recognition of a will's validity and the legal authorization of appointed executors to administer the assets.
Bench: Justice Rekha Palli
Case Title: Mr. Bhupinder Singh & Ors. v. State & Ors.
9. [NSE phone tapping case] The Delhi High Court has granted time to former managing director and chief executive officer of the National Stock Exchange (NSE), Chitra Ramakrishna, to place her stand on CBI’s plea challenging her bail in a case related to the alleged illegal phone tapping of NSE employees. The bench granted four weeks to the counsel for Ramkrishna to file a written synopsis in response to the CBI’s plea challenging a trial court’s December 22, 2022, order granting her bail in the case. Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further hearing on April 3, 2024. It is to be noted that in April this year, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) moved the high court seeking cancellation of bail granted to Ramakrishna in a case pertaining to the illegal interception of phone calls of NSE employees.
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Chitra Ramkrishna
10. [Free Assistance to Disabled Persons at Railway Stations] The Delhi High Court has directed the Railways to offer free assistance, including wheelchair facilities, to persons with disabilities at stations. A division bench was hearing a 2017 plea initiated by it in the wake of a news report in July that year, which stated that a visually impaired student had missed his MPhil entrance exam as he was prevented from boarding a coach reserved for persons with disabilities. Senior Advocate S.K. Rungta, serving as amicus curiae in the matter, pointed out the issue of providing human assistance to persons with visual impairment, saying that while a wheelchair was available, it required a payment of Rs 250. He submitted that a free wheelchair facility was also being offered by airlines and Delhi Metro to travelers. The court suggested waiving this amount, stating that wheelchair assistance should be free for people with disabilities.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Union of India & Ors.
11. [Infrastructure at Hospitals] The Delhi High Court has asked the Centre to undertake steps to improve the infrastructure in hospitals run by it in the national capital. The court was hearing pleas concerning the safety of medical professionals and the state of healthcare institutions. The Center's counsel told the court that it has taken all precautions and steps for its four hospitals here, including AIIMS. "There is always a chance of improvement," the bench said. “Union of India is directed to undertake an exercise with regard to the improvement of infrastructure in its own hospitals”, it added. The court also asked the Delhi government to file an action-taken report on whether the recommendations of a committee constituted by it, aiming to enhance operational standards, sanitary conditions, and treatment methodologies in government hospitals, were being implemented.
Case Title: Court in its own motion v. Union of India & Ors.
12. [Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar] The Delhi High Court has allowed Delhi Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar's interim plea seeking directions to 'The Wire' to take down the article that allegedly casts aspersions on him in connection to the land acquisition by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for the Dwarka Expressway project.The bench said, "The ad-interim injunction is granted. I have directed Respondent No. 1 (The Wire) and Respondent No. 2 (concerned reporter) to take down the article and the appending tweets". Notably, yesterday the court reserved order in the interim application. While reserving order in the application seeking an ad-interim injunction, the single-judge bench also issued summons in the suit.
13. [Para-Swimmer Prasanta Karmakar] The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea filed by para-swimmer Prasanta Karmakar challenging his suspension, which was imposed on allegations of recording videos of female swimmers during the National Swimming Championships in Jaipur in 2017. The bench upheld the decision, noting various complaints against Karmakar's behavior. Justice Prasad pointed out that Karmakar, acting as the coach of the swimming team, faced complaints regarding videos and photographs taken of female swimmers during the championships. The court observed, "The petitioner (Karmakar) behaved in a rude manner with persons who were there in the stadium. The petitioner has abused the chairman and the officials of Respondent No. 1 (Paralympic Committee of India). The petitioner has also indulged in giving press interviews, bringing down the interests of Respondent No. 1." The court rejected Karmakar's contention that the decision by the Disciplinary Committee of the Paralympic Committee of India was unfair or unreasonable.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Prasanta Karmakar v. Paralympic Committee of India through its Chairman & Ors.
14. [Maintenance Cases] The Delhi High Court has emphasized that a spouse with reasonable earning capacity who voluntarily chooses unemployment without a valid explanation should not impose financial burdens on the other spouse in the form of maintenance. The division bench made this observation while modifying the maintenance granted by a family court to a wife during the ongoing divorce proceedings initiated by her husband. The bench remarked, "The spouse having a reasonable capacity of earning but who chooses to remain unemployed and idle without any sufficient explanation or indicating sincere efforts to gain employment should not be permitted to saddle the other party with the one-sided responsibility of meeting out the expenses." While acknowledging that the exact calculation of maintenance need not be precise, the court emphasized that the objective is to provide relief to the spouse who is financially unable to support themselves during the divorce proceedings.
Bench: Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Case Title: Chetram Mali v. Karishma Sahini
15. [Defamation Case; Satyendar Jain] The Delhi High Court has sought the response of Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Chhail Bihari Goswami on a plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain challenging the summons issued to him by a trial court in a criminal defamation complaint filed by Goswami. The high court, however, refused to stay the trial court proceedings at the present stage. “I am not convinced to stay the proceedings. I need to hear them. I need to see the trial court record,” the bench said. Accordingly, the court fixed the matter for hearing on December 14. Senior Advocate Rebecca John appeared for Jain. In related news, AAP MP Raghav Chadha also moved the High Court on Monday, i.e., November 20, challenging the same trial court order dismissing the appeal filed against the summons in a criminal defamation complaint lodged by BhartiyaJanata Party (BJP) leader Chhail Bihari Goswami.
Case Title: Satyendar Jain v. State & Anr.
