Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Professor Ashok Swain] The Delhi High Court has issued notice in Sweden-based Professor Ashok Swain's plea challenging a fresh order passed by the Central government dated July 30, 2023 cancelling his Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Card. Court directed the Central Government to file reply in the plea. The judge noted that a similar plea was set aside by this court on July 10. It also noted that even on this occasion "no reasons have been given" other than repeating the ingredients of the Sections of the Citizenship Act. "Issue notice. File reply within 4 weeks", the court ordered. The matter will be heard next on November 9.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Ashok Swain v. Union of India & Ors.
Click here to read more
2. [Toilets for transgender] The Delhi government has told the Delhi High Court that over 100 toilets have been built for exclusive use by transgender people in the national capital. The counsel for the social welfare department told a division bench that a total of 102 such toilets have been built and 194 more are under construction. "Efforts are being made and further action will be taken expeditiously," the counsel submitted. The counsel for the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), which functions under the union ministry of home affairs, informed the bench that 12 toilets for transgender people are operational in the area under its jurisdiction and tenders for construction of 79 more have been awarded. The area is commonly referred to as Lutyens' Delhi. Observing that "substantial progress" has been made by the authorities, the bench said that it will pass an order on the petition. "We will dispose it of," the court ordered. The court was hearing a PIL filed by Jasmine Kaur Chhabra hearing a plea raising the issue that the state government has lacked in providing adequate services to the society, building separate public toilet facilities especially for the transgenders even after being discussed and directed by the Supreme Court and various High Courts.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Jasmine Kaur Chhabra v. Union of India & Ors
3. [POCSO Act] In a criminal revision moved by the State, Delhi High Court recently upheld an order of the trial court, discharging a man against offences of sexual assault and kidnapping under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), 2012 and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860. The court relied on the age mentioned in the AADHAAR Card of the prosecutrix, as per which she had attained the age of majority when the said offences were committed against her. Court, while maintaining the order passed by the trial court, said, “The perusal of impugned order dated 29.7.2016 reflects that the Trial Court had rightly observed that the date of birth of the prosecutrix as appearing in the school record was not based on birth certificate issued by MCD or any other statutory authority and in the absence of these documents, the Trial Court has rightly relied upon the Aadhaar card to ascertain the age of prosecutrix as per mandate of section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which reflects the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 01.01.1994.” Reliance was placed on NCT of Delhi v. Umesh, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10596, where the AADHAAR card was used to determine the age of the prosecutrix.
Bench: Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain
Case Title: NCT of Delhi v. Rohit Kumar
4. [Minor's Rape] The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of forcibly keeping a minor girl in his house and repeatedly raping her. A division bench said that while the testimony of a victim alone is sufficient to establish guilt, overall circumstances have to be considered to arrive at a "just decision". The bench dismissed an appeal by the State against the trial court order and said that the prosecution not only failed to bring on record the exact age of the prosecutrix but also could not prove that the accused had forcibly made physical relations with her. Noting that the victim had visited the native village of the accused claiming to be his wife and “did not raise alarm” on earlier occasions, the court remarked that "the behaviour of prosecutrix speaks a volume about her conduct" and a case of "false accusation" cannot be ruled out.
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishn
Case Title: State v. Sunil & Ors.
5. [Separatist Leader Shabir Ahmed Shah] The Delhi High Court has directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to file all relevant documents within 10 days in Kashmiri Separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah's bail plea in a terror funding case lodged by it in 2017. Shah has challenged the order of the trial court denying him bail in the case vide order dated July 7, 2023. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, on behalf of Shabir Ahmed Shah submitted, “This is a bail application. I want to argue today. 6 years in jail, 400 witnesses out of which 15 have been examined and I am aged 74 years...I should be granted bail. But to satisfy your conscious I am going to show a case of no material at all”. Court asked the counsel for NIA, “What documents were you directed to place on record? Last time you asked for some time to file something on record. When will you do it? It’s been quite some time now”. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Akshai Malik appearing for NIA said, “We wanted to file a compilation report of all the documents we wish to rely on”. Court said, "This is a question of personal liberty". "You file it if you want or we'll go ahead and hear it. Mr. Akshai Malik seeks time to file relevant documents on record. He is granted 10 days", the bench ordered.
Bench: Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal
Case Title: Shabir Ahmed Shah v. National Investigation Agency
6. [1991 Bribery Case] The Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction and one-year jail term awarded to a Delhi police official for taking bribe of Rs 1,000 from a woman in 1991 to arrest her neighbour. The bench said that the demand for bribe and its acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and in the present case, the "proof of demand and acceptance" had not been "substantiated" by the statements of witnesses. "The demand for bribe followed by its acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies squarely on the prosecution," said the court in its order dated September 1. The court was hearing the police official's appeal against the trial court verdict of September 27, 2000, and an order of sentence passed on September 29, 2000, where he had been found guilty of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a year. He was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500.
