- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Marital Rape, Mother's Choice In...
Marital Rape, Mother's Choice In MTP Cases, POCSO Act & More: Important Rulings of Delhi High Court In 2022
Nupur Thapliyal
29 Dec 2022 5:03 AM GMT
LiveLaw reported 1216 judgments from Delhi High Court in 2022. Here are some of the important decisions:Delhi High Court Passes Split Verdict On Criminalizing Marital Rape, Justice Rajiv Shakdher Holds Exception 2 Of Section 375 IPC UnconstitutionalCase Title: RIT Foundation v. UOI and other connected mattersCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 433The Delhi High Court passed a split verdict on a batch...
LiveLaw reported 1216 judgments from Delhi High Court in 2022. Here are some of the important decisions:
Case Title: RIT Foundation v. UOI and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 433
The Delhi High Court passed a split verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife from the offence of rape.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher has held that the exemption to the husband from the offence of marital rape is unconstitutional. Exception 2 of 375, 376B IPC was therefore struck down by him as violative of Article 14.
"The impugned provisions in so far as they concern a husband having intercourse with his wife without consent are violative of Article 14 and are therefore struck down," Justice Shakdher held.
However, Justice C Hari Shankar said that he does not agree with Justice Shakdher. Justice Harisankar has held that Exception 2 to Section 375 does not violate Constitution and that the exception is based on an intelligible differentia.
Case Title: NEETU SINGH & ANR. v. TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 822
The Delhi High Court has observed that copyright infringers cannot be permitted to seek shelter under messaging platform Telegram's policies merely on the ground that its physical server is in Singapore.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that Indian Courts would be perfectly justified in directing Telegram, which runs its massive operations in India, to adhere to Indian law and orders passed by them for disclosure of relevant information relating to infringers.
The bench further observed that the disclosure of personal data for the purpose of any proceedings, which would include proceedings related to infringement of copyright, would be a recognized exception to data privacy under Personal Data Protection Act, 2012 of Singapore.
Title: MRS. X v. GNCTD & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1145
The Delhi High Court this week ruled that ultimate choice in the pregnancy cases involving fetal abnormalities is of the mother and emphasised that the medical boards in such cases must give qualitative reports.
"In conclusion, the Court holds that the ultimate decision in such cases ought to recognize the choice of the mother, as also, the possibility of a dignified life for the unborn child," said Justice Prathiba M. Singh in the ruling, while allowing a 26-year-old married woman's plea seeking medical termination of her foetus of over 33 weeks suffering from cerebral abnormalities.
Justice Singh said the opinion of the medical board in such cases of termination of pregnancy is of considerable importance for the assistance of the courts. "Such opinions cannot be sketchy and fragmented. They ought to be comprehensive in nature," said the judge.
The court further said that in such cases, speediness coupled with qualitative reports is of utmost importance.
"There ought to be some standard factors on which the opinion should be given by the board to whom such cases are referred. Such factors ought include medical condition of the fetus. While giving the scientific or medical terminologies, some explanation in laypersons terms as to the effect of such condition ought to be mentioned. Alternatively, medical literature could be an annexed with opinion.
Case Title: xyz v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 2
Observing that reproductive choice is a facet of reproductive rights of a woman and a dimension of her personal liberty, the Delhi High Court has allowed termination of 28 weeks foetus of a 33 year old woman. The foetus was suffering from various abnormalities including Tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) with Absent Pulmonary Valve Syndrome (APV).
Justice Jyoti Singh also observed that the mother cannot be deprived of the freedom to take a decision to continue or not to continue with the pregnancy in the backdrop of the foetal abnormalities brought forth in the Medical Opinion of the Board.
"As repeatedly held by the Courts, in the judgements referred above, reproductive choice is a facet of reproductive rights of a woman and a dimension of her 'personal liberty', enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and thus the Petitioner cannot be deprived of the freedom to take a decision to continue or not to continue with the pregnancy, in the backdrop of the foetal abnormalities brought forth in the Medical Opinion of the Board," the Court said.
