Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Sexual Assault Case] While observing that discharging an accused primarily on the basis of the outcome of the polygraph test of the victim at the ‘stage of charge’ is "erroneous", the Delhi High Court recently pulled up the trial court for discharging men accused of sexually assaulting a woman. The court was hearing a plea plea filed by a woman challenging the trial court order. The trial court had discharged one of the accused of the offence of rape and two others accused of the offences of voluntarily causing hurt and common intention. The bench noted with dismay that at the time of grant of anticipatory bail to the accused, a suggestion was made in the order to the IO by the Additional Sessions Judge that the prosecutrix, in this case, be made to undergo polygraph test with a view to test genuineness, authenticity, and truth of her statement in a case under Section 376 of IPC, when the “chargesheet was not even filed”.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: S v. The State and Ors.
Click here to read more
2. [Vivo PMLA Case] The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court order sending Chinese national Guangwen alias Andrew Kuang to three-day Enforcement Directorate custody in a money laundering case against Chinese smartphone maker Vivo. The bench dismissed a petition by Kuang, an office bearer of Vivo Mobile India, challenging the trial court order of remand. The court noted that as per the grounds of arrest and the remand application, the petitioner, “one of the main conspirators”, was involved in the incorporation of the companies throughout the country for acquiring and siphoning off proceeds of crime.
Case Title: Guangwen Kuang @ Andrew v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
3. [CPR] The Delhi High Court has allowed the plea filed by the think tank Centre for Policy Research (CPR) to utilise 25% of its funds in its fixed deposits (FD) for salaries months after its licence under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) was suspended in February. Court was dealing with a plea by CPR challenging the suspension of FCRA licence by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on February 27, 2023. Its application was filed in March and it was pending for the last six months. The Central government had initiated an inquiry. Following the suspension, the CPR’s accounts were frozen.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Centre for Policy Research v. Union of India
4. [Plea seeking Holistic Integrated Medicinal approach] The Delhi High Court has directed the "20-member Committee of Integrated Health Policy”, constituted by the NITI Aayog, to expedite the process and to submit its report at the earliest. The division bench was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a practicing lawyer, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, seeking directions to the Centre to adopt an Indian holistic integrated medicinal approach rather than a colonial segregated way of Allopathy, Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Sidda, and Homeopathy to secure the right to health.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
5. [Surrogacy Law] The Delhi High Court asked the Centre to explain the exclusion of single, unmarried women from availing the benefit of the surrogacy procedure under the law. Noting that an "intending woman" under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 means an Indian woman who is a "widow" or "divorcee", the bench questioned the rationale behind associating the marital status of a woman with her eligibility to undergo the procedure. "Why marital status for intending woman? (Even if) she (the widow or divorcee) has no matrimonial life, why this discrimination?" the bench asked. The court was dealing with a petition filed by a 44-year-old single, unmarried woman challenging Section 2(1)(s) of the Act, which excludes women like herself from availing the surrogacy procedure while only allowing an Indian widow or female divorcee to take the benefit of the same.
6. [Pregnancy termination] The Delhi High Court has ordered the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to set up a board to examine if a 22-week pregnant woman can safely undergo termination of pregnancy. The bench said that the opinion of a Medical Board would be necessary for consideration as to whether it would be safe for the woman to undergo the procedure for termination of pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner and also to ascertain the conditions of the foetus. The court issued notice in the plea of the 32-year-old woman whose case was that right from the early stages of marriage, she was being tortured, abused verbally, physically, mentally and emotionally by her husband at her matrimonial home. She stated that on July 7, her husband physically assaulted her for the first time and it again happened in August when she was 3 months pregnant. It is her case that after the assault, she has decided to separate from her husband and has also decided to take divorce from him and, therefore, she does not want to continue with her pregnancy.
Case Title: Mrs. B v. The Union of India & Anr.
7. [Excise Policy Scam] In Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh's plea challenging his arrest and ED remand in a money laundering case related to the Delhi excise policy scam, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari contended that the present case is a classic case of abuse of power. "Offence today is not about my conduct. In money laundering, there has to be proceeds of crime as per S. 19 PMLA...If you're (ED) yet to find the money trail, why have you arrested me? This is as arbitrary as it can be", he contended.
Case Title: Sanjay Singh v. Union of India & Anr.
