Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up- News Updates [May 8- 13, 2023]

1. [Tillu Tajpuriya Murder] The Delhi High Court recently questioned the jail authorities over recovery of four knives from Tihar premises where gangster Tillu Tajpuriya was stabbed to death allegedly by inmates belonging to a rival gang. "This is totally unacceptable state of affairs", the court remarked orally. On May 2, Tillu Tajpuriya was murdered inside the Tihar Jail. A CCTV footage surfaced where four co-inmates dragged the gangster out of his cell and stabbed him to death.

Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh

Case Title: Jagpal Singh & Anr. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Click here to read more

2. [Defamatory and factually incorrect videos about Indian spices] The Delhi High Court recently directed Google to remove defamatory and factually incorrect videos about Indian spices. Makers of videos under scanner had wrongly claimed that Indian spices contain cow dung and urine. A 94-year-old conglomerate named Dharampal Satyapal Group approached the High Court regarding the bad market reputation it got due to three YouTube videos. The Group has been selling beverages, including spices, seasoning, bottled natural spring water, tonic water and soda from 1987 under the trademark CATCH.

Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula

Case Title: Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v. Google LLC and Ors.

Click here to read more

3. [PIL seeking inclusion of Legal Studies as subject] The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking inclusion of “Legal Studies” as a subject in all schools. The court said that taking a decision on teaching "legal studies" to school children falls in the domain of the government authorities as it is a "matter of policy". The bench also stated that the plea was a "sheer misuse" of the forum.

Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

Case Title: Virander Kumar Sharma Punj & Anr. v. GNCTD & Ors.

Click here to read more

4. [Mandatory Aadhar Card and Voter ID address of Delhi NCR for enrolment in BCD] The Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) on Monday informed the Delhi High Court that it will reconsider the recent notification mandating Aadhar Card and Voter ID address of Delhi NCR (National Capital Region) for future enrolments. BCD’s counsel told the single judge bench that, “We are holding a full house meeting on May 12, where the impugned notification will be reconsidered”.

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Case Title: Shannu Baghel v. Bar Council of Delhi & Anr. and Rajani Kumari v. BCD

Click here to read more

5. [No distinction between minor victims of rape on the ground of marriage] The Delhi High Court has clarified that there is no distinct category within child victims of rape as those who are married and those who are not. Section 42A POCSO Act, 2012 was further referred to clarify that provisions of the POCSO Act shall have an overriding effect on any other law to the extent of such inconsistency. Court further held that provisions of the POCSO Act shall have an overriding effect on any other law to the extent of such inconsistency.

Bench: Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee

Case Title: Independent Thought v. Union of India

Click here to read more

6. [Excise Policy Case- Bail Hearing] In the bail hearing of Hyderabad-business man and accused in the Delhi excise policy case Abhishek Boinpally, the senior counsel representing him told the Delhi High Court that, “There is no material, no proof. All based on assumptions. I have no criminal antecedents. I am not a flight risk”. Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, on behalf of Boinpally, stated that while in the custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), on the day Boinpally was granted bail, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) arrested him.

Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Case Title: Abhishek Boinpally v. Directorate of Enforcement

Click here to read more

7. [Sensitivity in dealing with child sexual assault cases] The Delhi High Court has re-emphasized the empathy and understanding expected of a judicial body in addressing cases involving child victims and witnesses under the POCSO Act, 2012 and JJ Act, 2000.The Supreme Court's guidelines in relation to child rape victims and mandate of in-camera proceedings were reiterated, adding that workshops conducted by the courts to sensitize judges should not be forgotten while one is dealing with vulnerable witnesses.The court while allowing the appeal against an order of Sessions Court, reiterated that judges need to deal with sexual offences against children with utmost care and sensitivity. Courts cannot be mute spectators, especially in cases of sexual assault, and they should ensure that the witnesses and the material brought in the form of defence evidence are not vexatious or irrelevant, the high court observed.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar v. NCT of Delhi

Click here to read more

8. [Excise Policy Scam- Bail Order] The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Aurobindo Pharma director P. Sarath Chandra Reddy, an accused in a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam. On perusal of Reddy’s medical records, the bench observed that he is in a bad state and can be put into the category of “sick/infirm”. “Though jails and designated hospitals provide good basic treatment, but we cannot expect them to provide specialized treatment and monitoring as required in the present case. The last medical report of the petitioner dated 03.05.2023 shows that the petitioner is in a bad state and can be put into the category of sick/infirm”, the court said.

Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Case Title: P. Sarath Chandra Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement

Click here to read more

9. [Excise Policy Scam- Cancellation of Bail of Rajesh Joshi and Gautam Malhotra] Directorate of Enforcement (ED) moved the Delhi High Court seeking “cancellation of bail” of Rajesh Joshi and Gautam Malhotra, granted by the trial court on May 6 in the Delhi Excise Policy Scam case. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, on behalf of ED, submitted, “The learned Judge takes cognizance on May 1, 2023…cognizance it not taken when prima facie offence is not made out. He forms an opinion that offence is made out, therefore he issues summons to the accused. Few days later, he says offence is not made out that the requirement of S. 45 PMLA….Therefore there is contradictions in the two orders”. The court ordered that the observations made by the trial court while granting bail to Rajesh Joshi and Gautam Malhotra in the PMLA case cannot be relied upon by any other co-accused person in any proceedings.

Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Gautam Malhotra & Directorate of Enforcement v. Rajesh Joshi

Click here to read more

10. [PIL against Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal] The Delhi High Court posted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking direction to the CBI to investigate and prosecute Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for making "false statements" against the Centre regarding loan waiver to several industrialists for hearing on August 7, 2023. The PIL filed by one Surjit Singh Yadav, a farmer and social worker stated that he came across news items in electronic and print media where news related to waiving of loan to the tune of Rs.11 Lakhs Crore had been broadcasted on NDTV in 2021.

Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

Case Title: Surjit Singh Yadav v. UOI & Anr.

Click here to read more

11. [PIL against political parties having names of caste/religious connotations] The Delhi High Court has granted the Centre four weeks' time to file its response to a petition for de-registering political parties having names with "caste, religious, ethnic or linguistic" connotations and flags that resemble the national tricolor. During the hearing, Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay informed the court that despite the issuance of notice in the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in 2019, the central government was yet to file a reply. Observing that the central government was an "equally important party", the division bench said, “Counsel for Union of India prays for 4 weeks' time to seek instructions. He is granted 4 weeks' time." The bench also directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to seek further instructions on the matter.

Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI

Click here to read more

12. [Excise Policy Scam- Manish Sisodia Bail Hearing] 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 concluded his submissions before the Delhi High Court. Opposing the bail plea, ASG Raju, on behalf of the CBI submitted before the bench that if Manish Sisodia is given bail, he will influence evidence.

Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Case Title: Manish Sisodia v. CBI

Click here to read more

13. [Natural Gas Extraction in KG Basin] The Delhi High Court has upheld the arbitral award in favour of Reliance Industries against the Ministry of Petroleum, noting that the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal were rational, coherent, and logical, especially considering what was comprised in the Product Sharing Contract. The court, while dismissing the petitioner observed, “Reference to abrogation of sovereignty over a natural resource, refers to disposition of the title or ownership of natural gas by the Union to a third party. In the present case, since the limited role of Reliance was to explore and extract natural gas as a licensee, admittedly the title to the natural gas never passed to Reliance. The natural resource viz. natural gas was neither bought nor sold as between Reliance and the Ministry. For this additional reason, the public trust doctrine was not contravened.”

Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Case Title: Union of India v. Reliance Industries

Click here to read more

14. [Excise Policy Scam- Manish Sisodia Order Reserved] The Delhi High Court has “reserved orders” in the bail plea filed by former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia in a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam case. The court ordered, “Arguments heard. Order reserved”. Sisodia is currently under judicial custody in both CBI and ED cases. It is CBI's case that there were alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the excise policy for the year 2021-22. On February 26, the CBI commenced a second round of questioning after Sisodia was earlier questioned on October 17 last year. Chargesheet in the matter was filed on November 25, 2022.

Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Case Title: Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Click here to read more

15. [Excise Policy Scam- Manish Sisodia; Interim Bail Plea] The Delhi High Court has directed the Jail Superintendent of Tihar Jail to ensure video conference meetings of AAP leader Manish Sisodia with his wife every alternate day as per jail rules till the disposal of his bail application. Sisodia is currently in judicial custody in ED and CBI cases in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam case. The single judge bench ordered, “The superintendent of jail to ensure VC meetings [of Manish Sisodia] with his wife on every alternate day between 3 to 4 pm till disposal of the bail application as per Jail Rules”.The court was hearing the interim bail plea filed by Sisodia citing ill health of his wife. Sisodia had 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 on April 3.

Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Case Title: Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Click here to read more

16. [Right to Privacy not an absolute right] The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the 'Right to Privacy' under Article 21 is not an absolute right, and where there is a clash between two fundamental rights, courts would advance the one serving public interest and morality. The issue before the court in the present petition was to weigh and balance the claim of 'Right to Privacy' by the husband against the production of records sought by the wife to substantiate her case of divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. The court while dismissing the petition, observed, “The Hindu Marriage Act specifically recognises adultery as a ground for divorce and therefore, it would not at all be in public interest that the Court should on the ground of right to privacy, come to the aid of a married man who, during the subsistence of his marriage, is alleged to have indulged in sexual relationships outside his marriage.”

Bench: Justice Rekha Palli

Case Title: Sachin Arora v. Manju Arora

Click here to read more

17. [Excise Policy Scam- Benoy Babu] The Delhi High Court "reserved orders" in the bail plea filed by Hyderabad-based businessman Benoy Babu, who is an accused in the Delhi Excise Policy case. While reserving the order, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said, “Arguments heard. Order reserved”. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Babu contended, "The first level of submission is I (Benoy Babu) am as good or better than those who are acquitted or discharged of the scheduled offence. No money has come to me. I (Benoy Babu) have not laundered any money, taken or given any money. The CBI chargesheet clearly states that it's not that I (Benoy Babu) influenced; in fact I am being influenced, he added. "I may use this phrase, 'Clutching at straws'(meaning - make a desperate attempt at saving oneself). Grant of a corporate guarantee or assistance of a corporate guarantee is not a crime", he argued.

Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Case Title: Benoy Babu v. Directorate of Enforcement

Click here to read more

18. [Surprise Checks at Tihar Jail] The Delhi High Court has formed a three-member committee to conduct surprise checks at Tihar Jail to gather information on the food being served to inmates and the level of hygiene at the prison. The bench was hearing a plea by two inmates, including Geeta Arora alias Sonu Punjaban, seeking its intervention to ensure proper food is provided to them and hygiene is maintained in the cooking area and canteen. The petitioner’s case was that despite there being a prescribed diet in the Delhi Prison Rules in terms of quality and nourishment, the same is not being followed in the Tihar Jail, which adversely affects the physical health of the inmates.

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Case Title: Geeta Arora alias Sonu Punjaban & Anr. v. Jail Superintendent Central Jail-06

Click here to read more

19. [Forced religious conversion] The Delhi High Court has directed Sudarshan News, other news channels, and social media platforms such as YouTube and Twitter to immediately block links to the video accusing a man namely Azmat Ali Khan of forcefully converting a woman to Islam. While passing the above order, the bench expressed displeasure with the video and the word “jihadi” having been used in it. The court was hearing a petition filed by Khan asking for the removal of news articles and videos that had been posted online by the woman he had been romantically involved with for seven years who later claimed that he had tried to convert her to Islam.

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Case Title: Azmat Ali Khan v. Union of India & Ors.

Click here to read more

20. [Pepsico Trademark Suit] The Delhi High Court has restrained a liquor manufacturer from using the MIRINDA mark. The order is applicable to its Hindi transliteration as well. The suit was filed by PepsiCo seeking a permanent injunction. An Indian company named Jagpin Breweries had been selling country liquor by using the transliteration of mark 'Mirinda'. After being aware of it, PepsiCo came to the conclusion that it was an infringement on their exclusive rights to sell goods in respect of which the trademarks were registered. The multinational company submitted that Section 28(1) of the Trade Marks Act (TMA), 1999 empowers them for it and it also enables obtaining relief in case of infringement.The company alleged that it was an infringement under the ambit of Section 29 of TMA, 1999. Bhatia plastics case was cited to point out that using transliteration is impossible in law.