Title: BRINDA KARAT AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 567
The Delhi High Court has observed that hate speeches especially delivered by elected representatives, political and religious leaders based on religion, caste, region or ethnicity militate against the concept of fraternity, bulldoze the constitutional ethos and violates Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 read with Article 38 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh also observed that the same is in blatant derogation of the fundamental duties prescribed under the Constitution and therefore warrant stringent peremptory action on the part of Central and State Governments.
The judgment began by referring to a shloka from Bhagwat Gita which states that whatever action is performed by a leader, common men follow in his footsteps; and whatever standards he sets by his acts, are pursued by his subjects.
"The persons who are mass leaders and occupy high offices must conduct themselves with utmost integrity and responsibility. Leaders elected in a democracy like that of India, owe their responsibility not only towards the electorate in their own constituency, but also towards the society/nation as a whole and ultimately to the Constitution. It is they who are the role models for the ordinary masses. Thus, it does not befit or behove the leaders to indulge in acts or speeches that cause rifts amongst communities, create tensions, and disrupt the social fabric in the society," the Court observed.
The observations were made while the Court dismissed the criminal writ petition filed by CPM leader Brinda Karat and politician KM Tiwari against a trial court order rejecting their plea for registration of FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for allegedly delivering hate speeches in the year 2020.
Case Title: Vikas Chaudhary v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 21
The Delhi High Court has held that the State was unjustified in restricting an individual's right to travel abroad by issuance of a Look Out Circular when it could not establish any evidence that the right would be 'detrimental to the economic interests of India'.
Justice Rekha Palli was hearing a Writ Petition filed by a businessman of garment manufacturing based in Delhi to quash a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him by the Respondents, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Income Tax Department.
The Court noted that the LOC had remained in force for almost three years, during which period, the respondents have admittedly not taken any further action against the petitioner.
Case Title: JATINDER PAL SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 23
The Delhi High Court has observed that if illegally intercepted messages or audio conversations pursuant to an order having no sanction of law are permitted, it would lead to manifest arbitrariness and would promote scant regard to the procedure and fundamental rights of the citizens.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh thus set aside two orders passed by Special Judge which had framed charges against one Jatinder Pal Singh in 2012 in a case registered by CBI, on the basis of evidence gathered through such illegal means.
The case alleged that there was a criminal conspiracy with the object to show favor qua recognition of the courses and grant of permission pertaining to Gian Sagar Medical College and Hospital, Patiala as mandated by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the relevant MCI Regulation and Rules for admission into 4th year of the MBBS course for the academic session 2011-2012.
Case Title: FIITJEE LIMITED v. VIDYA MANDIR CLASSES LTD. &ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 121
Observing that malicious falsehood cannot become freedom of speech, the Delhi High Court has observed that care is to be exercised in order to avoid disparagement of another's products or denigration of the goodwill and reputation built by a competitor while engaging in advertising one's own products.
"While some latitude is to be given for hyperbole and commendatory expression for oneself with an attempt to show down the competitor, there can be no license to anyone to denigrate the competitor. The courts have protected parties who have been at the receiving end of such negative advertisements," Justice Asha Menon observed.
Case Title: JASVINDER KAUR v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 128
The Delhi High Court on Friday laid down the legal position regarding the detaining authority's obligation to communicate to a detenu the grounds of detention.
A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J Bhambhani observed that a detenu has a fundamental right under Article 22(5) that the grounds on which a detention order has been made against him, be communicated to him as soon as may be; and that he be afforded an opportunity of making a representation against the detention order at the earliest.
How Much Liquor Can An Individual Store At Home In Delhi? High Court Answers
Case Title: Avjit Saluja v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 167
The Delhi High Court has affirmed that an individual, aged above 25 years, can possess 9 litres of Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor, i.e., whisky, vodka, gin and rum, and 18 litres of beer, wine and alcopop.
