Read Time: 01 hours
1. [PIL challenging different syllabus in State Boards, ICSE and CBSE] The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has opposed the Public Interest Litigation in the Delhi High Court challenging the difference in curriculums of CBSE, ICSE, and State Board. In its reply, the CBSE has stated that ‘Education’ being a subject of the ‘Concurrent List’ of the Constitution, and the majority of schools being under the jurisdiction of the State Governments, it is for the respective State/Union Territory Governments to frame syllabus, curriculum and conduct examinations for their schools. “The National Curriculum Framework (NCF) developed by the NCERT as per the mandate of the National Policy on Education sets the guidelines and direction for the development of syllabi and textbooks at all the school stages. As a follow up to the NCF, curriculum, syllabi, text-books and other supplementary material are developed by NCERT”, it said in the reply. It stated that the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERTs) and State Education Boards either adopt or adapt NCERT's model syllabi and textbooks or develop their own syllabi and textbooks based on NCF.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India
Click here to read more
2. [Dominos v. Domnick Pizza] The Delhi High Court has recently restrained a Ghaziabad-based pizza outlet named ‘Dominick Pizza’ from using phonetically similar (similar sounding) marks and ruled that the marks were deceptively similar to "Domino's Pizza." The bench said that there was a "high risk of product confusion" if a customer of average intelligence and faulty recollection visited a Domino’s location and then a Dominick’s Pizza location. “This likelihood would be exacerbated by the manner in which Dominick’s has chosen to represent its logo, in a square format using lettering similar to that used by the plaintiffs – Domino’s Pizza”, the judge said in its order dated September 26. The single-judge bench emphasized the importance of courts being attentive in ensuring that such imitative attempts in trademarks are not allowed to go unchecked, particularly when they relate to consumable items or eateries. “Where the marks in question pertain to food items, or eateries where food items are dispensed and served, a somewhat higher degree of care and caution is expected to be observed,” it said. It also added, “Running an eating house using a mark which is deceptively similar to a reputed mark does not speak well for the enterprise concerned. The intent to capitalise on the reputation of a known and established brand, by using a mark which is deceptively similar to the mark used by the brand, can, in a given case, give rise to a legitimate apprehension of quality compromise by the imitator”.
Bench: Justice C Hari Shankar
Case Title: Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. MS Dominick Pizza & Anr.
3. [Stem Cell therapy for ASD children] Noting the seriousness of the matter, the Delhi High Court has said that Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma shall certainly appear, on behalf of the Centre, in a plea to undergo Stem Cell Therapy treatment for children suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). At the outset, the counsel for the petitioner informed the court that nobody has filed the counter affidavit in the case. The counsel for AIIMS submitted, “We’ve filed today morning, I may be given some time to place it on record”. The ASG for the Centre apprised the court that, “The National Medical Council (NMC) thinks that the Union should not represent the matter despite your Lordships order”. A division bench noted that the court had earlier, directed the NMC as well as the Union of India to file a detailed and exhaustive affidavit and the same has not been done. “The counsel for NMC prays for 3 weeks-time to file a counter affidavit, he is permitted to do so. The counsel for Union of India also seeks 4 weeks-time to file reply”, the court ordered. Noting the ASG’s submission that the NMC has written instructions that the Union should not represent the matter, CJ Sharma said, “The matter is very important and therefore the learned ASG shall certainly appear in this matter on behalf of the Union of India”. “It’s a Policy matter you (NMC) can’t say like that”, Justice Narula said.
Bench: CJ Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Dalip Kaur & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.
4. [Delhi Mayor Shelly Oberoi] Delhi Mayor Shelly Oberoi has moved the Delhi High Court seeking political clearance by the Centre to enable her to travel to Brisbane, Australia for ‘Asia Pacific Cities Summit 2023’. The matter was mentioned for ‘urgent hearing’ before a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula. The counsel for Oberoi submitted that she was not being given political clearance to attend an event in the Australian city. "Only three working days remain. She has to go on the 9th October," submitted the counsel. Taking note of the submission, the bench agreed to list it on Wednesday, i.e. tomorrow. The Delhi Mayor has sought permission to participate in the ‘Asia Pacific Cities Summit 2023’ in Brisbane, Australia. The summit is to be held between October 11 to 13, 2023. The plea stated that Oberoi had not been given permission by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Shelly Oberoi v. Union of India
5. [Service Charge] The National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) has submitted before the Delhi High Court that Service Charges has always been matter of bargain and contract between Management-Workmen. The bench was hearing the petitions against guidelines prohibiting hotels and restaurants from automatically levying service charges on food bills. Today, the arguments on the final hearing in the matter began. Advocate Lalit Bhasin, on behalf of the NRAI submitted that the charge is levied for the purposes of various workers and infact forms part of the settlements which management enters into with the workmen. He submitted that the term ‘service charge’ has to be considered with its ordinary meaning. Bhasin relied upon various dictionaries to argued that service charge is clearly understood in the language. The counsel contended that under the Labour Law, jurisdiction is vested with the Labour Court etc, recognized service charge has been a component of the charges collected by the management for the “benefit of the workmen”. “The same is not governed by the Consumer Protection Act, but is part of Labour Law jurisprudence”, he submitted.