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh
Case Title: Mahal Singh v. State of Delhi
7. [Absconding self-styles preacher of Rohini-Ashram] The Delhi High Court gave CBI the go-ahead for freezing the bank accounts of absconding self-styled spiritual preacher, Virender Dev Dixit of Rohini-Ashram, who has been declared a proclaimed offender in a sexual exploitation case. On perusal of the status report filed by the CBI with regard to the steps it has taken to arrest Dixit, who is facing rape cases and has been absconding for several years, a division bench noted that the existence of certain bank accounts that were operated by him. The bench said that it was "satisfied with the attempts and progress made by CBI in the matter" and asked to agency to continue with its efforts. While granting the CBI six weeks to take further steps, the bench said, “CBI shall certainly be free to freeze the bank accounts by taking steps in accordance with law". The court was hearing pleas related to the welfare of women living in Rohini Ashram founded by self-styled spiritual preacher Virender Dev Dixit.
Case Title: Dumpala Meenavathi and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (a batch of petitions)
8. [Contempt of Court Case] The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to verify the death certificate of a lawyer, an alleged contemnor in a suo-motu criminal contempt case initiated against him for misbehaving with a sitting judge and interrupting court proceedings. A division bench was dealing with a criminal contempt case against a lawyer namely Shakti Chand Rana for his misbehavior with a sitting judge of the high court and interrupting court proceedings for 45 minutes. During the hearing, the bench was informed that the alleged contemnor had passed away. It noted that a death certificate had been issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Justice Mridul said, "This will have to be verified". Consequently, the court directed the Standing Counsel (Criminal) Sanjay Lao to assist and verify the death certificate. The court also directed the Registry to provide a copy of the death certificate to Lao, issued by the MCD (GNCTD), recording the demise of Mr. Shakti Chand Rana. "So as to enable the latter to verify the same and file a report before this court on the next date of hearing", the bench said. The matter has been listed for further consideration on October 9.
Case Title: Court in its own motion v. Shakti Chand Rana
9. [Dogs captured for G20 summit] The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) told the Delhi High Court that the process of releasing the dogs that were captured in preparation for the G20 Summit has already been initiated in strict adherence to the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 and with the assistance of the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). The 2023 G20 New Delhi summit was the eighteenth meeting of G20. It was held in Bharat Mandapam International Exhibition-Convention Centre, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi on September 9-10, 2023. A division bench said, “the Respondent authorities are directed to ensure strict compliance with all the provisions prescribed under the ABC Rules relating to the capture and release of street dogs”. The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) bringing attention to the mechanism adopted by the MCD for the capture and subsequent release of street dogs in Delhi during special events like Independence Day, Republic Day and most recently, the G20 Summit, 2023.
Bench: CJ Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Anita Santiago v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.
10. [Excise policy case] The Delhi High Court has allowed the mother and two sisters of businessman Amandeep Singh Dhall, an accused in cases related to the Delhi excise policy scam, to meet him in AIIMS. Dhall is currently undergoing treatment at AIIMS. The court was hearing an application moved by Dhall seeking permission for his mother and two sisters to meet him at the hospital. The bench allowed Dhall’s mother and sisters to meet him at the hospital during the specific meeting hours. “The petitioner’s mother and sisters may also be allowed to meet him during the specific hours during the day i.e. 11 am to 12 pm and 4 pm to 5 pm, while the petitioner is undergoing treatment at AIIMS”, the court ordered. While granting permission, the single-judge bench noted that the counsel for ED and CBI stated that an appropriate order may be passed, however, it should not be violating the discipline of the hospital. “In view of the submissions, let the mother of the petitioner meet him daily during the meeting hours as prescribed earlier and the two sisters be allowed to meet on alternative days. However, the Jail superintendent must ensure that all the members of the family may not meet the petitioner together”, the court said. Accordingly, the court disposed of the application.
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Case Title: Mr. Amandeep Singh Dhall v. Directorate of Enforcement & Amandeep Singh Dhall v. Central Bureau of Investigation
11. [AAP Minister Gopal Rai] Delhi Environment Minister Gopal Rai on Thursday last week moved the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the central government’s order denying him political clearance to travel to New York to attend Columbia India Energy Dialogue. The Ministry of External Affairs has said in its letter dated September 12 that it has examined the proposal and declined political clearance as the “visit from Government of NCT of Delhi would not be appropriate as India is being represented at the Columbia-India Energy Dialogue by Shri Suman Kumar Bery, Vice Chairman, NITI Aayog (Ministerial-rank)”. Rai has sought permission to travel to the US city from September 15 to 21, 2023 to attend the programme scheduled to be held on September 18. His plea stated that as per the programme schedule, the Telangana government’s special chief secretary of municipal administration and urban development is also scheduled to speak at the event.
