Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Molestation Case] The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against an Afghan national for the offence of molestation on a complaint by a lady doctor who employed him for bringing his countrymen as patients to her clinic. A single judge bench found that the FIR had been filed in a mala fide manner and fell under the category of being manifestly frivolous and vexatious. Petitioner Ramez Faqiri contended a written complaint was made to the police on July 13, 2021 by the complainant-lady doctor accusing him of theft, forgery and misbehaviour. As he left the employment and joined another gastroenterologist, another complaint was made by the same doctor on September 10, 2021 accusing him of molesting her and the dietician working there. He said the doctor has materially changed the nature of the allegations against him. While the earlier complaint alleged forgery and theft, the subsequent complaint accused him of molestation. No CCTV footage was produced, though 14 cameras were installed in the clinic.
Bench: Justice Amit Bansal
Case Title: Ramez Faqiri v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Click here to read more
2. [Terrorist Activities in India] The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Mohd. Amir Javed, an accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) 1967, for his alleged involvement in planning terrorist activities in India. A division bench refused the bail citing a reasonable possibility that Javed might have “played a crucial role within a network of individuals” with knowledge of a plot to initiate terrorist activities involving explosives and potential loss of life. “Having considered the charge-sheet, the totality of the material based on broad probability regarding the involvement of the accused, the documents put forward by the investigating agency, as they were, and in addition pursuant to a surface analysis of probative value, this Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true. Consequently, the conditions in Section 43D (5) UAPA stand satisfied. The appeal is accordingly dismissed”, the court ordered.
Bench: Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal
Case Title: Mohd. Amir Javed v. State (NCT of Delhi)
3. [Fraud websites using Burger King] The Delhi High Court has recently restrained fake, illegal and fraudulent websites from using the name ‘Burger King’ in an unauthorised manner. "..an interim injunction is granted restraining www.burgerkingind.co.in and www.burgerkingfranchisee.com from in any manner using the mark/name BURGER KING or the logos extracted above, for any purpose, including for collecting money under the garb of issuing franchises, dealerships etc.", a single judge bench has ordered. Court has further directed GoDaddy.com LLC to, with immediate effect, suspend/block the domain name www.burgerkingind.co.in thereby ensuring that the website is no longer accessible to any consumers. "If the email address info@burgerkingind.co.in is opened by or through GoDaddy.com LLC, the said email shall also be blocked," ordered the court.
Bench: Justice Pratibha M Singh
Case Title: Burger King Corporation v. Swapnil Patil & Ors.
4. [Public Prosecutor] The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the post of ‘Public Prosecutor’ is an integral part of criminal court system. Court observed so in pleas seeking direction for the appointment of public prosecutors for all Delhi courts. A division bench noted that 60 public prosecutors have been appointed recently, however, alarmingly, “no training” has been imparted to them. Senior Advocate Rajeev K Virmani, the Amicus Curiae highlighted the lack of training programme for the Public Prosecutor. The bench directed the Delhi government to coordinate with the Delhi Judicial Academy to conduct training of the newly recruited public prosecutors. “GNCTD shall also file a status report before next date of hearing regarding (i) the implementation of direction regarding training programmes, and (ii) the latest position of vacancies in respect of public prosecutors. Re-notify on 01st November, 2023”, the court ordered.
Bench: CJ Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association (Regd) v. Rajiv Mehrishi & Anr. (connected matters)
5. [Divorce Case] The Delhi High Court has held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not available for the family court to grant divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. A bench set aside a family court's judgement of September 18, 2018, saying granting divorce on the ground of cruelty and breakdown of marriage was not sustainable. Relying upon the Supreme Court's Constitution bench judgement in case of 'Shilpa Sailesh Versus Varun Sreenivasan' (2023), the bench said, "the power to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to both the parties. Such a power is not vested in the High Courts leave alone the Family Courts." Acting on a plea by the husband, the family court concluded there was denial of conjugal relations, that parties had been living separately for more than 11 years. It had further said that the marriage had broken down beyond repair and thus held he had successfully established cruelty and granted a decree of divorce against the wife. Upon an appeal, the HC noted the allegations of denial of conjugal rights were vague and bald and it was the husband and her father-in-law who refused to take back the appellant and her daughter. "The fact that a girl child has been born to the parties clearly shows that the allegation that Respondent (husband) had been denied conjugal relations is incorrect," the bench said.
