Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up- News Updates [May 15- 20, 2023]

1. [Ladli Scheme 2008] The Delhi High Court has sought the stand of the Delhi government on a plea seeking proper implementation of the Ladli Scheme launched in 2008 to enhance the social status of girls by ensuring their education and economic security. The bench asked the counsel for the Delhi government to seek instructions on the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which claimed that funds to the tune of Rs. 364 crore under the scheme are lying unclaimed with authorities. In his plea, the petitioner, Aakash Goel, stated that as per RTI replies, more than Rs 364 crore belonging to 1,82,894 Ladli Scheme beneficiaries aged above 21 are lying with the State Bank of India.

Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

Case Title: Aakash Goel v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Click here to read more

2. [Fake cases] The Delhi High Court has "reserved order" in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Law Commission of India to prepare a comprehensive report to control “fake cases” and to “reduce the police investigation time and precious time of judiciary”. The court said, “We will not go beyond CrPC, please show us where it is written in the CrPC that it is mandatory and the police are required to ask the complainant. We are not the lawmakers.”

Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI & Ors.

Click here to read more

3. [Non-Patentability and emerging technologies] The Delhi High Court in its judgment dated May 11, 2023, referred to the 161st report on Review of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India that suggested reforms in the Patents Act, 1970, and Copyright Act, 1957 to conclude that there is a need to reconsider grounds of non-patentability, specifically Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. Court was hearing a petition challenging the decision of the Controller of Patents to an invention providing for technology selection and distribution of media items.

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Case Title: Open TV Inc. v. Controller of Patents

Click here to read more

4. [Lokpal proceedings] The Delhi High Court recently refused to interfere with Lokpal proceedings initiated against former IAS officer Ramesh Abhishek for alleged possession of disproportionate assets.“Interference in the proceedings before Lokpal, while exercising writ jurisdiction, ought to be avoided, unless there is something palpably wrong or contrary to law”, the bench observed. The court was dealing with a plea filed by the former IAS officer who served as the Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce/DPIIT and also as the Chairperson of the Forward Markets Commission. The plea challenged an order passed by the Lokpal directing a probe by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the petitioner.

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Case Title: Ramesh Kaushik v. Lokpal of India & Anr.

Click here to read more

5. [Posting intimate content without consent] The Delhi High Court recetnly told the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to formulate a programme whereby they may educate the students, potentially vulnerable victims as well as the teenagers about the criminality in posting 'intimate content' on social media without the consent of the person concerned.The bench noted that in a large percentage of cases of sexual assault, the victims allege that inappropriate videos or photographs of relationships had been made by one of the parties and under threat of posting them on social media, they were sexually abused not being able to understand or know as to how to deal with such situations. “Therefore, in cases of sexual assault without consent or under some inducement, inappropriate videos and photographs are captured which are used for a long time for blackmailing the victims and continuing the sexual abuse. Even at times, this Court has witnessed cases where young boys have been sexually abused, assaulted and have been victims of such blackmailing”, the single-judge bench said.

Bench: Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma

Case Title: Sakib Ahmed v. State NCT of Delhi

Click here to read more

6. [Plea by Microsoft challenging patent controller’s decision] The Delhi High Court has allowed a petition by software giant Microsoft challenging the patent controller’s decision over an invention related to “Methods & Systems for authentication of a user for sub-locations of a network location”. It was rejected by the patent office on the ground that the same was merely an algorithm which was implemented on a computer program per se, barred by Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court while allowing the petition observed,“Controller’s rejection stems from misinterpretation of Section 3(k) of the Act, and an oversight of technical effect and contribution of the claimed invention, resulting in erroneous determination that the subject patent constitutes “computer program per se”. By focusing solely on the implementation of the invention using computer-executable instructions and algorithms on a general purpose computing device, the Controller has failed to consider the true technical nature and advancements provided by the invention. The claimed invention offers a novel and inventive technical solution to a security problem related to the authentication of users for accessing sub-location(s) within a network location. It not only provides for a two-tier authentication process but also improves user experience, which is vital in the field of computer networks.”

Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula

Case Title: Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Click here to read more

7. [PF dues] Indian Express journalist Md. Shahid Pervez has moved the Delhi High Court seeking directions to the EPFO and the Additional Central Provident Fund (Commissioner) to act on the representation dated February 10, 2023, and consequently to institute criminal proceedings against the Trustees of the SSPF for nonpayment of his provident fund (PF) dues against ‘The Statesman’. Pervez alleges that the Trustees of The Statesman Staff Provident Fund, i.e. Ravindra Kumar and Rajendra Parshad Gupta together are responsible for ‘The Statesman’ and have obtained exemption from the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) to run their own provident fund in the name and style of "The Statesman Staff Provident Fund" (SSPF).

Case Title: Md. Shahid Pervez v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation, India & Ors.

Click here to read more

8. [Demolition of 55-year-old Kali Mata Temple] The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the demolition of a 55-year-old “Kali temple” which was found to be "unauthorized" and obstructing the free flow of traffic at Mayapuri Chowk, Delhi. The temple is scheduled to be demolished after May 20, 2023.The bench permitted the removal of the idols and other religious objects from the temple by the priest and placing them in other temples, as directed by the Religious Committee in the matter, and said after May 20, the Public Works Department (PWD) is free to carry out the demolition activity.

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Case Title: Durga P. Mishra v. Govt of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Click here to read more

9. [Report on medical condition of prisoners aged over 75 years] The Delhi High Court has sought a report from Tihar jail authorities on the medical condition of all convicts and under-trial prisoners aged above 75 years. The division bench also asked for the information about any medical care being provided to such prisoners. “The concerned Medical Superintendent is directed to furnish a fresh status report regarding the current medical condition of all the convicts and under-trial prisoners, who are above the age of 75 years (currently lodged in jail), including complete details of the treatments, if any, being provided to them, on or before the next date of hearing”, the court ordered. The division bench was hearing a "suo moto case" registered in 2005 plea concerning one Maya Devi, who was 92 years old at the time, after taking note of a news report.

Bench: Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Mini Pushkarna

Case Title: Court in its own motion Reg: Maya Devi v. UOI & Ors.

Click here to read more

10. [Terror Funding Case] The Delhi High Court has posted Kashmiri businessman and separatist leader Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali's plea against the charges framed by the trial court against him in a terror funding case, that is being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), for hearing to August 3. The division bench said, "Let reply be filed by the NIA. List along with other connected matters on August 3". In the case involving the terrorist and secessionist activities that disturbed the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the NIA arrested Watali in 2017 for offences under various Sections of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

Bench: Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh

Case Title: Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali v. National Investigation Agency

Click here to read more

11. [Plea by AstraZeneca AB against an application for rejection of a patent suit by Westcoast Pharmaceutical] The Delhi High Court has held that Section 48 of the Patents Act specifically confers a patentee with the right to prevent third parties from infringing the patent. The provision is not subject to any condition whatsoever and is not related to the Supreme Court judgment in Alloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra, (2014) 15 SCC 360, said the court. The court was hearing a petition by AstraZeneca AB against an application for rejection of a patent suit by Westcoast Pharmaceutical, on the grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, and the Alloys Wobben controversy.

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar

Case Title: Astrazeneca AB v. Westcoast Pharmaceutical

Click here to read more

12. [Plea challenging constitution of selection committee] The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the central government on a plea filed by Professor Dr. Pratap Manohar Raval challenging the constitution of the selection committee tasked to appoint the new Director of the School of Planning and Architecture. The bench issued notice to the Central government and sought a reply on the plea within 10 days. “Issue notice. Notice accepted on behalf of respective respondents. Reply be filed within 10 days. Rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed within three days, thereafter. List before the roster bench on 25.05.2023”, the court ordered. “Needless to state that the selection would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition”, court clarified.