Case Title: Gopal Rai v. Union of India
12. [Appeal against Family Court order] The Delhi High Court, recently held that an appeal against decree or order of the Family Court must be filed within 30 days from the date of the pronouncement of such decree or order. In the present case, the appeal was filed with a delay of 49 days, after the expiry of 30 days provided under Family Courts Act, 1984. A Division Bench, while granting liberty to the appellant for moving an application for condonation of delay, held, “The period of limitation for filing an appeal from an appealable order and decree of the District Court would be ninety days under section 28 of HMA and the period of limitation for filing an appeal from an appealable order and judgment of the Family Court, wherever it has been set up, would be thirty days under section 19 of the Family Courts Act.” While acknowledging the inconsistency and the varied position by several High Courts, attention was further drawn to the Top Court observations in SLP (C) No.10751 of 2021, Arunoday Singh vs. Lee Anne Elton. The appellant challenged order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket wherein divorce petition by the respondent was allowed.
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan
Case Title: Pallavi Mohan v. Raghu Menon
13. [Deceased Father's assets] The Delhi High Court has ruled that while an unmarried or widowed daughter has a claim in the estate of her deceased father, the same does not apply to a divorced daughter as she is not a dependent entitled to maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA). A division bench made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by a divorced woman challenging a family court order that had rejected her claim of maintenance from her mother and brother. “An unmarried or widowed daughter is recognized to have a claim in the estate of the deceased, but a “divorced daughter” does not feature in the category of dependents entitled to maintenance”, the court said. The bench said that the claim for maintenance had been made under Section 21 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) which provides for the dependents who may claim maintenance. It provides for nine categories of relatives in which a divorced daughter does not figure, the court said. The woman had challenged a January 4, 2018 family court order which rejected her plea under Section 22 (dealing with maintenance of dependents) of the HAMA. Her father died in 1999 leaving behind four heirs; his wife, son, and two daughters. It was the woman’s case that she was not given any share as a legal heir.
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: Malini Chaudhri v. Rajat Chaudhri & Anr.
14. [Sexual Assault on Children] The Delhi High Court has sought suggestions from various authorities, including the Delhi government and National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), on preparation of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to be followed in cases of sexual assaults involving child victims. The bench asked the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR), Delhi Commission for Women (DCW), Delhi government’s Department of Women and Child Development, Delhi Police and Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to participate in the meeting for drafting the SoP. The bench was hearing a suo moto case, which it had initiated after taking cognizance of an incident wherein a minor girl has allegedly been raped several times by the suspended Delhi government’s Women and Child Development Department Officer, Premoday Khakha. The minor was allegedly impregnated and Khakha’s wife, Seema Rani (an accused in the case) gave medicine to her to terminate the pregnancy. The couple was arrested last month and is currently in judicial custody. During the hearing, Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya appearing for the Delhi Police, informed the bench that she has filed a status report in the matter. The court noted that the status report was not on record and asked it to be placed on record. It also impleaded DCPCR as a party to the plea and asked it to place on record the steps taken by it in the case. Accordingly, the bench posted the matter for further consideration on October 6, 2023.
Case Title: Court in its own motion v. Department of Women and Child Development
15. [Threats to witnesses by jail inmates] The Delhi High Court has taken a serious view of the allegations that members of organised crime syndicates threatened witnesses from inside prison and said that such actions strike at the core of protection of witnesses who are the eyes and ears of the judicial system and the only means to reach a just decision. The bench ordered that witnesses in cases lodged under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) be examined within one month and no unnecessary adjournments be sought by the prosecution. Justice Sharma said that threatening those protected under the law will “directly affect” the courts as a witness under duress can never depose truthfully. “The allegations against the respondents are that they were engaging in the act of threatening the witnesses of the case in question even while being lodged within the confines of jail. Such actions strike at the core of protection of witnesses who are the eyes and ears of the judicial system and are the only means of reaching just decision of a case and bring home the guilt of an accused”, the court said in its order dated September 4. The court said that it also remains conscious of the fact that in case the witnesses who are protected under the law in a criminal case are threatened even from jail. Justice Sharma made the observations on a petition by the State against a trial court order refusing to allow the prosecution to summon and examine six witnesses with respect to the allegations of threats to witnesses from jail.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: State of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi & Ors.
16. [Political clearance given to AAP Leader Gopal Rai] The Delhi High Court was told by the Union of India that political clearance has been given by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in Delhi Environment Minister and Aam Aadmi Party Leader Gopal Rai’s plea to travel to New York to attend Columbia India Energy Dialogue. Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta appearing for the Union of India, apprised the court that ‘political clearance’ has been given to the petitioner in the present case. “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, political clearance is being granted for Rai’s travel from September 15-21, 2023”, the SG submitted. SG Mehta further requested the court to note in the order that this case be not treated as a precedent. The bench, accordingly, disposed of the plea. The court was hearing Rai’s plea seeking quashing of the central government’s order denying him political clearance to travel to New York to attend Columbia India Energy Dialogue. The Ministry of External Affairs had said in its letter dated September 12 that it has examined the proposal and declined political clearance as the “visit from Government of NCT of Delhi would not be appropriate as India is being represented at the Columbia-India Energy Dialogue by Shri Suman Kumar Bery, Vice Chairman, NITI Aayog (Ministerial-rank)”.
Please Login or Register