The observation was made by Justice Subramonium Prasad while adjudicating upon a petition for quashing of the FIR registered against a Delhi resident, for illicit liquor storage at his home.
132 bottles of liquor were recovered from the Petitioner's house,who did not possess a valid Liquor license. This included 51.8 litres of whisky, rum, vodka, gin, and 55.4 litres of wine, beer, alcopop.
Accordingly, he was booked under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009.
Case Title: Ram Gaua Raksha Dal v. UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 171
The Delhi High Court has observed that since the right of a person under Article 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India is impacted by what is offered on a platter, it is fundamental that a full and complete disclosure of a food article being vegetarian or non-vegetarian is made a part of consumer awareness.
A Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with a plea seeking guidelines for strict implementation of the existing Rules mandating food manufacturers to label their products according to the nature of the ingredients used therein.
The Court added that the failure of the authorities to ensure such full and complete disclosure of food article as to whether the same was vegetarian or non vegetarian defeats the objective of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
It therefore directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to issue a fresh communication to the authorities concerned to state the obligation for making a clear disclosure of food article as to whether it was vegetarian or non-vegetarian.
Case Title: DR. BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR HOSPITAL GOVT. OF NCT OFDELHI & ANR. v. DR. KRATI MEHROTRA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 201
The Delhi High Court has observed that as long as conception occurs before the tenure of the contract executed between a woman-employee and her employer expires, she should be entitled to maternity benefits as provided under Maternity Benefits 1961 Act.
A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Talwant Singh observed that the Act seeks to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments for given periods before and after child-birth, and, in particular, endeavours to provide for maternity benefit.
"Clearly, the provisions of the 1961 Act seek to invest a woman with a statutory right to take maternity leave and seek payment for the period that she is absent from duty on account of her pregnancy, albeit in accordance with the provisions of the 1961 Act," the Bench said.
Case Title: Whatsapp LLC v. CCI, Facebook v. CCI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 799
"The 2021 Policy places its users in a "take-it-or-leave-it" situation, virtually forcing its users into agreement by providing a mirage of choice, and then sharing their sensitive data with Facebook Companies envisaged in the policy," the Delhi High Court has observed while upholding the proposed investigation of Competition Commission of India (CCI) into WhatsApp's privacy policy.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the appeals filed by WhatsApp and its parent company Meta (formerly Facebook) against a single bench order declining to interfere with CCI's investigation into the 2021 privacy policy.
Noting that WhatsApp occupies a dominant position in the relevant product market, the Court observed that there exists a strong "lock-in effect" which renders its users incapable of shifting to another platform "despite dissatisfaction with the product" which is exemplified by how, despite an increase in the downloads of other applications like Telegram and Signal when the 2021 Policy was announced, the number of users of WhatsApp remained unchanged.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 237
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Enforcement Directorate being an intelligence and security organization as specified in Second Schedule of Right to Information Act is exempted from the purview of theAct except when the information pertains to allegation of corruption and human rights violation.
Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain was dealing with a plea concerning an RTI application filed by a Superintendent (respondent in the matter) working in the Administration with the Enforcement Directorate.
The said application sought copies of all the seniority list in respect of Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) for the period of 1991 till date as also the copies of proposal for promotion of LDCs placed before the DPC together with copies of the Minutes of the Meetings and copies of the promotion orders issued on the recommendations of the DPC from time to time.
The CIC had directed the said information to be provided to the respondent. However, the said order was challenged by the Union of India before a Single Judge which had dismissed the said plea vide order dated 7th December2018.
Case Title: SURENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 317
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is undesirable for Courts to make remarks censuring the action of police officers unless such remarks are strictly relevant for the case.
Justice Jasmeet Singh expunged the remarks made against the Investigating Officer by a Trial Court in a criminal revision case. The plea was filed by the IO seeking setting aside the direction of the Trial Court for initiating inquiry against him.
The Investigating Officer had conducted investigation in a murder case and the Additional Sessions Judge of city's Karkardooma Court in his order dated 25.10.2021 had set aside the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate.
