Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up- News Updates [April 17- 22, 2023]

1. [PIL to link properties with Aadhaar] The Delhi High Court recently granted further time to the Centre to file its counter affidavit in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to link movable and immovable property documents of all citizens with their Aadhaar number to curb corruption, black money generation, and 'benami' transactions. The bench granted four weeks' time to the ministries of Finance, Law, Housing and Urban Affairs, and Rural Development to file their responses to the plea. “It is a good matter, let replies come”, CJ Sharma remarked orally.

Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Yashwant Varma

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors.

Click here to read more

2. [TVF College Romance] The Delhi High Court has sought the Union government’s reply on the steps taken for enforcing stricter application of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 on over-the-top (OTT) platforms. After a recent ruling in which the court had stated that the web series "College Romance" streaming on over-the-top (OTT) platform TVF had used obscene, profane, and vulgar language, which will deprive and corrupt the minds of young people, the bench issued the above order.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Case Title: TVF Media Labs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Click here to read more

3. [Uphaar Cinema Tragedy] The Delhi High Court 'allowed' Chairman of the Ansal API Group, Sushil Ansal, convicted in the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire tragedy case, to withdraw his suit seeking to restrain the release of the Netflix series "Trial by Fire- The tragic tale of the Uphaar Tragedy". The court was dealing with a plea against the Netflix series which was released on January 13, after the court ‘rejected’ Ansal’s plea seeking a stay on the release of the series which is based on the 1997 Uphaar Cinema tragedy.

Bench: Justice Yashwant Varma

Case Title: Sushil Ansal v. Endemol India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Click here to read more

4. [Defamation Suit] Shiv Sena leaders Uddhav Thackeray, his son Aaditya Thackeray and Sanjay Raut opposed a defamation plea filed against them by Maharashtra MP Rahul Ramesh Shewale for allegedly leveling frivolous corruption charges against him and the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena faction, before the Delhi High Court. During the hearing, Advocates Naman Joshi and Karan Khanuja appeared for Aaditya Thackeray, Senior Advocate Devadutt Kamat appeared for Sanjay Raut and Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayyar appeared for Rahul Ramesh Shewale.

Bench: Justice Prateek Jalan

Case Title: Sh. Rahul Ramesh Shewale v. Sh. Sanjay Raut & Ors.

Click here to read more

5. [BBC Documentary on PM Modi] The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi University (DU) to file its reply within three working days in a plea filed by Ph.D. research scholar and National Students Union of India (NSUI) Secretary, Lokesh Chugh who was debarred for 1 year for his alleged involvement in the screening of the banned BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi- “India: the Modi Question” at the Faculty of Arts on January 27.

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Case Title: Lokesh Chugh v. University of Delhi & Ors.

Click here to read more

6. [PIL seeing Uniform Judicial Code] The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking directions to the Law Commission of India to prepare a comprehensive report on the ‘Uniform Judicial Code’ in consultation with the high courts in order to make judicial terms, abbreviations, norms phrases, court fee structure, and case registration process uniform across the nation. The bench ordered, "Learned Counsel prays to withdraw the PIL with liberty to seek clarification of order passed by the Supreme Court dated 01.09.2022 passed in WP(C) 16/2022. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty."

Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Yashwant Varma

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI & Others

Click here to read more

7. [Asif Iqbal’s plea against his statement leak] Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani of the Delhi High Court recused from hearing a plea filed by Delhi riots accused Asif Iqbal Tanha against the leak of his “disclosure statements” in the case. The court stated that no act on the part of a court must in any manner have a deleterious impact on the credibility of the justice system.

Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Case Title: Asif Iqbal Tanha (Through Pairokar) vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Click here to read more

8. [Asif Iqbal’s plea against his statement leak] Justice Amit Sharma of the Delhi High Court also ‘recused’ from hearing the plea filed by Delhi riots accused Asif Iqbal Tanha against the leak of his “disclosure statements” in the case. Justice Sharma ordered, “List this matter before another bench, subject to taking necessary orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on Monday i.e. April 24.”

Bench: Justice Amit Sharma

Case Title: Asif Iqbal Tanha (Through Pairokar) vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Click here to read more

9. [Shraddha Walkar Murder Case] The Delhi High Court has restrained all new channels from disseminating the content of the chargesheet in the Shraddha Walkar murder case. The court was hearing a plea filed by Delhi police seeking to restrain news channels from publishing, printing, and disseminating confidential information contained in the chargesheet and other such materials collected during the course of the investigation in the case.

Bench: Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar

Case Title: State of NCT Delhi v. Union of India & Ors.