Bench: Justice Tushar Rao Gedala

Case Title: Prof. Dr. Pratap Manohar Raval v. Union of India & Anr.

Click here to read more

13. [Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday "reserved order" in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions 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 pre-primary level (nursery/pre-primary) in schools. While reserving orders the division bench said, "Orders reserved, We will pass appropriate orders". During the hearing today, Advocate Ashok Agarwal referred to Section 24 of the Government of NCT of Delhi Act, 1991, and argued that 7 years delay in finalizing the pro-child bill is totally unjustified.

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

14. [PIL against Right to Education Act (RTE) 2009] The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Delhi government, National Human Right Commission (NHRC), National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, National Council of Educational Research and Training, CBSE, and Council for Indian School Certificate Examinations in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging provision of the Right to Education Act (RTE) 2009. The PIL also sought direction to bring Madarsas, Vedic Pathshalas, and educational institutions imparting religious instruction within the ambit of the RTE Act.

Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

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

Click here to read more

15. [Protection for cows during Eid-Al-Adha] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Delhi government, Centre, and Delhi police in an interim application seeking cow protection during Eid-al-Adha. The court was hearing an interim application filed by social activist Advocate Ajay Gautam in a pending PIL seeking direction to take appropriate steps to stop cow smuggling/cow slaughtering in accordance with Delhi Police Act, 1978, and as per entry 17 of List II under the seventh schedule of the Constitution of India. In the interim application, Adv Gautam stated that before Bakrid, the smuggling of cows and incidents of cow slaughter rapidly increase. Bakrid 2023 will be celebrated on June 29 and 30. Through the application, Adv Gautam sought directions to the Delhi government and Delhi police to make sure that on Eid-al-Adha., no sacrifice of holy cows and other animals takes place. “No sacrifice should take place in an open area, public place...no blood or body part should be there on roads and other public places”, he stated.

Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

Case Title: Ajay Gautam vs. Union of India & Ors.

Click here to read more

16. [Gautam Gambhir's Defamation Case] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to all the defendants in a defamation suit filed by former Cricketer and Bhartiya Janta Party MP Gautam Gambhir against Hindi newspaper “Punjab Kesari” seeking damages of Rs. 2 crores to be given to charitable organizations over allegedly defamatory articles against him. However, the bench refused to pass any interim injunction in the suit and listed the matter for further consideration in October. During the hearing today, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai on behalf of Gambhir filed an application seeking interim relief in the suit. He stated that the report by Punjab Kesari creates a "false" and "defamatory" narrative regarding his work and bona fides as a parliamentarian in the reader's minds.

Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh

Case Title: Gautam Gambhir v. Punjab Kesari & Ors.

Click here to read more

17. [Dignified burial of dead cows] The Delhi High Court has sought the response of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi(MCD) in a plea seeking dignified burial of cows dying due to Lumpy Skin diseases. The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking direction for taking immediate action and remedial steps needed to eliminate the contagious viral disease known as 'Lump Skin Disease'. During the hearing, the petitioner-in-person Advocate Ajay Gautam filed an application stating the current condition in which the cows are being buried. He submitted that the affidavit filed by the Delhi government is in total contradiction with the current condition.

Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

Case Title: Ajay Gautam v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Click here to read more

18. [Infringnment of Trademark dispute] The Delhi High Court while hearing an infringement of a trademark dispute of steel manufacturing giants Rathi group held that merely because one branch of the family was the prior adopter of the mark, the same would not extinguish the rights of the other family members. Earlier registration of the mark RATHI in favor of K.L. Rathi would not make any difference, the court said. The court held that both entities had an independent right to use the mark RATHI without any obligation towards each other after the execution of the assignment deed.

Bench: Justice Amit Bansal

Case Title: Dhananjay Rathi v. Shree Vasu Steels Private Limited & Ors.