Case Title: SHERRY GEORGE v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 321
The Delhi High Court has observed that an investigation into the cause or reason for recusal by a judge, particularly, by a litigant, would itself be an interference with the course of justice.
Justice Asha Menon added that the discretion of the concerned judge in the matter of disclosure is absolute.
"When a judge recuses, no litigant or third party has any right to intervene, comment or enquire. The recusal has to be respected, whether a reason has been spelt-out in detail or not. Had a judge refrained from giving a reason for recusal, no one can insist on the judge making such disclosures," the Court said.
Case Title: RISHU AGGARWAL v. MOHIT GOYAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 334
The Delhi High Court has held that though denial of conjugal relationship is a ground for divorce and tantamounts to cruelty, the same cannot be said to amount to "exceptional hardship" under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
Section 14 prescribes a mandatory 1 year waiting period from the date of marriage, before filing for divorce. A proviso to this Section states that the 1 year period may be waived off on the ground that the case is one of"exceptional hardship" to the petitioner or of "exceptional depravity" on the part of the respondent.
A bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi andJustice Jasmeet Singh observed that the denial of sex by one spouse to the other, or by both of them to each other may certainly constitute "hardship", but it cannot be said to be "exceptional hardship".
Title: LAXMI & ANR v. SHYAM PRATAP & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 432
The Delhi High Court has observed that the daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from her father-in-law provided she has inherited some estate of her husband.
A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a plea filed by a widowed daughter-in-law and grand-daughter under sec. 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the order dated 3rd May, 2019 deferring their claim for interim maintenance in a petition under sec. 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Delhi Govt Can't Implement Doorstep Ration Delivery Scheme Without LG's Approval: High Court
Case Title: DELHI SARKARI RATION DEALERS SANGH DELHI v. COMMISSIONER FOOD AND SUPPLIES GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 472
While setting aside the Delhi government's scheme for doorstep delivery of ration, the Delhi High Court has observed that the decision of the Council of Ministers headed by Delhi Chief Minister to roll out the said scheme cannot be described as an Executive action taken by, or in the name of the Lieutenant Governor.
The Court reasoned that the same cannot be done since the LG had expressed his disagreement, which stood unresolved as the scheme was placed before the President.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh thus quashed the three tenders issued by the Delhi Government in respect of the doorstep ration delivery scheme.
Titles Of Films Are Capable Of Being Recognised Under Trademark Law: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SHOLAY MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT AND ANR. v. YOGESH PATELAND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 501
The Delhi High Court has rejected a contention that titles of films cannot be registered under Trademark Law and has held that the word 'SHOLAY' being the title of an iconic film cannot be held to be a mark devoid of protection.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that certain films cross the boundaries of just being ordinary words and the title of the film 'SHOLAY' is one of them.
"Titles and films are capable of being recognised under trademark law and in India 'SHOLAY' would be a classic example of such a case," the Court said.
It added,
"If there is one film that transcends generations of Indians, it is 'SHOLAY'. The said film, its characters, dialogues, settings, box office collections are legendary. Undoubtedly, 'SHOLAY' is one of the biggest, record-breaking films that India has ever produced, in the history of Indian cinema...The mention of the word 'SHOLAY' immediately creates a connection with the movie 'SHOLAY'. There are industry estimates which claim that, although the words 'SHOLAY' may have a dictionary meaning in Hindi(specifically, 'burning coal'), upon the movie going public, the word 'SHOLAY' came to be associated only with the film."
Thus, it awarded Rs.25,00,000/- as costs and damages to Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd. and Sippy Films Pvt. Ltd. which holds rights in the film.
Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 518
Observing that fairness and legitimacy need to imbue all governmental affairs, the Delhi High Court has observed that it is imperative that no further exemptions be granted to or lenience be shown to National Sports Federations who are not complying with the Government of India's National Sports Code, 2011.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and JusticeVikas Mahajan added that no NSF or Sports Entity should be seen to be receiving benefits which are unjust.