Bench: Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vikas Mahajan
Case Title: Deepti Vs Anil Kumar
6. [Divorce on Non-Consummation of Marriage] The Delhi High Court while upholding the divorce granted to a couple whose marriage effectively subsisted for barely 35 days and failed on account of non-consummation of marriage, referred to its observation in an earlier case that "marriage without sex is an anathema". A division bench rejected the wife’s appeal against the family court order granting divorce. The bench said that wilful denial of sexual relationship by a spouse amounts to cruelty. “Wilful denial of sexual relationship by a spouse amounts to cruelty, especially when the parties are newly married and this itself is a ground for grant of divorce”, it added. Court noted that the marriage was not consummated by the wife who had filed a police complaint claiming that she was harassed for dowry but without giving any “cogent evidence”. This can also be termed as cruelty, the court said.
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: Seema v. Vijay Kumar
7. [Indian Army] The Delhi High Court has recently questioned the justification for prohibiting employment of men as nurses in the Indian Army. A division bench questioned as to why men couldn't be hired as Army nurses when women could be placed in Siachen, the world's highest battleground. Additional Solicitor General, Aishwarya Bhati, informed the court that the Union Government has submitted its written statement in the matter. The Court raised the said query in a petition challenging the Military Nursing Service Ordinance 1943 and the Military Nursing Service (India) Rules 1944, to the extent they provide that only women can be appointed in the Indian Military Nursing Service. Advocate Amit George for petitioners, submitted that the rule prohibiting men from nursing service was a colonial idea and founded on Florence Nightingale's ideal of what a nurse ought to be. The Indian Professional Nurses Association approached the High Court in 2018 challenging the rules which provide that only women can join the Military Nursing Service.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Indian Professional Nurses Association v. Union of India
8. [Declining population of Vultures] Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, on behalf of the Centre told the Delhi High Court that, “We will come back with a detailed affidavit”. The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by Advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal raising concern over the issue of the decline in the number of vultures in India. A division bench granted the Centre time to file a detailed reply on why the drug ‘Nimesulide’ has not been banned and the deliberations undertaken in this regard. Accordingly, court posted the matter for further hearing on November 3. Earlier, the bench had sought details of the deliberations undertaken in this regard by the Centre. It had noted that an affidavit had been filed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, which was not on record. “Learned counsel for Union of India seeks and is granted two weeks’ time to place it on record. In view thereof, the Union of India is also directed to furnish the reasons as to why the drug ‘Nimesulide’ has not been banned, and deliberations undertaken in this regard", the court had ordered on September 1. In the present plea, the petitioner’s grievance arose in respect of four non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) used in veterinary care, which are admittedly toxic to Vultures, three of which already stand banned, namely, ‘Acelofenac’, ‘Ketoprofen’, ‘Diclofenac’, whereas the sole remaining drug, ‘Nimesulide’ continues to be sold in the market.
Case Title: Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
9. [SRK's Film Jawan] The Delhi High Court has directed Meta and Telegram to deactivate all the WhatsApp groups and Telegram channels that are circulating pirated copies of Shah Rukh Khan's latest movie "Jawan". The bench also ordered the social media platforms and major mobile networks including Jio, Airtel, Vodafone-Idea and BSNL to reveal the information of phone number holders circulating such copies online so as to enable legal action against them. The single-judge bench was hearing an application moved by the producer, Red Chillies Entertainment of the film Jawan. The production house had identified one Rohit Sharma who was illegally selling copies of the film through WhatsApp. The plaintiff sought directions to Meta platform, which controls WhatsApp to disable the various chat groups on which the it’s copyrighted material is being illegally circulated by Rohit Sharma. Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao appeared for the Plaintiff. He pointed out that a glance at the nature of the groups involved indicated that they were essentially groups that had been brought into existence to circulate pirated content. The court issued notice in the plea and sought reply from the respondents within four weeks. Accordingly, court posted the matter for further consideration on October 19, 2023.
