Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up- News Updates [May 1- 6, 2023]

1. [Medical termination of 27-week pregnancy of minor] The Delhi High Court recently allowed a minor rape victim from Nepal to undergo medical termination of 27-week pregnancy at LNJP Hospital, Delhi. Court ordered, “In view of the fact that the girl is a rape victim and taking a humanitarian view of the matter, though the girl and her family are Nepalese citizens, this Court directs that the termination of the pregnancy be effected as soon as possible by the doctors at LNJP hospital”. The court also directed the medical team to ensure that the best possible care is given to the pregnant girl including post-operative care so that she recovers completely and is only then discharged.

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Case Title: GDN v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Click here to read more

2. [Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015] A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Delhi High Court seeking directions to expedite the finalization process of the Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015, so far as it relates to the prohibition of screening procedure in the matter of admission of tiny tots at preprimary level (nursery/pre-primary) in schools. The plea highlights that the very objective and purpose of the Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015 is to protect tiny tots from exploitation and unjust discrimination in the matter of nursery admission in private schools which is literally defeated by delay in finalizing the same by Central and Delhi Government and making it a law.

Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

Case Title: Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Click here to read more

3. [Delhi riots 2020] During the hearing in the bail plea of Shahrukh Pathan, an accused in the Delhi Riots 2020, counsel for Pathan argued before the Delhi High Court that there had been no role attributed to him and that “the entire case was a farce”. Court was dealing with the bail plea filed by Pathan in the case related to rioting and causing injury to police personnel, including one Rohit Shukla.

Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Case Title: Shahrukh Pathan alias Khan v. The State NCT of Delhi

Click here to read more

4. [Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015] The Delhi High Court refused to issue a writ of mandamus to the Delhi government to expedite the finalization process of the Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015 which relates to the prohibition of screening procedure in the matter of admission of tiny tots at preprimary level (nursery/pre-primary) in schools. The bench asked the petitioner's counsel Advocate Ashok Agarwal to show them a provision of law that states that the court can issue a writ of mandamus to the government.

Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedala

Case Title: Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Click here to read more

5. [BCD's notification mandating Local Address for Registration] A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed by a lawyer namely, Shannu Baghel before the Delhi High Court seeking to set aside 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. Baghel is a practicing Advocate in Delhi High Court and District Courts. The plea alleges that the impugned notification is violative of Section 15 (Power to make rules) of the Advocates Act 1961. It also alleged that the impugned notification had “no nexus” with the purpose of the Act of 1961. Furthermore, the plea states that BCD’s notification is also violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Case Title: Shannu Baghel v. Bar Council of Delhi and Anr.

Click here to read more

6. [PIL for cashless transaction] A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay before the Delhi High Court seeking direction to the Centre and State to restrict cash transactions of the goods, products, and services, purchased through online shopping platforms like Amazon Flipkart, etc. The petitioner has also sought direction to restrict cash transactions of air tickets, rail tickets, electricity bills, LPG bills, CNG bills, Municipality bills, and other such bills of Rs. 10,000 and above.

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Others

Click here to read more

7. [Govt veterinary hospitals] The Delhi High Court granted more time to the Delhi government to file its counter affidavit in a plea highlighting the lack of infrastructure for treatment and diagnosis, manpower, hygiene, essential equipment, and adequate supply of medicine in 77 government veterinary hospitals and dispensaries in Delhi. The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Dr. Asher Jesudoss and others through Advocate Supriya Juneja raising the issue of a stark shortage of veterinarians, medicines and even basic facilities like electricity and water supply are missing in some cases at the Government Veterinary Hospitals.

Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedala

Case Title: Asher Jesudoss & Ors. Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi

Click here to read more

8. [Excise policy scam] Former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party Leader Manish Sisodia moved the Delhi High Court seeking ‘interim bail’ in the case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the excise policy scam. Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, on behalf of Sisiodia, contended, “We are seeking interim bail due to the ill health of my wife. We have placed on record my (Sisodia’s) wife’s health history of 20 years, she recently had an attack. The recent report of the neurologist has also been placed on record”. Court issued notice.

Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Case Title: Manish Sisodia v. CBI

Click here to read more

9. [PIL for cashless transaction] The Delhi High Court directed the Union Government and the Delhi Government to file their respective responses in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking direction to the Centre and State to restrict cash transactions of the goods, products, and services, purchased through online shopping platforms like Amazon Flipkart, etc. During the hearing, Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay appeared in person, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma appeared for the Union of India and Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) Santosh Kumar Tripathi appeared for the Delhi Government.

Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Others

Click here to read more

10. [Transplantation of Human Organ and Tissues Rules, 2014] The Delhi High Court has asked the Central government as to what is the “reasonable period” that hospitals and the Authorization Committee must adhere to when conducting interviews and communicating decisions to applicants seeking organ transplants, in accordance with the Transplantation of Human Organ and Tissues Rules, 2014. Court was hearing a plea filed by one Amar Singh Bhatia seeking organ donation, challenging Sir Ganga Ram Hospital’s indecision and delay in taking a decision on the kidney transplant he required. However, the counsel for Bhatia informed the court that during the pendency of the plea, Bhatia passed away in March-April 2021.

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Case Title: Amar Singh Bhatia & Anr. v. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital & Ors.

Click here to read more

11. [Palace on Wheels] The Delhi High Court has issued notice to Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (RTDC) in a petition seeking refund of advance amount paid for travel commencing March 2020 to April 2022 in Palace on Wheels (POW), a premier luxury train running across northern plains and parts of Rajasthan. The petitioner further challenges the Office Order dated 03.01.2023 mandating alternative dates for the tourists and effectuating unilateral deductions, for all travel bookings suspended due to the outbreak of COVID-19.

Case Title: Worldwide Rail Journeys Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.

Click here to read more

12. [Delhi Waqf Board] The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Centre may carry out an inspection of the 123 properties of the Delhi Waqf Board in the national capital while ensuring minimal disruption in the day-to-day administration by the Board. The court was hearing a plea filed by the Delhi Waqf Board challenging a letter dated February 8 of the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, wherein, it decided to take over 123 properties of the Board, including mosques, dargahs, and graveyards. The plea is also against Central Government’s decision to “absolve” the Board from all matters related to the 123 properties in the national capital.

Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

Case Title: Delhi Waqf Board v. Union of India & Ors. & Connected matter

Click here to read more

13. [Terror Funding Case] The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea by Alemla Jamir, a self-styled "cabinet minister" of Naga insurgent group NSCN-IM arrested in a terror funding case, seeking default bail on the ground that the NIA filed an incomplete charge sheet. While dismissing the default bail plea, the division bench said there was no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the trial court from time to time regarding the detention of Jamir.

Bench: Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh

Case Title: Alemla Jamir v. National Investigation Agency

Click here to read more

14. [Excise policy scam case] Former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia moved the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court’s order denying him bail in the case registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan appearing for Sisiodia submitted, “This is the ED case. We have moved a regular bail plea”. Additionally, Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur for Sisodia submitted, “We have also moved an interim bail application in the ED case, on the ground of illness of wife”. Court noted that the petitioner had assailed the trial court order dated April 28, 2023, passed by the Special Judge, dismissing the bail application.

Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Case Title: Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement

Click here to read more

15. [Case over prank on a friend] The Delhi High Court has observed that condemning a person is not the primary purpose of any society following rule of law. Instead, focus should be on reforming the person. The observation was made in an order related to a petition filed by a 33-year old graduate. The petitioner had done an immature prank on a friend. At the time of the prank, both had friendly relations for 18 long years. However, due to the immature nature of the prank, an FIR was registered against the petitioner. One of the charges included extortion under Section 384 of the IPC, which is punishable up to 3 years. Later, Sections 66A and 67A of IT Act, 2000 were also added during the filing of the chargesheet.

Bench: Justice Pratibha M. Singh

Case Title: Mr. SJ v. UOI & Ors.

Click here to read more

16. [RAW exempted under the Right to Information (RTI) Act] The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that India's external intelligence agency RAW is an exempted organization under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, and unless the information sought by an RTI applicant relates to human rights or corruption issues, it is not liable to be disclosed. The court was hearing an appeal by an RTI applicant namely Nisha Priya Bhatia challenging the order of October 30, 2017, by which the CIC had dismissed the appeal and held that she was not entitled to get the information sought. The RTI applicant had sought for disclosure of information on the residences of a former RAW chief during a certain period.