Case Title: NEHA DEVI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 523
The Delhi High Court has observed that insistence of spousal consent for organ donation would impinge upon the right of the wife to be in control of her own body.
Interpreting relevant provisions of Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 as well as Transplantation of Human Organs Act,1994, Justice Yashwant Varma further added that a spouse cannot be recognised in law to have a superior or supervening right to control a personal and conscious decision of the donor.
Case Title: VAIBHAV SAMPAT MORE v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCYTHROUGH ITS CHIEF INVESTIGATION OFFICER
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 537
The Delhi High Court has held that mere smuggling of gold without any connection whatsoever to threatening economic security or monetary stability of India cannot be a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
A division bench comprising Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna granted bail to nine accused persons who had approached the Court by way of filing an appeal challenging the Trial Court order denying bail to them in a matter involving offences under sec. 16, 18, 20 of the UAPA and under sec. 120B, 204, 409 and 471 of IPC.
Title: VISHAL PIPES LIMITED v. BHAVYA PIPE INDUSTRY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 543
The Delhi High Court has held that in a case where a plaintiff values an IPR suit in the city district courts below the threshold of Rs.3 lakhs, such suits would be listed before the District Judge (Commercial) first in order to determine as to whether the valuation is arbitrarily whimsical or deliberately undervalued.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that it would be mandatory for IPR suits to be ascribed a 'specified value', in the absence of which the valuation of the suit below Rs.3 lakhs would be arbitrary, whimsical and wholly unreasonable.
"This Court is cognizant of the fact that the valuation of intellectual property is by itself a very complex process. It is clarified that the Commercial Court is not expected to value the specific IP on the basis of any mathematical formulae but to broadly take into consideration whether the said IP would be worth more than Rs. 3 lakhs, which is the threshold for the Commercial Court to exercise jurisdiction," the Court said.
Case Title: PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 555
The Delhi High Court has observed that a newspaper or an agency engaged in the dissemination of news cannot be viewed as performing a public function.
Justice Yashwant Varma dismissed a writ petition filed by one Prakash Singh laying allegations of racial discrimination and harassment against Agence France-Presse, a French private international news agency, against him. The Court dismissed the plea as not being maintainable.
Advocate Raghav Awasthi appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the fact that Agence France-Presse was constituted by an Act of Parliament of France.
It was argued that its essential functions would indicate that it was an autonomous civil entity which had been constituted for the purpose to seek out, in France as well as abroad, the elements of a complete and objective information service and also to place that information at the disposal of users in exchange for payment.
Case Title: SANTOSH KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 569
The Delhi High Court has observed that the disclosure of elaborate reasons for interception orders would be against the modified disclosure requirements of procedural fairness.
"The disclosure of elaborate reasons for interception orders would be against the modified disclosure requirements of procedural fairness which have been universally deemed acceptable for the protection of other facets of public including the source of information leading to the detection of crime or other wrongdoing, sensitive intelligence information and other information supplied in confidence for the purpose of government or discharge of certain public functions," Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed.
The Court thus dismissed a petition filed by one Santosh Kumar who had challenged an order passed by Ministry of Home Affairs dated 30th January 2018 which permitted interception of his telephonic calls in the exercise of the powers conferred under sec. 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885 and Rule 419 (A) of the Indian Telegraph Rules 2007.
Case Title: HANUMAN BENIWAL AND ORS. v. VINAY MISHRA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 572
The Delhi High Court has observed that alleging that the voting strategy of an individual or of a political party or their nominees has been sold off without any foundational basis, deeply causes irreparable harm, loss and damage to the reputation of such an individual or party concerned and clearly encroaches upon the right of privacy.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also added that while reputation is an integral part of the dignity of each individual, there is a need for balance between the freedom of speech and expression vis-Ã -vis the right to reputation.