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case Title: Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
10. [Online Gaming] The Delhi High Court has granted the Central Government more time to file its response on the ‘maintainability’ of a PIL challenging the constitutional and legislative validity of the Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2023 pertaining to online gaming. During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the Centre said, "At the outset, may I only humbly submit that we were permitted to file a short affidavit in order to assist this court on the maintainability. However, one more week may be permitted". To this, the counsel for the petitioner NGO submitted, "Let notice be issued in this. A statement was made in the Parliament as well as by an affidavit in the Supreme Court". Taking note of the submissions made, the bench said, "It doesn't have the competency" and granted time to the Centre to file its response on the PIL. Accordingly, the bench posted the matter for further consideration on October 12.
Case Title: Social Organization for Creating Humanity (SOCH) v. Union of India
11. [CM's House Renovation] The Delhi High Court has directed the PWD Officials to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) challenging the show cause notices issued to them by the Directorate of Vigilance in connection with alleged "gross violations" of rules in the renovation of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's official residence. While disposing of an appeal by the Delhi Government challenging an order dated September 15, a division bench said, “…the petition itself is not maintainable and the writ petition before the learned Single Judge stands disposed of with liberty to respondents No.1 to 6 to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application as provided under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act”. Notably, on September 15, the single-judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh had granted “interim protection” to the six PWD Officials. The judge had ordered that no coercive steps be taken by any authority against them.
Case Title: Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Rajdev and Ors.
12. [Delhi-Meerut RRTS Project] The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a resident association’s plea against construction of Delhi-Meerut Regional Rapid Transport System (RRTS) through Siddhartha Extension. The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by Sidhartha Extension Pocket C Residents Welfare Association, voicing the collective concerns of the residents of Siddhartha Extension, New Delhi, their Resident Welfare Association, and Senior Citizens Welfare Forum, regarding the route alignment of the Delhi-Meerut Regional Rapid Transport System (RRTS). A division bench held that National Capital Region Transport Corporation (NCRTC) had strategically planned allocation of resources to expedite the completion of the project as swiftly as possible. The bench also held that these were not merely preventive measures, but a proactive strategy aimed at safeguarding the general public from construction-related hazards and these measures demonstrated NCRTC’s conscientious approach to balancing the imperatives of public infrastructure development with the everyday lives and concerns of affected residents. The RRTS, which was intended to establish a connection between Delhi, Ghaziabad, and Meerut, was built as a semi-high-speed rail corridor. The petitioners' complaint was related to the decision-making process around the RRTS's route alignment.
Case Title: Sidhartha Extension Pocket C Residents Welfare Association & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
13. [Anil Kapoor v. AI] The Delhi High Court has passed an interim John Doe order restraining social media channels, e-commerce websites and people at large from infringing on the personality rights of Bollywood Actor, Anil Kapoor. Kapoor had moved the court seeking protection against the misuse of his personality rights through use of any technology including artificial intelligence, deepfakes, GIFs etc. He sought to restrain various entities, including John Does, from violating his personality rights by using his name, acronym ‘AK’, nicknames like 'Lakhan', 'Mr. India ', 'Majnu Bhai' and phrase ‘Jhakaas’ and his voice and images, without his permission for commercial gain. A single judge bench passed the "ex-parte interim order" against several websites and platforms on a lawsuit by the actor.
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Case Title: Anil Kapoor vs. Simply Life India & Ors.
Please Login or Register
