Read Time: 26 minutes
1. [Excise policy scam] The Delhi High Court last week sought the ED's stand on a petition by Hyderabad businessman Ramchandra Pillai challenging his arrest and remand in a money laundering case related to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam. Pillai has claimed that "third-degree" methods were applied to obtain information. "Third degree" refers to brutality by police officers interrogating an accused. The bench asked the probe agency to file a response with respect to the maintainability of the plea. In his plea, the petitioner stated that no grounds for arrest, either oral or written, were ever provided to him, as required under Section 19(1) of the PMLA, and that this also violated the petitioner's constitutional rights. It further contended that the remand orders did not record any satisfaction of whether the ED had materials on record to form “reasons to believe” that the petitioner was guilty of an offence under the PMLA.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: Ramchandra Pillai v. Directorate of Enforcement
Click here to read more
2. [Relief for family of security guard] The Delhi High Court has recently issued a directive compelling the Central government to disburse Rs 50 lakh in favor of the bereaved family of a security guard who succumbed to COVID-19 while on duty at Delhi's Safdarjung Hospital. The bench dismissed the arguments put forth by the Central government, the Director General of Health Services, and Safdarjung Hospital, who contended that the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package Insurance Scheme for healthcare workers engaged in the battle against COVID-19 could not be extended to contractual workers who were not directly involved in the care of COVID-19 patients. The court stressed the necessity of interpreting the welfare scheme in a broad and inclusive manner. Justice Prasad remarked, "The scheme was actually brought out as a measure to benefit the family members of persons who became martyrs in the line of duty while protecting thousands of persons affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.Taking such a narrow view actually goes against the spirit of the scheme, which was meant to provide immediate relief to persons who were tackling the situation and were protecting the lives of thousands of patients."
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Sangeet Wahi v. Union of India and Ors.
3. [Sexual Harassment & Stalking case] While observing that the accused appeared to be oblivious to his actions due to a mental condition, the Delhi High Court recently nullified a case involving allegations of sexual assault. The bench quashed the First Information Report (FIR) after considering a report compiled by a medical board from the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS). During the proceedings, court also engaged with the victim's father, who expressed no objection to the quashing of the case. Court said, "Though the status report filed on record by the State discloses that the CCTV footage has captured the petitioner along with the victim, however, in view of the medical records placed on file, it appears that the petitioner was unaware of his actions." The accused had been charged by the Delhi Police in November 2021 under Section 354D (stalking) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 (sexual harassment) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) based on a statement provided by a Class VI student. The minor victim had alleged that the accused had engaged in inappropriate physical contact and followed her.
Bench: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Case Title: Amanpreet Singh Bedi v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
4. [Email Service] The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling affirming the validity of serving documents to relevant parties through email. However, this mode of document service is permissible only when the concerned party has explicitly furnished an email address for this purpose.The bench said that an email address provided by a trademark applicant in their application or by an opponent in their notice of opposition, under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, shall be deemed sufficient as an address for document service in accordance with Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act of 1999. The court further expounded that the inclusion of an email address in a trademark application or a notice of opposition effectively signifies the party's consent to receive official communications via email. "I do not think that there can be any manner of doubt that service of documents relating to the application or the notice of opposition at the said e-mail ID would suffice as service within the meaning of Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act”, the court said.
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case Title: M/S Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. vs Vikram Suri Trading As M/S Armex Auto Industries
5. [All India Muslim Mahapanchayat at Ramlila Maidan] While observing that tenor of the posters introduced indicated that the event in question could have communal overtones, the Delhi High Court "refused" to grant permission for organizing a public meeting (All India Muslim Mahapanchayat) of around 10,000 people at Ramlila Ground on October 29. The Delhi Police had revoked consent, calling the proposed event “communal”. The bench said that though the purpose of the event is to educate the people about their rights, the tenor of the posters introduced indicated that the event in question "could" have communal overtones, which could result in an increase of communal tension in old Delhi area, which was a sensitive area as people of different religions live there. Court noted that the entire country celebrates Navratri from October 15, 2023, to October 24, 2023, and Diwali will be celebrated on November 12, 2023. In between, there are other festivals like Karvachauth, Dhanteras, etc. The period from the end of Shradha to Diwali is extremely auspicious for the Hindu community in India. "Communal violence in the area is not unknown", it added.
Case Title: Mission Save Constitution v. Union of India & Ors.