Delhi Riots: Delhi High Court's 10 Reasons For Denying Bail To Umar Khalid In UAPA Case
Case Title: Umar Khalid v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 982
The Delhi High Court denied bail to activist Umar Khalid, who has been in custody since September 2020 in the larger conspiracy case of 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
The FIR 59/2020 being probed by Delhi Police's Special Cell invokes various charges under different provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 against the accused persons.
A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar upheld the trial court order which had denied bail to Khalid on March 24, observing that it did not warrant any interference.
Case Title: Konika Poddar v. SL Stephen's College & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 857
The Delhi High Court has said that St Stephens college must follow the admission policy of the Delhi University for the academic sessions 2022-23 for students belonging to non-minority category applying to undergraduate courses.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that St Stephens college shall follow the directive that 100% weightage must be given to CUET 2022 score for the admission of students belonging to the non minority category applying to such courses.
The Court therefore directed St Stephens college to withdraw its admission prospectus and issue a fresh public notice declaring the amended admission procedure.
Case Title: JOHNSON JACOB v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 602
The Delhi High Court rejected the argument set forth by an official of the Delhi Police that the corruption allegations levelled against him cannot be investigated by the Anti Corruption Branch of the Delhi Government for the reason that the agency falls under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
In doing so, Justice Jasmeet Singh relied on Anil Kumar v. GNCT of Delhi where it was held that since the Delhi Police personnel serve the citizens in the national capital and the functions of the agency substantially and essentially relate to the affairs of Delhi, the Anti-Corruption Branch of Delhi government has the jurisdiction to entertain and act on a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act in respect of a Delhi Police officer, and to investigate and prosecute the crime.
Case Title: Juhi Chawla and others v Science and Engineering Research Board and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 50
The Delhi High Court expunged the remarks made by the Single Judge against Bollywood and environmentalist Juhi Chawla while dismissing her civil suit against 5G Roll.
Modifying the impugned order, Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh also reduced the cost imposed vide the impugned order from Rs. 20 Lakhs to Rs. 2 Lakhs, observing that the same may be retained as some of the applications filed in the civil suit were indeed completely meritless.
The Court was hearing a plea filed by Chawla and others challenging the single judge decision which had dismissed the civil suit as being defective and not maintainable with a cost of Rs. 20 lakhs.
Case Title: DHRUV TEWARI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 603
The Delhi High Court has observed that when a look out circular(LOC) of intimation is issued against a person, the authorities at the airport or any other port cannot restrain or detain such person on the pretext that intimation of arrival or departure is required to be given to the originating agency.
Justice Mukta Gupta observed that such an action would directly serve as a detentive or preventive LOC. It added that it is well settled that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly.
POCSO Act Will Be Applicable To Minor Muslim Girl Who Has Attained Age Of Puberty: Delhi High Court
Title: IMRAN v. STATE OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 620
The Delhi High Court has rejected a contention that according to Muslim law, since the victim has attained the age of puberty, the rigours of POCSO Act will not be applicable.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that the statement of object of the POCSO Act states that the Act is aimed to secure the tender age of the children and ensure they are not abused and their childhood and youth is protected against exploitation.
Case Title: Mrs. Manharleen Kaur v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 639
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to ensure that an adequate notice is given to candidates desirous of wearing a kara or kirpan, regarding the additional requirement for them to reach the examination centre one hour before the reporting time. The court directed that the notice must be given well inadvance so that no undue hardship is caused to them.
Justice Rekha Palli directed thus while dealing with a plea challenging denial of entry to a Sikh woman, for an exam being conducted by DSSSB, for the reason of her wearing kara.
"It is expected that not only the DSSSB but all other recruiting agencies who conduct similar examinations will take appropriate steps in this regard well before the conduct of the examinations," the Court added.
Coal Allocation Per Se Does Not Amount To "Proceeds Of Crime" Under PMLA: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. v. DIRECTORATE OFENFORECEMENT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 676
Observing that the allocation of coal cannot be viewed as proceeds of crime per se, the Delhi High Court has observed that only the gains that maybe obtained from criminal activity which are concealed or projected to be untainted can form the subject matter of the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Justice Yashwant Varma was of the view that it cannot be said that the allocation of coal is property as contemplated under the Act.
