Read Time: 27 minutes
1. [E-Mulakat for Prisoners] The Delhi High Court has directed the state government and prison authorities to provide a detailed report justifying the exclusion of the e-mulakat facility for prisoners whose relatives reside outside the national capital. E-mulakat, or the e-meeting system, enables family members to engage in video calls with inmates after registration on the official website and obtaining permission from relevant authorities. Expressing concern over the hardship faced by relatives who must travel from their native places to Delhi for jail visits, the court issued the directive. The court specifically ordered the respondents to submit a status report explaining why the virtual meeting facility should not be extended to similarly situated prisoners with relatives residing outside Delhi.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Sohrab v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
Click here to read more
2. [Meeting at Ramlila Maidan] The Delhi High Court asked the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Delhi Police to consider the feasibility of holding the All India Muslim Mahapanchayat at Ramlila Ground on December 18. The bench of directed the authorities to treat, as a representation, the application given by Mission Save Constitution seeking permission for the public meeting on December 18. "This Court is not going into the controversy as to whether the Maha Tyagi Seva Sansthan should have first approached the MCD and then the Police Authorities or as to whether the Petitioner herein should have first approached the Police Authorities and then the MCD," it said. "In order to cut short the controversy, this Court had requested the learned counsel for the MCD and the police authorities to give those dates on which no function is scheduled to be organized at Ramlila Ground, Delhi," the court directed.
Case Title: Mission Save Constitution v. Union of India & Ors.
3. [Ashneer Grover] Ashneer Grover, co-founder of BharatPe, has tendered an apology before the Delhi High Court for his social media posts targeting his former employer. However, the court, while acknowledging the apology, deemed Grover's conduct as 'appalling' and imposed a fine of Rs. 2 lakh for the violation of the court's previous order. The court had issued an order in May 2023, instructing Grover and BharatPe to refrain from using 'unparliamentary' and 'defamatory' language against each other. BharatPe later filed an application in an ongoing suit, highlighting social media posts by Grover earlier in the month containing 'defamatory' remarks against the company. It was brought to the court's attention that Grover, described as a habitual offender, had repeatedly violated the court's orders.
Bench: Justice Rekha Palli
Case Title: Resilient Innovations Private Limited v. Madhuri Jain Grover & Ors.
4. [Sunanda Pushkar Death Case] The Delhi High Court last week deferred hearing arguments on condonation of delay in a plea by Delhi Police against the Trial Court's order discharging Tharoor in his wife Sunanda Pushkar’s death case. The matter was listed for hearing before the bench. However, since the judge was on leave due to her ill health, the hearing got deferred to January 16, 2024. It is to be noted that in December 2022, the Delhi Police moved the High Court challenging the Trial Court’s order discharging Tharoor in connection with his wife’s death case.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: State of NCT of Delhi v. Shashi Tharoor
5. [B.Sc. Nursing Courses] The Delhi High Court issued notice in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to quash the existing rule that only women candidates are eligible for B.Sc. (Hons.) Nursing courses in nursing colleges run by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi University (DU), and the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU). Advocate Robin Raju, appearing for the petitioner, submitted, "This is a matter where I am challenging this gender-based eligibility criteria for admissions to B.Sc. nursing courses with Respondent No. 2 (AIIMS), DU, and GGSIPU. The case is that this academic year's prospectus itself states...Kindly look at the prospectus." Noting that a similar petition is pending, related to the Indian Army, a division bench posted the matter for hearing on February 19, 2024.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna
Case Title: Indian Professional Nurses Association (IPNA) v. Union of India & Ors.
6. [Indian Army's JAG Selection] The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) 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 said, "This is not a fit case for PIL. Dismissed". Notably, last week the court granted the central government's counsel time to seek instructions, scheduling the matter for hearing on Tuesday. The PIL contended that this mandate is arbitrary, unjustified, unconstitutional, and violates Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. It drew attention to the fact that the notification itself acknowledged that CLAT marks would play no role in the selection procedure.
Case Title: Shubham Chopra v. Union of India
7. [Cyber Cells] The Delhi High Court has emphasized the obligation for banks to promptly respond to requests for information from cyber cells of police authorities, calling for a diligent approach in cases of fraudulent transactions. The bench, dealing with a batch of petitions relating to instances of innocent customers falling victim to fraudulent activities, also urged banks to provide details of their procedures for replying to queries raised by investigating agencies. In the order that was uploaded on Tuesday, the court underscored the importance of banks responding diligently to information requests from cybercrime cells. “It is made clear that whenever any information is requested by the cybercrime cells of police authorities, banks ought to respond to the same in a diligent manner," it said.
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar and Ors (a batch of petitions)
8. [Confidentiality Agreement] BharatPe co-founder, Ashneer Grover, assured the Delhi High Court last week that he would uphold confidentiality obligations regarding his former employer and strictly adhere to the terms of his employment agreement. This commitment was made before the bench on November 24, and the statement was officially recorded. Advocate Giriraj Subramanium, representing Grover, informed the court of Grover's readiness to issue an apology for posts on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) where confidential details were disclosed. Grover, who served as the Managing Director of BharatPe, resigned from the position on March 1, 2022. BharatPe initiated legal action by filing a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. The petition sought an interim injunction to prevent Grover from divulging the company's confidential information publicly.