8. [RTE Act] The Delhi High Court has granted four weeks to the Centre to file response in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the provision of the Right to Education Act (RTE) 2009. The PIL also sought direction to bring Madarsas, Vedic Pathshalas, and educational institutions imparting religious instruction within the ambit of the RTE Act. While allowing the amended memo of parties, the division bench granted four weeks to the Center to respond to the plea. Accordingly, the court posted the matter for further hearing on January 15, 2024.
9. [BCI's plea against enrolment of Korean Citizen] The Bar Council of India (BCI) has moved the Delhi High Court against a single judge's order allowing a South Korean citizen, Deayoung Jung to be enrolled in the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD). Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, on behalf of the BCI contended that this case has ramifications and far reaching consequences. At the outset, Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma asked the senior counsel, "What dis-entitles him from registration?" Referring to Section 24 of the Advocates Act, Manan contended that he is a citizen of South Korea. The bench also comprising of Justice Sanjeev Narula asked, "Are the citizens of India allowed to practice law in South Korea? He is a foreigner, who has acquired law degree in India. That's the whole point in this case." The division bench said, "If the Indian citizens are allowed to practice law in South Korea, you don't have any case. If the korean government rules otherwise then you do have a case". "Hold an inquiry and bring it to us. Counsel prays for six weeks, therefore he is granted six weeks time to submit appropriate document to establish that Indian citizens even though they have acquired qualification in South Korea are not permitted to be enrolled in South Korea", the court ordered.
Case Title: Bar Council of India v. Deayoung Jung & Anr.
10. [Tihar Jail Sanitation] The Delhi High Court has granted four weeks' time to a four-member independent fact-finding committee to file a status report on the condition of drinking water, sanitation, overall hygiene, and the maintenance of washrooms/toilets within the Tihar jail complex.The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC), wherein it addressed the pressing issue of supply of clean drinking water and maintaining hygienic-sanitary conditions within the Tihar Jail Complex.
Case Title: Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee v. Government of NCT of Delhi
11. [Justice Siddharth Mridul's farewell] While bidding farewell to the Delhi High Court , Justice Siddharth Mridul quoted Albert Einstein and said, “Life is like riding a bicycle, to keep your balance you must keep moving forward”. Justice Mridul has now been appointed as the Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court. Addressing the high court, Justice Mridul said “This is not a farewell, rather it is till we meet again”.
12. [Hindu Marriage Act] The Delhi High Court has recently held that where both spouses are equally qualified and earning equally, interim maintenance can not be granted to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A division bench concurred with the Family Court’s decision and opined that after considering the respective income and expenditure of the parties, the Family Court had rightly denied any maintenance to the wife in the case at hand. However, considering the income of the parties and appreciating that the child’s responsibility had to be shared by both the parents, court reduced the interim maintenance by the father for the child from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 25,000. In the present case, the wife held a degree in B.Sc and MBA (Banking and Finance) and was presently working. She was drawing a salary of Rs. 2.5 lakhs per month and claimed that she was paying Rs. 92,940 per month and Rs. 25,137 per month as EMI towards a loan taken for a flat and car respectively.
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: X v. Y
13. [Commercial Courts] The Delhi High Court has directed its administration to ensure that all the commercial courts are made fully functional as and when the infrastructure is available and officers are available to be appointed to the post of district judge in commercial courts. The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, seeking directions for setting up 42 more commercial courts, as notified by the Delhi Government on April 13, 2021, to ensure speedy redressal of commercial cases in Delhi.
Bench: Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Amit Sahni v. High Court of Delhi & Ors.
14. [AAP MP Sanjay Singh] In Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh's plea challenging his arrest and ED remand in a money laundering case related to the Delhi excise policy scam, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, on behalf of Directorate of Enforcement (ED) submitted, "This is a frivolous application. This needs to be rejected". Opposing the plea, the ASG contended, "Essentially he has moved a bail application under the guise of Article 226. This petition is not maintainable. No fundamental rights have been infringed".Taking note of the submissions, the court 'reserved order' in the plea.
15. [Dynamic Injunction to protect Viacom's rights] The Delhi High Court has issued a dynamic injunction order in favor of Viacom18, providing protection against unauthorized streaming of episodes of the popular reality show 'Bigg Boss' on rogue websites. A bench emphasized the popularity of Bigg Boss in India and deemed any unauthorized dissemination of its episodes as a clear infringement of Viacom18's copyright and reproduction rights. Justice Singh expressed concern over the proliferation of rogue websites using the name 'Big Boss,' emphasizing the potential boost to piracy and unauthorized dissemination, which could result in substantial financial losses for Viacom18.