Bench: Justice Prathiba M Singh
Case Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union of India & Anr.
6. [Political clearance granted] Delhi Mayor Shelly Oberoi's counsel has informed the Delhi High Court that she has been granted political clearance by the Centre to travel to Brisbane, Australia for the ‘Asia Pacific Cities Summit 2023’. Advocate Gautam Narayan on behalf of Oberoi apprised the court, "We got the clearance yesterday after the petition was filed. I mentioned the matter at 12 am yesterday. Thereafter, I was given clearance". However, the Centre opposed the contention and said, "That's not the case". The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad noted, "It is stated by Gautam Narayan that the grievance no longer survives". Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
7. [Parole to Afghan National] The Delhi High Court has said that an individual cannot be refused access to a lawful solution in the ultimate court of the country, often seen as a final glimmer of hope, due to the severity of the offence. Court granted parole to a foreign national for filing a special leave petition in the Supreme Court against the order upholding his conviction and sentence of life term for killing his fiancee. A single judge bench said that the petitioner, Omid Hussain Khil alias Umed Milad, an Afghan national, was entitled for parole, as he had also been in jail for around 12 years and six months since his arrest. The high court also relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Asfaq v State of Rajasthan' (2017) wherein it was observed that the gravity of offence cannot be a ground to deny parole. "This court is of the opinion that every individual possesses the right to effectively pursue their legal recourse in the ultimate court of justice within the nation, accomplished by submitting a Special Leave Petition (SLP) through a chosen legal representative. This is an invaluable entitlement that should not be denied solely based on the severity of the offense or the availability of free legal assistance, even if the SLP can be filed from jail itself," the bench said. "The entitlement of an individual to access a lawful solution in the ultimate court of the country, often seen as a final glimmer of hope, cannot be refused for such reasons. It goes without saying that the act of utilising the legal recourse available in the highest court of the land is a privilege bestowed upon the petitioner, and this court has no intention of revoking that right," the bench added.
Bench: Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar
Case Title: Omd Hussain Khil @Umed Milad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
8. [Plea challenging appointment of 35 Delhi Govt school principals] A plea seeking direction to the authorities to investigate the selection of 35 newly appointed principals of Delhi government schools on the basis of "forged and fabricated documents" has been filed before Delhi High Court. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleged that the 35 candidates somehow managed to maliciously misrepresent themselves and were selected illegally and that the Delhi government's Department of Education miserably “failed to scrutinise” the requisite documents submitted by them, resulting in their erroneous selections. During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner sought time to implead the people against whom allegations have been levelled. A division bench has posted the matter for hearing on October 18, 2023. The plea claimed that while some of these applicants submitted fake Economically Weaker Section (EWS) certificates to be considered for employment despite having a family income of more than Rs 8 lakh per year, others took advantage of the OBC reservation system by presenting phony experience records.
Case Title: Navendu Charitable Trust v. Directorate of Education & Anr.
9. [Asian Games Training] The Delhi High Court has recently upheld removal of Ashan Kumar from the position of Chief Coach from ongoing National Coaching Camp for the Indian Kabaddi Team (Boys) for Asian Games, 2023 to be held in China. Noting that there are serious allegations of sexual harassment and stalking against Kumar (the petitioner), the bench said, “There are serious allegations against the Petitioner for the offence under Sections 354-A, 354-D and 506 of IPC and under Section 12 of The POCSO Act, 2012. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision arrived at by the Respondents”. “The order disassociating the Petitioner from the position of the Chief Coach during the enquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee cannot be said to be illegal, irrational and it also does not suffer from procedural irregularities,” the judge said. The petitioner was challenging an order dated September 22, 2023 passed by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, and September 23, 2023 passed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) relieving him from the position of Chief Coach from the ongoing National Coaching Camp for Indian Kabaddi Team (Boys) for Asiad Games, 2023 to be held at China. Kumar is an Arjuna Awardee and was selected to coach the Indian Kabaddi Team (Boys) for Asian Games, 2023 to be held in China.