Click here to read more

10. [Aaradhya Bachchan] The Delhi High Court has recently restrained various YouTube channels from disseminating, publishing, or sharing content relating to the state of health or physical condition of Aaradhya Bachchan, daughter of actors Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan. While issuing notice to the defendants in the suit, the bench restrained YouTube and others from publishing, uploading, sharing, or disseminating videos that are identical/similar in content to the videos forming the subject matter of the URLs in the plaint. The court observed that every child is entitled to be treated with honor and respect, be it a child of a celebrity or of a common man. Dissemination of any misleading information about a child especially as regards physical and mental health is completely intolerable in law, the court said.

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankaran

Case Title: Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan and Anr. v. Bollywood time & Ors.

Click here to read more

11. [Delhi Excise Policy Scam] In the bail plea filed by former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia, in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan and Mohit Mathur contended before the Delhi High Court that “no evidence of money trail had been found from Sisodia by the CBI”. Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan and Mohit Mathur, on behalf of Sisodia, submitted, “All the allegations about me being capable of influencing anyone, etc., is not there at all. All the allegations regarding money are likely to be coming towards me, all that is in the realm of likelihood. There is nothing on paper. Nothing concrete. No money trail has been found”.

Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Case Title: Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Click here to read more

12. [Plea challenging BCD’s notification mandating Aadhaar Card & Voter ID address of Delhi NCR for enrolment] A petition has been moved by a lawyer namely, Rajani Kumar before the Delhi High Court challenging the recent notification of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) mandating Aadhar Card and Voter ID address of Delhi NCR (National Capital Region) for future enrolments. Kumar is a resident of Bihar, who graduated from Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi. He has filed the present petition through Advocate Lalit Kumar. Kumar seeks to apply for enrolment with the Bar Council of Delhi.

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Case Title: Rajani Kumari v. Bar Council of Delhi

Click here to read more

13. [ Arnab Goswami-2016 Contempt Case] Managing Director and Editor-in-chief of Republic TV Arnab Goswami informed the Delhi High Court that he will tender an unconditional apology in a contempt case filed against him by former TERI Chief, and environmentalist late RK Pachauri. Pachauri filed a petition for contempt of court in February 2016 against multiple media organizations for violating court orders that prohibited the publication of sexual harassment accusations against him in a deliberate and contemptuous manner.

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Case Title: Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri v. Indu Jain & Ors.

Click here to read more

14. [NSE Phone Tapping Case] The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has moved the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to National Stock Exchange (NSE) former Managing Director and CEO Chitra Ramakrishna in a case pertaining to illegal interception of phone calls of NSE employees. The bench issued notice to Ramkrishna in the plea and listed the matter for hearing on July 13.

Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Chitra Ramkrishna

Click here to read more

15. [Decline in vulture population] The Delhi High Court recently granted more time to the Centre to file its reply in a plea raising issue of the decline in the population of vultures in India. The division bench 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.

Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

Case Title: Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Click here to read more

16. [Uphaar Tragedy Evidence Tampering case] The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) seeking an early hearing in the plea filed in the evidence tampering case related to the Uphaar cinema tragedy. The AVUT has filed a revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence and against the July 19, 2022 order passed by the District and Principal Judge of Patiala House court ordering the release of the Ansal brothers. The court opined that since the matter pertains to tampering with evidence and administration of justice it will have to be heard expeditiously. Accordingly, the court listed the matter for hearing on July 12, 2023.

Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Case Title: Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Click here to read more

17. [Practice Directions] The Delhi High Court has directed the judges of all family courts to keep the first motion record under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in their courts for a period of eighteen months following the date on which the first motion was filed. On April 15, the High Court issued "practice directions" on the recommendations of the “Rules Committee under Section 123 of the CPC which also looks into Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 and Ancillary Matters” for information and compliance by judges of the family courts.

Click here to read more

18. [Pleas challenging notification imposing GST on Autos, Buses booked vis apps] The Delhi High Court recently 'dismissed' the pleas challenging the notifications issued by the Centre levying Goods and Services Tax (GST) on auto-rickshaws and bus rides booked through apps like Uber and Ibibo. The court was dealing with pleas filed by Uber India, Pragatisheel Auto Rickshaw Driver Union and IBIBO Group Private Limited along with Make My Trip (India) Private Limited. While upholding the constitutional validity of the notifications the bench held, “It is trite law that there can be no vested right in claiming exemption from payment of tax. If the Respondents are of the opinion that the exemption which was earlier extended by the unamended parent Notification to the ECOs in 2017 should be withdrawn, with the passage of time in 2022, such a decision would be within the scope of their jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act of 2017. There is admittedly no constitutional guarantee or statutory entitlement to exemption”.

Bench: Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Case Title: Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI & Anr (connected matters)

Click here to read more