6. [Birth Certificate issue] The Delhi High Court has permitted a student who had been denied the opportunity to play in a cricket match organized by the Directorate of Education due to a delay in issuance of his birth certificate. The petitioner, a 13-year-old boy, contested a stipulation outlined in a circular by the Delhi government's Directorate of Education (Sports branch), which mandated that the birth certificate of the respective student be issued within one year of their date of birth. However, in the case at hand, the birth certificate had been issued three years after the boy's birth. The bench remarked that the available evidence established the petitioner's promising potential, highlighting his role as the captain of the cricket team at Delhi Public School, R. K. Puram. The court expressed concern that the petitioner's "career prospects should not be jeopardized" solely due to the inability to produce a birth certificate, which had been appropriately issued by the municipality in Patna, albeit three years after the birth. The court permitted the petitioner to participate and represent his school in the domain of cricket at the forthcoming Delhi State School Games (under-14 Cricket) for the year 2023–24, scheduled from October 18, 2023, to October 31, 2023.
Case Title: Mrinayak through his Natural Gurdian Ajay Kumar v. The Deputy Director of Education (Sports)
7. [Online Financial Scams] The Delhi High Court has recently observed that online financial scams strike at the heart of a country's economic stability, and there is an urgent need to address them "not only to protect individuals but also to ensure the continued vitality of the online financial system". While denying bail to an accused in a financial scam case, the bench said that when trust in online transactions is shaken, the public becomes increasingly reluctant to deal with digital systems, which can significantly impede economic growth, innovation, and financial inclusion. "This court notes that the seriousness of such scams extends far beyond the immediate victims. At their core, they strike at the heart of the nation's financial stability. By undermining trust in online transactions, these fraudulent activities have a cascading effect that resonates throughout the entire economic landscape," Justice Sharma said in a recent order dated October 12. "This court recognizes the urgent need to address such issues with the utmost seriousness, not only to protect individuals from financial harm but also to ensure the continued vitality of online financial systems and, by extension, the broader economy," it said.
Case Title: Amit Sharma v. State
8. [CBSE Chairperson] The Delhi High Court has recently rejected a petition challenging the appointment of senior IAS officer Nidhi Chibber as the Chairperson of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). The bench dismissed the plea brought forth by the Independent School Federation of India. The basis for this dismissal was a thorough evaluation that led to the conclusion that Nidhi Chibber met the necessary criteria for the position. Justice Singh said, "In the instant case, this Court is not inclined to issue a writ of Quo Warranto, as no prima facie case is made out by learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 (Chibber) has the qualification to be appointed as the Chairperson, Central Board of Secondary Education. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner is nothing but a gross misuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the instant petition, along with the pending application, stands dismissed." The petition challenging Nidhi Chibber's appointment contended that her placement in the role was part of a bureaucratic reshuffle and that she was ineligible for the position due to her lack of the requisite three years of experience in the field of education.
Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Case Title: Independent School Federation of India & Anr v The Union of India & Ors.
9. [Protection to couple] While granting police protection to a couple facing threats from their family post-marriage, the Delhi High Court recently said that the right to marry a person of one's own choice is indelible and constitutionally protected, and not even family members can object to such matrimonial ties. In a recent order, the bench emphasized that the state is under a constitutional obligation to provide protection to its citizens, and the high court, being a constitutional court, is expected to further the constitutional rights of the couple. "The right of the petitioners to marry a person of their own choice is indelible and protected under the Constitution, which cannot be diluted in any manner whatsoever," the court said. “There is no doubt about the factum of marriage between the petitioners and the fact that they are major. No one, not even the family members, can object to such relation or to the matrimonial ties between the petitioners,” the court said.
Case Title: Smt. Deepali & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
10. [Exam by DSEU] The Delhi High Court has recently issued a significant ruling concerning candidates who resort to malpractices and tampering in order to succeed in competitive examinations. The court expressed deep concern over such misconduct and highlighted the unfortunate consequences, whereby innocent and diligent students become victims of the disorderly actions of their fellow candidates. The bench noted that such circumstances leave the state and its relevant agencies with no alternative but to cancel the examination entirely. Court emphasized the inherent difficulty faced by examination authorities in accurately identifying the extent of malpractices and irregularities committed by participating students. "It is observed that it becomes extremely difficult for the agencies conducting such examinations to determine and identify exactly how many students have engaged in such malpractices and irregularities," it observed. Court made these observations while dismissing a petition by several candidates who applied for the post of Junior Assistant or Office Assistant against vacancies notified by the Delhi Skill Entrepreneurship University (DSEU). However, the examination was cancelled by the university after cases of tampering and use of unfair means were detected in the Computer Based Recruitment Test (CBRT) at two centers
Case Title: Kavi Vaidwan & Ors. v. Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University & Ors.
Please Login or Register
