Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Land for Job Scam Case] The Delhi High Court has refused to quash Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings against businessman Amit Katyal, who is accused of engaging in transactions with the family members of former railways minister Lalu Prasad Yadav in connection with the land-for-railway-jobs scam. The bench emphasized that the investigation into the matter was still ongoing and that Katyal had been summoned by the ED to appear and submit certain documents. The court held that it could not stifle the investigation at this preliminary stage when Katyal had only received summonses to provide documents. "The investigation in the present ECIR is still continuing, and the petitioner has merely been summoned to appear and submit certain documents. Even as per the petitioner's own case, he has joined the investigation in the present ECIR upon being summoned by the Directorate of Enforcement on six occasions in the past, between March and August 2023. Thus, no tenable grounds have been shown as to why the impugned summons deserve to be quashed," the court's order dated November 3 stated.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: Amit Katyal v Directorate of Enforcement
Click here to read more
2. [RTI Act] The Delhi High Court has provided a significant interpretation of the penalties imposed on Public Information Officers (PIOs) under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). The court's decision clarified that while the RTI Act specifies a maximum penalty of Rs. 250 per day for PIOs who refuse to receive an application or deny information with malicious intent, it is not mandatory to impose the maximum penalty on the officers. While referring to Section 20 of the RTI Act, the bench emphasized that the penalty amount would depend on the degree of malice and inaction exhibited by the PIO in failing to provide the requested information. The judge said, "What is mandatory is the imposition of a penalty and not the quantum of the penalty. The RTI Act only specifies the maximum limit of the penalty and not the minimum limit. It is nowhere mentioned that a delay of each day will incur a penalty of Rs. 250/-. The petitioner is trying to construe that it is mandatory on the part of the public information officers to pay Rs. 250/- each day, regardless of the degree of malice or inaction. Such an interpretation cannot be sustained."
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Pooja V Shah v. Bank of India
3. [Freedom Fighter's pension] The Delhi High Court has strongly criticized the Central Government for subjecting a 96-year-old freedom fighter to a four-decade-long wait for his entitled pension, asserting that the government's "stonewall approach" had defeated the very essence of the Pension Scheme. The bench said that "the inaction of the Central Government is actually an insult to the freedom fighter who was declared as a proclaimed offender, and probably his entire land would have been attached in the proceedings initiated by the British Government." The petitioner, Uttim Lal Singh, a non-agenarian who actively participated in the Quit India Movement and other freedom struggle-related activities, had been pursuing his claim for the 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension' since March 29, 1982. Singh, born in 1927, had been accused by the British Government and declared a proclaimed offender in September 1943. Singh had provided comprehensive details of his participation in the freedom struggle when he applied for a pension in 1982. The Bihar government forwarded his name to the Central government in February 1983, and this recommendation was reiterated in September 2009.
Case Title: Uttim Lal Singh v. UOI & Others
4. [Manual Scavenging] The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to ensure compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court on strict implementation of the law for the eradication of manual scavenging.A division bench observed that the top court has passed various directions on the issue, including an enhanced compensation amount of Rs 30 lakh for sewer deaths and a minimum Rs 20 lakh compensation in cases of permanent disability. “The apex court has issued various other directions to ensure that the practice of manual scavenging stands completely eradicated. The Government of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi Jal Board, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and all other authorities are directed to strictly comply with the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,” the court said. The court was dealing with a batch of petitions seeking strict enforcement of the provisions of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (PEMSR Act) and its rules.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Case Title: Ashok Agarwal v. UOI & Ors. (a batch of petitions)
5. [False Pretext of Marriage] The Delhi High Court has recently granted anticipatory bail to a 20-year-old student accused of raping his 35-year-old professor under the false pretext of marriage. The bench noted that the prosecutrix (professor) was a mature woman around the age of 35, and she had been in a relationship with the accused when he was just 20 years old. Court further emphasized that the professor was previously married and undergoing a divorce when granting pre-arrest bail to the accused student. Court, in its order dated October 31, stated, "Prima facie, it seems that she was in a relationship with the applicant (accused) out of choice and desire rather than out of compulsion or force. More so, when she, out of her own sweet will, voluntarily chose to proceed with the applicant with open eyes, open ears, and an open mind."
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Case Title: Sushant Kaushik v. State
6. [Treatment of Children with Rare Diseases] The Delhi High Court has recently directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to commence procurement of medicines for patients with complete evaluation as per the fund allocated of Rs. 50 lakhs per patient, in terms of the Rare Diseases Policy. The bench was hearing a batch of petitions filed mostly by children suffering from rare diseases stating that the medicines and therapies for the said diseases are exorbitantly expensive. “Upon receipt of these medicines, the administration of the medicines to the patients/petitioners shall commence in an expedited manner”, Justice Singh said. “In respect of those patients/petitioners who are not amenable to treatment, as submitted by Dr. Kabra, the standard protocol of steroid administration and provision of care shall be commenced”, the court directed.