Click here to read more

19. [Conviction under POCSO Act] The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of accused persons under Sections 376/342/506/120B/109 IPC and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act. The bench while upholding the order dated 31.01.2020 and order on sentence dated 27.06.2020 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO ACT) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in case S.C. No. 55924/2016, FIR No. 224/2013, u/s 376/342/506/120B/109 IPC and section 4/6 of POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, held that: “The judgment of the learned Trial Court is well reasoned and the Trial Court has correctly observed that the fact that both the appellants were employed at the same place at the time of the incident and the prosecutrix was also residing at their place from 25.05.2013 till 27.05.2013 which proves that the offence has taken place and the same is also corroborated by the testimony of PW-3 (Ms. Pushpa Rani). In addition, it has also been correctly observed that the DNA profiles generated from the exhibits were sufficient to prove the guilt of appellant No.1 in commission of the offence.”

Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh

Case Title: Raju Yadav v. State of NCT of Delhi

Click here to read more

20. [Legal right to continue in a job is available only to legal appointees] The Delhi High Court has held that the legal right to continue in a job is available only to legal appointees. If the process is illegal, termination of services need not follow the standard route, which is first seeking permission from the Director of Education, court said. “In the circumstances there was no occasion for the school to seek permission/ concurrence of the DOE, in terms of Pramod Kumar (supra), for the termination of her services. She never met the eligibility criteria for the appointment. The continuance of an irregularity was stopped by the school,” said high court. A woman named Prema Sharma submitted that she worked as an Arts and Crafts teacher, for which a B.Ed degree was not required. Apparently, she was terminated because of not having a B.Ed degree. Because her submission stated that a B.Ed degree was not required for the post, she termed her termination illegal.

Bench: Justice Najmi Wizri and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain

Case Title: Prema Sharma v. Director of Education & Ors.

Click here to read more

21. [NDPS Act] The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused charged for offences under Sections 22, 25, 25A, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The case involved recovery of Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride, which is a controlled substance under the NDPS Act, and Ketamine Hydrochlroide, which is a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act. Pseudoephedrine is a controlled substance and therefore, inasmuch as the recovery of the said substance is concerned, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable, the bench of Justice Amit Sharma observed. In the present case, the recovery of Ketamine Hydrochloride was from the premises of M/s G.T. Biopharma Pvt. Ltd. "It is pertinent to note that the said recovery cannot be attributed to the present applicant, since it is not the case of the prosecution that the present applicant was in any way responsible for running M/s G.T. Biopharma Pvt. Ltd," court noted.

Bench: Justice Amit Sharma

Case Title: Dhirendra Prakash Saxena v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Click here to read more

22. [Dettol v. Santoor] The Delhi High Court has held that mere puffery is not actionable in cases of comparative advertisement. It has to be seen that whether overall effect of the commercial is to promote one’s own product or disparage the rival product – an unfavourable comparison may be made to the extent that it does not affect the storyline or message underlying the commercial, court said. The court was hearing an application for injunction by Reckitt Benckiser (Dettol) against Wipro Enterprises (Santoor) with respect to a TV commercial where a bottle resembling Dettol hand wash is shown, asserting moisturising nature of the defendant’s product.The court, while rejecting the application for injunction sought by the plaintiff, observed, “There is a distinction between an advertisement which disparages, and one which seeks to compel the viewer to choose the advertised product. If the capacity to moisturize is one of the selling points of hand washes and if an advertisement extols the moisturizing capability of a particular hand wash as compared to others, that is permissible. So long as other hand washes are not disparaged or rubbished, or reflected as resulting in undesirable results if used, the standards of permissible comparative advertising are met. Every advertisement seeks to promote a particular product over others, as superior. Else, the very raison d’ etre of advertising the product is lost. So long as the advertisement does not slight the rival product, no justifiable cause for pique can be said to exist. The impugned advertisement, in my opinion, does not slight either Dettol, or any other hand wash.”

Bench: Justice C Hari Shankar

Case Title: Reckitt Benckiser v. Wipro Enterprises

Click here to read more