Bench: Justice Prathiba M Singh
Case Title: Viamcom18 Media Private Limited v. BigBoss.live zx &Ors.
16. [32-year-old woman allowed to terminate 23-week pregnancy] The Delhi High Court has permitted a 32-year-old woman, to terminate her 23-week pregnancy, after perusing AIIMS opinion. The bench noted that the pregnancy was 23 weeks and 4 days. On perusal of the opinion of the AIIMS, the court noted, that it was safe for the petitioner to undergo termination. The petitioner-in-person stated that she did not intent to go back to her husband and also did not intent to go through the pregnancy and bear the child. “In the present circumstances, it is not possible for her to go through the pregnancy and bring up the child”, the court noted.
Bench: Justice Subromonium Prasad
17. [Rs. 200 crore extortion case] The Delhi High Court has "granted bail" to Mumbai-based former TV anchor Pinky Irani in connection with a Rs. 200 crore money laundering case involving conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar.The court was dealing with Irani's plea challenging the trial court’s order denying her bail. According to sources, Irani used to portray Sukesh as a business tycoon, and she was instrumental in facilitating certain Bollywood personalities getting in touch with the main accused, Sukesh Chandrashekhar, in the extortion case.
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Case Title: Pinky Irani v. Govt of NCT of Delhi
18. [Govt. Bungalow Row] The Delhi High Court on Tuesday last week "allowed" Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Raghav Chadha's appeal challenging the trial court’s order which paved way for the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to evict him from his Type VII government bungalow. The judge directed Chadha to re-present before the trial court within three days from the date of the order. It also directed the trial court to first proceed with the matter by first deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, which stood restored before it. The court also ordered, "In the meantime, the order dated 18th April 2023 shall stand wiped, till the application under Order 39 Rule 1and 2 is decided by the Learned Trial Court". Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, represented Chadha and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee appeared on behalf of Rajya Sabha Secretariat.
Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Case Title: Raghav Chadha v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat
19. [Plea to hold meeting at Ramlila Maidan] The Delhi High Court has 'reserved order' in an organization's plea seeking permission for a public meeting of around 10,000 people at Ramlila Ground later this month, after the city police revoked consent, calling the proposed event “communal”. The organization claimed to be working to create awareness among the masses about their constitutional rights. The court will pronounce the order on October 25, 2023 at 4pm. Petitioner Organization ‘Mission Save Constitution’ stated that after a series of meetings with officials of the Delhi Police and taking several clearances, the organization was granted permission for the meeting on October 29. Later, the deputy commissioner of police (DCP) of Central Delhi district “unilaterally, in an arbitrary manner,” revoked the permission, the plea said. The plea stated that the petitioner would initiate a series of events for strengthening all weaker sections, beginning with minority communities followed by other communities like SC, ST, and OBC, and that in the meetings/panchayat voice of all the oppressed would be raised. This series is to be started with an event on October 29. The petition sought a direction for calling for the October 16 letter issued by the DCP (Central) and set it aside. It also sought a direction to the authorities to permit the organization to hold the event scheduled for October 29.
Case Title: Mission Save Constitution v. Union of India & Ors.
20. [Trademark Dispute] The Delhi High Court has decreed in favor of Red Bull in a trademark dispute against entities 'Rohidas Popat Kapadnis' and 'Blue Marine Bottling Company.' The suit alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing an energy drink named 'SEVEN HOURS,' using an identical silver and blue color combination, which is a registered trademark of Red Bull. Red Bull, a renowned energy drink brand, claimed that it had adopted the mark 'RED BULL' in 1982 and launched the 'RED BULL' energy drink in India in 2000. Additionally, it asserted that the blue and silver color combination used in its products was registered in several countries, including India. Advocate Anirudh Bakhru, representing Red Bull, informed the court that the color combination had been protected by courts on multiple occasions. On August 1, 2023, the court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Red Bull, restraining the defendants from manufacturing 'SEVEN HOURS' energy drinks in packaging with a blue and silver color combination resembling Red Bull's products. The bench noted, "Insofar as the unfilled cans which are now to be disposed of are concerned, the time for disposing of the same is given till 31st January, 2024. Any goods which are not disposed of by 31st January, 2024, shall be destroyed by the Defendants."
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Case Title: Red bull AG v. Rohidas Popat Kapadnis & Anr.