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
Case Title: Resilient Innovations Private Limited v. Ashneer Grover
9. [High Power Committee] The Delhi High Court has stayed an order that had directed the government to set up a high-powered committee to supervise the implementation of recommendations and guidelines of the sixth and seventh Central Pay Commissions dealing with salaries and arrears to the staff of private unaided schools and recognised private unaided minority schools here. A bench stayed certain paragraphs in the judgment passed by a single judge bench and issued notice to the Delhi government and several private schools on the appeal filed by some of the staff members of the schools. "Till further orders, there shall be a stay of paragraphs 200, 204, and 205 of the impugned judgment and order," it said.
Case Title: Renu Arora and Others v. St. Margaret Senior Secondary School & Anr.
10. [Central Ridge] The Delhi High Court reiterated that the ridge does not belong to the forest department but to the citizens. It criticized officials on Wednesday for constructing a six-to-eight-foot-wide path in the Central Ridge without proper approvals. The bench emphasized that the forest department serves as a custodian and preserver of the forest area, requiring responsible conservation. Considered the lungs of the national capital, the Ridge is an extension of the Aravalli Hill range in Delhi, covering approximately 7,784 hectares divided into four zones for administrative purposes. Amicus curiae Advocates Gautam Narayan, Aditya N Prasad, and Prabhsahay Kaur, assisting the court in matters of forest cover and Ridge conservation, highlighted an unauthorized path alongside a road leading to the ISRO station inside the Central Ridge.
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh
Case Title: Anjali College of Pharmacy and Science through its founder-cum-chairman Devendra Gupta v. Dr. Montu M Patel President, Pharmacy Council of India & Anr.
11. [Uniform Civil Code] Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Danish Eqbal, and others "withdrew" their petitions before the Delhi High Court, which sought direction for drafting of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) by the Law Commission. A division bench granted the seven petitioners liberty to approach the Law Commission of India and give their suggestions. "Dismissed, as withdrawn," the court ordered. Taking note of the Apex Court's judgment dated March 29, 2023, the bench said that the enactment of law lies exclusively within the domain of the legislature and that a mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to enact law. “The Supreme Court order is clear... They (Law Commission of India) don’t need us. It is an authority constituted by the Constitution. They will do it. Let us not interfere with them,” the bench told Upadhyay, after which he withdrew his plea.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India & Anr, Danish Eqbal v UOI and Ors. (a batch of connected matters)
12. [Landlords' Right] In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court affirmed the right of landlords to the beneficial enjoyment of their property and emphasized that tenants cannot dictate how landlords utilize their possessions. The court upheld an eviction order for tenanted premises, stating that landlords have sole discretion over their properties. The bench held that it is well-established law that tenants cannot dictate the use of the property to landlords. “Landlords cannot be deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of their property. Further, the court is not to sit on the armchair of landlords to dictate as to how the property should be utilised. It is the sole discretion of the landlords to get all the tenanted premises vacated and use as per their needs", the court said. The judgment came in a plea seeking dismissal of a revision petition filed by a tenant challenging a trial court's eviction order for a shop on Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Marg.
Case Title: Manmohan Singh v. Arjun Uppal & Anr.
13. [Excise policy scam] The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to remove defects and place on record the chargesheet in the plea challenging the trial court orders granting bail to Aam Aadmi Party communication in-charge Vijay Nair and Hyderabad-based businessman Abhishek Boinpally in the Delhi Excise Policy scam case. At the outset, Senior Advocate Rebecca John, appearing for Vijay Nair, submitted, “In Order dated July 18, 2023, they were directed to place, file, and give us advance copies of the same. We have not received the advance copies, nor have they been filed on record". Counsel for CBI contended, “We have filed the chargesheet, but it is under defects. Regardless, today I am not even going to refer to the chargesheets. This is an order where I am challenging the observations on the merits that the order passed is not in conformity with the parameters of bail." The bench said, “It is stated that the petitioner were directed to file the chargesheet vide order dated 18.07.2023, however, the chargesheet has not been placed on record. Since, it has been reported under objection. The objection be removed, and the same be placed on record.
Case Title: CBI v. Vijay Nair & CBI v. Abhishek Binopally
14. [Super Basmati Exports] The Delhi High Court has closed proceedings in a lawsuit filed by Pakistani entities, Trading Corporation of Pakistan Private Limited, Rice Exporters Association of Pakistan, and Basmati Growers Association, seeking an injunction against the Indian government. The injunction aimed to prevent the Indian government from allowing rice exports under the trade name 'Super Basmati.' The bench dismissed the suit for non-prosecution, noting the absence of representation on behalf of the plaintiffs. "Considering the Defendant’s stand recorded as above, no further orders are called for in the present suit. The suit is, accordingly, dismissed for non-prosecution. All pending applications are also disposed of,” the judge said. The entities, including Trading Corporation of Pakistan Private Limited, which is reportedly owned by the Ministry of Commerce of the Government of Pakistan, have not pursued the lawsuit since 2020.
Case Title: Trading Corporation of Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of India Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Please Login or Register