Case Title: Shri Ashan Kumar v. Union of India and Others
10. [Sexual Assault on Children] The Delhi High Court has granted three weeks to Delhi Government to formulate the standard operating procedure (SOP) to be followed in cases of sexual assault of children. A division bench was informed by the counsel appearing for the Department of Women and Child Welfare (DWC) of the Delhi government, the nodal agency for implementation of child protection laws, that the process of consultation with other stakeholders like the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) was going on. "We require three weeks time to finalise, to hear everyone and finalise it," the counsel said before a bench. Noting that the government was "still deliberating", the division bench ordered, “Counsel for GNCTD prays for three weeks' time to conclude deliberations to formulate the SOP. She is granted three weeks’ time”. Accordingly, the court posted the matter for further consideration on November 10, 2023. The bench was hearing a suo moto case, which it had initiated after taking cognizance of an incident wherein a minor girl had allegedly been raped several times by the suspended Delhi government’s Women and Child Development Department Officer, Premoday Khakha.
Case Title:Court in its own motion v. Department of Women and Child Development
11. [Illegal detention of man for 30 minutes] Expressing displeasure by the manner in which the Delhi Police inexplicably detained a man in its custody for half an hour, the Delhi High Court has ordered two police officials, responsible for the act, to collectively pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to the aggrieved man. The bench said that even though it was for a short period of time, the petitioner was deprived of his personal liberty, a right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The judge said that it was evident that the authorities acted in a “high-handed manner” without respecting the petitioner's liberty and placed him in the lock-up without following due procedure of law or the principles that have been laid down when an arrest is made. “The fact that the Petitioner was picked up from the spot without an FIR against him, subsequently brought to the Police Station and placed in the lock-up has not been disputed by the State authorities”, the court noted. The court was hearing a plea by Pankaj Kumar Sharma seeking compensation for his “illegal arrest” and detention at Badarpur Police Station, Delhi on September 2, 2022. The single-judge bench said that it was deeply troubled by the fact that the petitioner was not even arrested and was simply picked up from the spot, brought to the Police Station, and placed inside the lock-up for “no rhyme or reason”.
Case Title: Pankaj Kumar Sharma v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
12. [Yamuna flood relief camps] Noting the steps taken by the authorities to provide succor, the Delhi High Court has closed the proceedings in a petition seeking relief measures for those affected by the flooding of the Yamuna River earlier this year. A division bench said that “no further court orders were required” and disposed of the plea. The Delhi government, in its status report, stated that not only were relief camps established in buildings, schools and community centres but financial assistance of Rs 10,000 was also provided to over two thousand families affected by the floods and NDRF was deployed for rescue, and relief operations. The bench recorded that an apex committee is in existence besides a central control room to deal with flood situations and numerous steps were taken to deal with the flooding. It also noted that as per the report, food and other amenities were provided at 47 relief camps by the state government. Various NGOs and Bangla Sahib Gurudwara also lent a helping hand, it noted. "In light of the status report, no further order is required. PIL stands disposed of," the court ordered.
Case Title: Dr. Akash Bhattacharya v. Delhi Disaster Management Authority through Chairperson Lt. Governor & Anr.
13. [NewsClick Row] The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Delhi Police and sought its response on pleas challenging the arrest of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and HR department head Amit Chakraborty in a case lodged under UAPA. The bench also sought the response of Delhi police on the applications seeking interim release of Purkayastha and Chakraborty till the pendency of their petition. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, on behalf of Purkayatha submitted, “I've challenged arrest and remand. There are two petitions. On October 3, in the morning at 6:30, they came to my house, took all my electronic devices and my phone. They took me to the office of the special cell. The next morning, they took me to the magistrate”. “Order was passed at 6 in the morning. Just see the order…What is happening to our courts? No grounds of arrest were given. High Court rules say that I'm entitled to counsel. That's the law. The magistrate has to ask the accused. Rules further say that if 24 hours are expiring, then temporary remand will be issued so that counsel can appear”, he submitted. Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta appeared for the State. On perusal of the remand application, the judge inquired, “Mr. Mehta, tell us, in the remand order, there appears to be something which is missing there because it's 6 AM and the counsel was not heard”.