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Case Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr (a batch of connected matters)
7. [Plea to distinguish Dharma and Religion] A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Delhi High Court seeking directions to the Centre and State to use proper meaning of religion, i.e. Panth/Sampradaya, not ‘Dharma’ in documents like Birth Certificate, Aadhaar cards, School certificates, Ration cards, Driving licenses, Domicile certificates, Death certificates, bank accounts, etc. The plea filed by practicing lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeks to include a chapter on “Dharma and Religion” in the primary and secondary school syllabus in order to educate the masses and control the religion-based hatred and hate speeches. The petitioner stated that “Dharma is not religion”. “Dharma is non-divisive, non-exclusive, and non-conclusive. Dharma is a quest for understanding the cosmic order of the universe and consciousness order at a personal level. ‘Dharma’, in fact, transcended the narrow boundaries of religion”, the plea stated. It also stated that religion is a cult or a spiritual lineage that is called a Sampradaya (community). So, religion means community.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Others
8. [POCSO Act] The Delhi High Court has observed that a simple act of touch cannot be considered manipulation for the offence of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3(c) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The bench said "touch" was a separate offence under the POCSO Act as he refused to uphold the conviction of a man for "aggravated penetrative sexual assault" for touching the private body part of a six-year-old girl student of his brother, a tuition teacher. The judge, however, refused to interfere with the conviction and five-year jail term awarded to the man for the offence of "aggravated sexual assault" under the law. The judge said that under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, ‘touch’ is a separate offence and if the submission raised by the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) that a touch would amount to manipulation is accepted, then Section 7 of the Act would be rendered redundant.
Bench: Justice Amit Bansal
Case Title: Shantanu v. The State
9. [Fire Safety Norms] The Delhi High Court has directed the city government authorities to conduct regular checks at Azad Market to identify potential violators of fire safety norms.A division bench emphasized the need for scrupulous enforcement of fire safety regulations. The order was passed in a Public Interest Litigation(PIL) plea filed by the Azad Market Residents Welfare Association, seeking action against unauthorized and illegal constructions in the North Delhi market. The petitioner alleged that certain buildings in the area were constructed in violation of applicable bylaws and fire safety regulations, resulting in fire accidents and the loss of human lives. While acknowledging that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) had taken action to clear the area of unauthorized and illegal constructions, court expressed its inability to ignore potential violations of fire safety norms.
Case Title: Azad Market Residents Welfare Association (Regd) v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.
10. [Excise Policy Case] The Delhi High Court has reserved order in the interim bail plea of businessman Amit Arora, an accused in the Delhi excise policy scam case. He has sought interim bail on the grounds of his daughter's illness. Amit Arora is one of the directors of Buddy Retail Pvt. Ltd., who was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with the alleged Delhi Excise Policy Scam case. Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa appeared for Arora and contended that his daughter is unwell and, as per medical records, requires the care of her parents. The senior counsel submitted that Arora’s daughter has a Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) on December 2, and she is not preparing for the same due to her illness. It was also contended that Arora is also not keeping well and has been in custody since November 29, 2022.
Case Title: Amit Arora v. Directorate of Enforcemen
11. [NewsClick] PPK NewsClick Studio Private Limited, which owns the news portal NewsClick, has approached the Delhi High Court to request the quashing of cases filed against it for alleged violations of foreign funding laws. NewsClick's founder is currently in jail in another case. The media portal argued that the prosecution is entirely dishonest and malafide, intended to harass the outlet. Moreover, it highlighted the arrest of its founder and editor-in-chief, Prabir Purkayastha, in another case under the anti-terror law UAPA. NewsClick has challenged the FIR filed by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and the subsequent case initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged money laundering. The platform stated that it has not violated any foreign direct investment (FDI) guidelines or norms. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued, "There is no violation of any guidelines; no violation of any tax (law). There is no violation of FDI norms. This is a completely dishonest, malafide complaint filed to harass a media channel."
Case Title: Prabir Purkayastha v. Directorate of Enforcement (another connected matter)
12. [Plea to include Dharma and Religion Chapter in School Syllabus] The Delhi High Court has issued notice in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Centre and State government to include a chapter on “Dharma and Religion” in the primary and secondary school syllabus in order to educate the masses and control the religion-based hatred and hate speeches. A division bench issued notices to the Ministry of Home, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Culture, and Delhi Government. The bench accordingly, posted the matter for further consideration on January 16. The plea filed by practicing lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeks directions to the Centre and State to use proper meaning of religion, i.e. Panth/Sampradaya, not ‘Dharma’ in documents like Birth Certificate, Aadhaar cards, School certificates, Ration cards, Driving licenses, Domicile certificates, Death certificates, bank accounts, etc.
13. [Chhath Pooja] The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging a ban on celebrating Chhath Puja on the banks of the Yamuna River in Delhi. While refusing to entertain the plea, Justice Prasad said, “The ban is for the purpose of preventing river pollution”. As the court was inclined to dismiss the plea, the petitioner sought liberty to withdraw it, which was allowed. The court was dealing with pleas by Chhath Pooja Sangharsh Samiti and Purwanchal Jagriti Manch challenging a notification dated October 29, 2021, whereby the Delhi government had clearly mentioned that “no site shall be designated on the bank of the river Yamuna for Chhath pooja’. The plea filed through Advocate V.S. Dubey stated that there were 30–40 lakh devotees who were affected by the order and that the neighboring states of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana were still celebrating the festival on Yamuna’s banks.