Bench: Justice Jyoti Singh

Case Title: Pepsico, Inc & Anr. v. Agpin Breweries Limited & Anr.

Click here to read more

21. [Plea to control fake cases] A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay before the Delhi High Court 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 plea seeks directions to the Police to ask the complainant about her willingness to undergo scientific tests like Narco Analysis, Polygraphy, and Brain mapping during the investigation to prove her allegation and record her statement in the First Information Report. The plea states that it will work as a deterrent and there will be a massive reduction in fake cases as well as police investigation time and judicial time.

Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

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

Click here to read more

22. [Call and hotel stay records of estranged husband] The Delhi High Court recently held that the call records sought by the petitioner were only to preserve relevant evidence for trial, which perhaps could not have been done without the interference of the court as it vested with a third party. The court was hearing a Criminal Revision Petition against a man, already a party to a divorce petition instituted on the grounds of adultery, and the application for seeking call details relevant to the incident alleged in the divorce petition was rejected by the courts below, on the ground that mere apprehension cannot allow preservation of private conversations.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Case Title: X & Y v. Z

Click here to read more

23. [Jaquar v. Villeroy Boch] The Delhi High Court in a recent case of trademark infringement held that if a mark is used in a way that identifies the source of goods, then it is being used as a trademark irrespective of whether it is a sub-brand or an individual brand. "Therefore, in the present case, even if the defendants consider 'ARTIS' to be a sub-brand, it does not necessarily mean that the mark is not being used as a trademark", held the court in a suit between Jaquar Company Pvt Ltd and Villeroy Boch AG & another. The court while allowing the interim application in favour of the plaintiff, observed that the trademark “ARTIZE” as used by the plaintiff, is a distinct word that does not find mention in any language and has no meaning as such.

Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula

Case Title: Jaquar Company Pvt Ltd. v. Villeroy Boch AG

Click here to read more

24. [Plea challenging Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007] The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It was held that no matter the objective of the 2007 Act which is to protect the rights and interests of senior citizens, the court sitting under Article 226 cannot make provision for what the legislature consciously omitted to do. The bench while dismissing the petition at hand, observed, “Despite the object for which the Act was brought into force, Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act as enacted by the Legislature makes the Section operative only after the commencement of the Act. The Legislature did not intend that Section 23 be read retrospectively…The Act did not intend to disturb the rights of the donee which has already been created and vested in him. The Legislature is conscious of the fact that vested rights of the donor are not to be given a retrospective operation despite the fact that the object of the Act is to provide for measures for welfare of senior citizens. This is not a case of casus omissus and this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot make the provision what the Legislature did not intend it to be.”

Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

Case Title: Charanjit Singh Ahluwalia v. Union of India

Click here to read more

25. [Sodomy against a 6-year-old boy] The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail application of an accused charged with the offence of sodomy against a 6-year-old boy, despite a compromise entered into between the accused persons and mother of the victim. “The child in these circumstances is voiceless, however, the court is expected to understand and hear the voiceless,” the court said. It was alleged that when the victim was playing outside his house, the accused persons came and gave Rs. 10 and asked him to bring some eatables. Thereafter, they took him to a lonely place and committed carnal intercourse with him.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Case Title: Sabuddin v. NCT of Delhi

Click here to read more

26. [Defamation Suit against Manoj Tiwari ] The Delhi High Court has stayed the trial court proceedings against Member of Parliament (MP) from Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) Manoj Tiwari in a defamation case filed by former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party Leader Manish Sisodia. During the hearing, Advocate Bansuri Swaraj appeared for Manoj Tiwari and Advocate Rishikesh Kumar appeared for Manish Sisodia. Manoj Kumar Tiwari and five others namely, Vijender Gupta, Harish Khurana, Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma, Hans Raj Hans, and Manjinder Singh Sirsa were issued summons by an ACMM under Section 500 (punishment for defamation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. In 2019, Delhi’s Deputy CM Manish Sisodia sued the six BJP leaders for defamation after they alleged corruption in building classrooms in Delhi’s government schools.

Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Case Title: Manoj Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia & Ors.

Click here to read more