16. [All India Mahapanchayat] The Delhi High Court has sought the response of the Centre, Delhi Police, and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on a plea seeking permission for holding a public meeting (All India Muslim Mahapanchayat) of around 10,000 people at Ramlila Ground on December 4. The bench was informed by Delhi Police that it has received an application from another organisation also for organizing a program at the Ramlila ground from December 3 to 5, 2023, and no objection certificate (NOC) has already been issued for it. To this, the court asked the police to place before it the relevant records, including a copy of the application of the other organization and when it was received. Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further hearing on November 24.
Case Title: Mission Save Constitution v. Union of India & Ors.
17. [Commercial Entity's Right] The Delhi High Court ruled that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) cannot mandate commercial establishments, such as the Pacific Metro Mall, to provide free parking to visitors. The court set aside an MCD order prohibiting the mall from levying parking fees, emphasizing that the Unified Building Bylaws for Delhi do not regulate a building's use after its construction. A division bench held that the Building Bylaws cover building norms and standards but do not monitor the use of buildings after construction. It also stated that if buildings comply with the byelaws and are used as permitted, they fulfill the necessary criteria. "The field covered by the Building Byelaws relates to building norms and standards for specified buildings in permissible zones. The said byelaws do not control or monitor any aspect of the use of buildings. Thus, if the buildings are constructed in accordance with the Building Byelaws and are used in accordance with the permissible use, the same are duly satisfied", the bench said.
Bench: Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan
Case Title: Pacific Development Corporation Limited vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.
18. [Coaching Centers in Mukherjee Nagar] The Delhi High Court has sought a fresh status report from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Fire Department in a batch of petitions concerning the operations of coaching centers in Mukherjee Nagar. While seeking a fresh report from the authorities, a division bench posted the matter for further consideration on November 28. The bench was dealing with a batch of pleas 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)
19. [Safety and Security at District Courts] In response to safety concerns arising from the tragic September 24, 2021, courtroom shooting at Rohini district court, the Delhi High Court, during its suo motu case proceedings on Thursday, directed authorities to ensure a robust deployment of police personnel in district courts across the national capital. A division bench emphasized the urgent need for enhanced security measures, considering the substantial footfall witnessed by district courts. The bench highlighted that district courts often experience a shortfall of 20 to 30 percent in police deployment, raising alarm about the potential risks associated with such gaps. The court stressed the importance of meticulous planning and urged the Delhi government's counsel to guarantee sufficient manpower for the safety of all court visitors.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.
20. [Domain name registrars] In a decisive stance against potential online scams and trademark infringements, a Delhi High Court division bench asserted that domain name registrars (DNRs) must adhere to court orders and regulations if they wish to operate in India. The court emphasized that DNRs must not become conduits for fraudulent activities and warned that non-compliance could result in the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) blocking their operations in India. The court expressed concerns about DNRs offering alternative domain names that resemble those already owned by entities, potentially deceiving users. Acting Chief Justice Manmohan highlighted that such actions could disqualify DNRs from being categorized as 'intermediaries' under the Information Technology (IT) Act. The court clarified that intermediaries, as per the Act, should not actively negotiate or suggest alternatives but should solely facilitate the hosting of websites.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology & Ors.
21. [Absconding Self-Styled Spiritual Preacher Virender Dev Dixit Of Rohini-Ashram] The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) told the Delhi High Court that it was taking steps to secure the arrest of absconding self-styled spiritual preacher Virender Dev Dixit, who is facing rape charges. The court was hearing pleas related to the welfare of women living in Rohini Ashram, founded by self-styled spiritual preacher Virender Dev Dixit. After perusing a status report filed by the investigating agency in a sealed cover, a bench observed that the CBI was making "earnest efforts" to comply with the court's directions to take action against Dixit who has been absconding for several years. "He appears to be outside India. We will arrest him soon. We have taken help from Interpol," counsel for CBI told the bench. In June, the court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to take steps to arrest absconding self-styled spiritual preacher, Virender Dev Dixit of Rohini-Ashram, who has been declared a proclaimed offender in a sexual exploitation case.
Case Title: Dumpala Meenavathi and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (a batch of petitions)
22. [Murder Case] The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an individual facing prosecution in a murder case. The court took note of the possibility of a suicide pact between the accused and a woman, emphasizing their consensual romantic relationship. The bench found merit in the defense counsel's submission, asserting that a suicide pact existed between the accused and the woman. The defence counsel argued that after the accused's family compelled him to marry someone else, the woman tragically took her own life. Additionally, when the accused attempted suicide, his country-made pistol malfunctioned, failing to discharge. “While considering the petitioner’s application for bail, the possibility of the petitioner and the deceased being involved in a consensual romantic relationship and the deceased partaking in a suicide pact with the petitioner and shooting herself, cannot be discounted,” said the court. Granting bail, the court directed the accused not to leave Delhi-NCR and instructed against influencing any person connected to the case.
Bench: Justice Vikas Mahajan
Case Title: Naveen Uppar @ Sunny v. State of NCT of Delhi
23. [Rahul Gandhi] The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to file a status report within 10 days in a petition seeking registration of an FIR against Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi for "revealing the identity" of a minor Dalit girl who was raped and killed in 2021. While directing the Delhi Police to file a status report within 10 days, a division bench posted the matter for further consideration on December 21. The court said that it will first examine the status report of the Delhi Police and then decide what is to be done in the matter. 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.
Case Title: Makarand Suresh Mhadlekar vs Rahul Gandhi and Ors.
Please Login or Register