Bench: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Case Title: Prabir Purkayastha v. State NCT of Delhi & Amit Chakraborty v. State (NCT of Delhi)
14. [Plea to ban/cancel licence to keep dangerous dog breeds] The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea to ban or cancel the licence to keep 'dangerous' dog breeds such as pit bulls, terriers, American bulldogs, rottweilers etc. A division bench asked the petitioner to first approach the government authorities with the grievance instead of directly filing a plea before the court. “Before filing, you make a representation to the government that this is my grievance but you have come straight to the court. You have to make a representation first”, the court said. It also said, “This is a wrong trend in PILs. This is a policy decision”, said the court. The petitioner, Legal Attorneys and Barristers Law Firm highlighted many incidents of such dog breeds attacking people including owners. It alleged that breeds like bulldogs, rottweilers, pit bulls, terriers, Neapolitan Mastiffs etc are 'dangerous dogs' and are banned in more than 12 countries including India, but the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was still registering them to be kept as pets. The plea stated that it is the duty of the Centre and the State government to act as the welfare state and to take pre-emptive action to save the lives of the citizens from the risk of any major dog bite incident by these 'dangerous dogs'.
Case Title: The Legal Attorneys and Barristers Law Firm v. Union of India & Ors.
15. [Ram Leela in District Park] "We are choking", said the Delhi High Court, while reflecting upon the "cry of the citizens" who have seen the Air Quality Index skyrocket to toxic levels in the capital city making it difficult to survive for the people and face maladies like Asthma, allergies etc. "The residents of Delhi are gasping for breath which makes it a duty not only of the Government Agencies, but also requires concerted effort of every individual to make an endeavour to save the city and each be the active brigade of “Saviours Of Nature”. The concerns towards the environment have been resonated in the policy making by every concerned instrumentality and has been echoed by the courts at every level by taking every possible step including tree plantation," a bench said. The court made the observation while dealing with a plea by the Shri Ram Leela Committee, Janakpuri, which has been celebrating Dussehra since last more than 30 years in the District Park, Janakpuri. The bench allowed the committee to hold Ram Leela celebrations on the ground for this current year i.e. 2023 from October 5 to 30, 2023, in accordance with all the norms applicable as well as by taking all the precautions including safety, traffic, and fire arrangement, etc. The court noted that this plot of land was lying barren and had no grass and a few trees around the periphery, apparently since it had been intended to be used as a Multipurpose Ground and had always been so used.
Bench: Justices Neena Bansal Krishna and Suresh Kumar Kait
Case Title: Shri Ramleela Committee, Janakpuri & Anr. v. Rishu Kant Sharma & Ors.
16. [RTI Act] The Delhi High Court has directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to furnish a copy of the agreement signed with an external organization for handling grievance redressal on its behalf under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). The order came in response to a plea filed by lawyer Prashant Reddy T. The bench clarified that agreements between the UIDAI and external organizations involved in the grievance redressal mechanism could be provided under the RTI Act. However, non-disclosure agreements with personnel and details of individuals covered under the agreement could be redacted while providing copies. Court emphasized that transparency is crucial for good governance, promoting efficiency and effectiveness in government functioning. Justice Prasad noted that confidentiality is intended to protect individuals' details, but the entire contract need not be kept secret, especially when encouraging public participation in such ventures. The order overturned a Central Information Commission (CIC) decision from March 20, 2023, which denied access to the contract copy. While the CIC had directed UIDAI to disclose staff figures and the number of resolved complaints, it rejected the request for the contract copy. Prashant Reddy T, the petitioner, had sought various details about grievance redressal in UIDAI through an RTI application. The high court ruled that the contract between UIDAI and an external organization falls within the definition of 'information' under the RTI Act.
Case Title: Prashant Reddy T. v. CPIO
17. [Interim stay vacated on termination of services of DARC fellows] In a recent development, the Delhi High Court has lifted its interim direction for the continuation of services for professionals engaged as fellows with the Delhi Assembly Research Centre (DARC) and were later disengaged from service. This decision came following a writ petition filed against the Legislative Assembly Secretariat. A single bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad, observed that the letter dated July 5, 2023, which was at the center of the controversy, had been specifically challenged by the Government of NCT of Delhi in its Interim Application. The Apex Court, in its order dated July 20, 2023, chose not to stay the said letter. The court dismissed the contention that since the Apex Court did not pass any order in the Interim Application, the high court could consider the same. The background of the case involves an advertisement issued by the Delhi Legislative Assembly for the engagement of Fellows, Associate Fellows, and Associate Fellows (Media) under the Delhi Assembly Research Centre (DARC) Fellowship Programme. Initially, engagements were for one year, extendable for another year based on performance. A total of 50 Fellows and 90 Associate Fellows, including Associate Fellows (Media), were engaged through a proper selection process. The engagements were contractual, with Fellows entitled to a fixed stipend and no other benefits.
Case Title: Subhashini Ratan & Ors. v. Legislative Assembly Secretariat NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Please Login or Register