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Case Title: Nisha Priya Bhatia v. CPIO, Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Urban Development & Anr.

Click here to read more

17. [Excise policy scam] In the bail plea filed by former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and AAP leader Manish Sisodia in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju contended before the Delhi High Court that “the change from 5% to 12% in the interest rate was made to get the kickback money. He (Sisodia) made the policy in such a way that guaranteed return in form of kickbacks comes”. Opposing the bail plea, ASG Raju, on behalf of the CBI submitted before the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma that, “Sisodia concealed the legal expert's opinion given by eminent personalities as well. He hadn't mentioned it anywhere. It was ignored completely. They (members of AAP) did not include it in the policy”.

Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Case Title: Manish Sisodia v. CBI

Click here to read more

18. [Excise policy scam- Benoy Babu's bail plea] During the hearing in the bail plea of Hyderabad-based businessman and accused in the Delhi Excise Policy case Benoy Babu, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) told the Delhi High Court that, “He (Benoy Babu) is neck deep in the conspiracy. He has the requisite mens rea”. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Zoheb Hossain, on behalf of ED, contended, “Benoy Babu in Criminal Conspiracy was making IndoSpirits part of Pernod Richard India (PRI) for the wholesale business of liquors.” “For proceeds of crime to be there, the property is to be derived directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity. Today the proceeds of crime are there. He was instrumental in appointing IndoSpirits as L1”, he added. Hossain stated that Benoy Babu was not a mere bystander. “The main allegation is that he was playing a key role in giving L1 license to IndoSpirits through PRI on directions of Vijay Nair, who was the communication in-charge of the Aam Aadmi Party. There is no ground that he is not guilty".

Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Case Title: Binoy Babu v. ED

Click here to read more

19. [Father’s name on passport] The Delhi High Court in its judgment dated April 19, 2023, observed that where a father has severed all ties with the child, the father’s name need not reflect on their passport. Court noted that this was a peculiar case as there was no visitation right claimed by the father or payment of maintenance against the upbringing of his child, as a result of which, the authority was directed to re-issue the passport, without the name of the father.

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Case Title: Smita Mann v. Regional Passport Officer

Click here to read more

20. [Treatment of Children with Rare Diseases] The Delhi High Court has directed the Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to physically remain present on the next date of hearing i.e. May 10, in a batch of petitions concerning children with rare diseases like Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), Hunter's Syndrome, etc. “Under these circumstances, the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare shall physically remain present in Court on the next date of hearing”, the bench ordered.The single-judge bench was hearing a batch of petitions filed mostly by children suffering from rare diseases stating that the medicines and therapies for the said diseases are exorbitantly expensive.

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Case Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr (a batch of connected matters)

Click here to read more

21. [Excise policy scam] The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) opposed the plea filed by former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and AAP Leader Manish Sisodia seeking interim bail in the Delhi Excise policy scam case to take care of his ailing wife. During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju appearing for CBI contended“There is suppression of relevant facts and misleading statements have been made in the application for temporary bail. On a limited ground, it has to go, and in any case, he (Sisodia) should go before the trial court first”. “His (Sisodia’s) wife has been discharged from the hospital on April 27, much prior to them filing this application. The tenor is that she is hospitalized. They have not said that she has been discharged from the hospital. They have suppressed the fact that the wife was discharged. Let them point out from the application where they have said that the wife has been discharged and her condition has improved, on the contrary, they have stated it has worsened. This is deliberate”, the ASG argued.

Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Case Title: Manish Sisodia v. CBI

Click here to read more

22. [Basketball Federation of India] The Delhi High Court has appointed Justice P. Krishna Bhat, former judge of Karnataka High Court, as the Administrator to conduct the elections of the Basketball Federation of India in accordance with National Sports Development Code, 2011 (Code) and Model Election Guidelines (MEG).The court was dealing with a batch of three petitions relating to the election of the office bearers and members of the Executive Committee of the Basketball Federation of India (BFI) for the term 2023-2027.

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Case title: Pondicherry Basketball Association v. Union of India and other connected matters

Click here to read more