Case Title: Chhath Pooja Sangharsh Samiti & Anr v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
14. [PIL to settle personal scores] The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on a litigant for filing a public interest litigation (PIL) against her relative to settle “personal scores”. A division bench rejected the PIL, which sought the removal of an 'illegal and unauthorized construction'. The bench observed that the petitioner claimed on affidavit that she had no personal interest in the matter but suppressed the fact that the owner of the building was her cousin and there was a dispute between the families. “It is unfortunate that the forum of PIL is being used to settle personal scores by suppressing the relationship between the parties”, the court remarked.
Case Title: Ms. Sabiha Parveen v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
15. [Contempt Law] The Delhi High Court has cautioned against the misuse and abuse of the process of contempt law while dismissing a petition that sought the initiation of contempt proceedings against a district court judge in an individual capacity. The court described this as an "unmitigated attack on the majesty and honesty" of the judiciary. While addressing the issue, the bench said, "The courts are constitutional institutions that preserve and secure the rights and liberties of each citizen of this country with the utmost vigilance and caution…The Constitution of India, 1950 and the legal framework of the country provide adequate safeguards to challenge the decision taken by a court. However, unavailing of such liberties and pursuing contempt against a judge in an individual capacity is an unmitigated attack on the majesty and honesty of the courts". The judge emphasized that the conduct of pursuing contempt proceedings against a district court judge solely because grievances were not duly addressed was "severely misguided and should be deterred."
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Agarwal v. Parveen Singh and Ors.
16. [Unauthorised Construction] The Delhi High Court has quashed a demolition notice issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in December 2022 for certain "unauthorised" constructions near the Mehrauli Archaeological Park. The court directed the DDA to restart the process and provide a hearing to the affected parties before taking further action on the encroachments.Despite acknowledging environmental concerns and previous court orders, the bench emphasized that the DDA must act in accordance with the law and ensure procedural fairness to those affected by its actions. The bench ruled on a batch of petitions challenging the demolition notice. The petitioners argued that their properties were not within the targeted area in village Ladha Sarai but village Mehrauli, and the demarcation report for removing the alleged encroachment could not be relied upon. The court stated, "Since it is an admitted position that no intimation was issued to the petitioners prior to the demolition notice as mandated by the provisions of the DDA Act, we hereby quash the demolition notice issued on December 12, 2022."
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Dargha Najeebuddin Firdousi v Delhi Development Authority & Anr.
17. [Farewell, Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma] While bidding farewell to the Delhi High Court on Thursday, Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said, “This is not a goodbye moment for me; rather, it is a thank-you moment for me. I am thankful to my colleagues on the bench for gracefully accepting me and for providing me with a cordial working environment”. “I have benefitted immensely from my sisters and brothers, both on the judicial side and the administrative side”, the Chief Justice said. Chief Justice Sharma has now been elevated to the position of Judge of the Supreme Court. He will take the oath in the Top Court today at 4:15 p.m., along with Justice Augustine George Masih, Chief Justice, High Court of Rajasthan, and Justice Sandeep Mehta, Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court.
18. [Chandni Chowk] The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to ensure that the re-development and beautification work carried out at Chandni Chowk is maintained and continued. A division bench said that the market was re-developed for the betterment of the traders' association as well, and therefore they also owed some social responsibility towards it. The court made the observation while closing the proceedings on a public interest litigation (PIL) registered suo motu with respect to the redevelopment of Chandni Chowk. In view of the various steps taken by the authorities, including the installation of boom barriers at the street junctions and CCTV cameras, the court said that there was no reason to continue with the PIL.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Shahjahanabad Redevelopment Corporation (SRDC), GNCTD & Ors.
19. [Special Olympics Athelets] While acknowledging the "incredible accomplishments" of Indian athletes in the Special Olympics World Games held in Berlin this year, the Delhi High Court lamented the neglect of players with intellectual disabilities and the efforts of organizations like Special Olympics Bharat (SOB). The bench made these remarks in an order released on Thursday. "While the respect and appreciation accorded to Olympic medalists is abundant and deservedly so, the accomplishments of athletes with intellectual disabilities and the efforts of bodies like SOB that dedicatedly work towards their goals are sadly, often forgotten," the court observed. In the Special Olympics World Games, the Indian contingent concluded their campaign with an impressive tally of 200 medals, comprising 77 gold, 71 silver, and 52 bronze medals, the court noted.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Pandey and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
20. [School Inspection] The Delhi High Court has recently issued directions in relation to guidelines or procedures to be adopted by the Child Safety Monitoring Committee (CSMC) in the course of its inspection of safety standards in schools to prevent crimes against students. The directions were given by a division bench. The court was perusing an application by the Chairperson of the CSMC, i.e., Dr. R.M. Sharma, whereby he was seeking approval of guidelines or procedures to be adopted by the CSMC in the discharge of its duty.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Government of NCT of Delhi
Please Login or Register