21. [RTI Act] The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) is exempt from the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, citing Section 24 of the Act, which excludes certain organizations from its purview. The case arose when an appellant appeared for the Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade-II Examination conducted by the IB in 2017. However, his name did not appear on the list of successful candidates. Reports of irregularities related to the examination were published in newspapers, prompting the appellant to file an RTI application seeking information about his marks, a certified copy of his OMR sheet, and a model answer key. The division bench stated, "unsubstantiated submissions and bald averments alleging corruption cannot be the basis for a direction from this Court to an organization specified under the Second Schedule of the RTI Act." In response, the IB asserted that the information sought was exempt from disclosure under Section 24 of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with this response, the appellant filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC). CIC issued an order rejecting the appellant's RTI application, stating that the IB, as specified in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, was exempt from its provisions. The CIC also noted that the information sought did not fall under the categories for which exempted institutions are required to disclose information under the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act (human rights violations and allegations of corruption).
Case Title: Adarsh Kanojia v. Union of India
22. [Validity of Second Marriage in HMA] The Delhi High Court has in a significant ruling clarified on the validity of second marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act, of 1955. High Court has emphasized that when either of the parties has a living spouse, their consent cannot confer validity on a second marriage. In accordance with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, neither party should have a living spouse at the time of the second marriage. A division bench has ruled that a violation of this condition renders the second marriage void under Section 11 of the Act, and the consent of the parties cannot validate the marriage. The case in question involved a wife who challenged a family court order that declared her marriage null and void upon the husband's petition. The parties had married in 2009. The wife had been previously married to another man but was granted a divorce in 2008. However, her first husband had appealed the divorce. The wife acknowledged that she became aware of her first husband's pending appeal in December 2008, but the appeal was only withdrawn in 2012. Due to differences in their second marriage, the husband petitioned to annul the marriage, arguing that the wife's first marriage was still subsisting. The family court held that because the first husband's appeal was pending when the wife remarried, the second marriage was null and void.
23. [Defamation Case] In TMC MP Mahua Moitra's defamation suit before the Delhi High Court seeking directions to restrain BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, and several social media platforms and media houses from posting, circulating, or publishing any fake and defamatory content against her, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan withdrew to appear for Moitra after Dehadrai informed the court that he was contacted by him to withdraw the complaint against the TMC MP. Dehadrai, appearing in person, informed the court that he was contacted by the senior counsel last night, asking him to withdraw his complaint. He said, "He asked me to withdraw my complaint in exchange for my dog. I have a call recording. Shankaranaryan spoke to me". To this, the senior counsel said, "Dehadrai had instructed me in the past. When I was asked to appear in the matter, I told my client (Mahua Moitra) to let me speak to him. She had agreed to it. That's why I approached him". The bench said, "I am really appalled. You are a person who is expected to maintain the highest professional standard. If you have been in contact with Defendant No. 2, It means you have played the role of a mediator. Do you think you can appear in this matter?" Sankaranarayana replied, "Alright, I'll withdraw". Accordingly, the court adjourned the matter till October 31, 2023 for further hearing. Notably, on October 17, the court issued notices to the defendants in the case. "In view of the urgency emphasized by learned senior counsel for the plaintiff [Ms. Moitra], list on October 20, 2023,” the court had said.
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
Case Title: Mahua Moitra v. Nishikant Dubey and Ors.
24. [Excise Policy Scam] The Delhi High Court has "dismissed" Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh's plea challenging his arrest and ED remand in a money laundering case related to the Delhi excise policy scam. The bench said, "At a premature stage, where investigation is yet to take place, this court doesn't find any ground to interfere with the order of remand or arrest". The judge said, "The issue before the court is whether the arrest of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary and whether the arrest order and consequent orders of remand are in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal". "This court holds the responsibility of not only weighing the rights of the accused but also the interest of the state. While investigating a case, the state acts as a guardian of the citizen, seeking to ensure their safety and well-being", the judge said. Justice Sharma said that as in the case of a public figure or any individual citizen, a bar has to be raised. "The judicial commitment to assure human dignity, however, cannot extend to the quashing investigation process at its early stage," he added. "In this case, the prima facie material on record is not only because the petitioner is a public figure, and the pendency of criminal proceedings will adversely affect the political future. Liberty and dignity cannot succeed in a way competing in state interests and the right to investigate a crime", the court said. "Though a person has a right to protect his individual public image and reputational aspect of human dignity, upholding that right cannot come in the way of curtailing the right of the state to investigate any crime or any person", it added.
Please Login or Register