"It is pertinent to note that the Act essentially seeks toconfiscate properties and assets that may be derived or obtained from criminal activity and which may then be concealed. It is thus evident that it is only gains that may have been obtained by the utilisation of the allocation which could have possibly been viewed as proceeds of crime," the Court said.
The Court also observed that the commission of a predicate offense is the precipitate step for initiation of proceedings under the Act and that the offense of money laundering must be tried and established separately.
Case Title: MS. M VICTIM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH S.H.O.& ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 691
While observing that Judiciary is not immune from criticism, theDelhi High Court has observed that such criticism cannot be based on distorted facts or gross misrepresentation of material averments to intentionally lower its dignity and respect.
Justice Jasmeet Singh, who was dealing with an appeal raising allegations against Trial Court and High Court judges, issued notice to the counsel appearing for the appellant to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.
"There is a direct attack on the reputation and functioning of not only one Judge, but several Judges of this Court. This vilification ofJudges can affect the administration of justice as it becomes a form of public mischief. An unwarranted attack on a Judge, citing and unscrupulous administration cannot be ignored by this Court," the Court said.
Title: UDDHAV THACKERAY v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1183
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the observations made by a single judge while dismissing the plea moved by Former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray against Election Commission of India (ECI)'s decision to freeze Shiv Sena's 'bow and arrow' party symbol.
The ECI on October 8 had directed both Thackeray and Eknath Shinde's faction to not use the name "Shiv Sena" or symbol "bow and arrow" till their rival claims for the official recognition is finally decided. For the recent Andheri East bypoll, the party factions were allotted different symbols.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the Commission will proceed in accordance with the procedure followed by it while adjudicating a petition under Para 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
Title: VINAI KUMAR SAXENA v. AAM AADMI PARTY & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 910
The Delhi High Court has said the tweets and statements by Aam Aadmi Party and its five leaders against Delhi's Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena, alleging corruption by him, were made in a reckless manner, without any factual verification, to tarnish his image.
Justice Amit Bansal restrained the party and the five leaders from posting any defamatory or factually incorrect tweets, comments, videos of press conferences or interviews and any other online content against Saxena or his daughter, pertaining to the controversy.
Case Title: Smriti Irani v. Pawan Khera & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has observed that there was no license ever issued in favour of Union Minister Smriti Irani or her daughter in connection with a restaurant named Silly Souls Cafe and Bar, located in Goa.
Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while issuing summons to Congress leaders Jairam Ramesh, Pawan Khera and Netta D'Souza in civil defamation suit seeking damages of Rs. 2 crores filed by Irani for making allegations against her and her daughter regarding the said restaurant.
The Court had directed the Congress leaders to delete the said allegations made by them during a press conference, from all social media platforms.
Case Title: JAGBIR v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 697
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because an act of sexual abuse results in tying of knot between the victim and the accused or inbirth of a child, it does not mitigate the act of rape. It added that the consent of a minor is immaterial and inconsequential in law.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also added that the act of claiming consent of the minor by accused, after luring such minor and enteringinto physical relationship, cannot be treated in a routine manner for thereason that rape is not only a crime against the victim but against the entiresociety which leaves little option for minor child "but to toe the line of the accused."
Case Title: HINA & ANR. v. THE STATE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 698
"Once two adults consent to live together as husband and wife there can be perceivably no interference in their lives from third parties, including their family," the Delhi High Court has recently observed.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela further added that the State is undera Constitutional obligation to protect its citizens especially in cases where the marriage is solemnized between two consenting adults irrespective of the caste or community.
"The Constitutional Courts under our framework are empowered to pass orders to protect the citizens specially in the cases of the nature to which the present dispute pertains. Once two adults consent to live together as husband and wife there can be perceivably no interference in their lives from third parties, including their family. Our Constitution ensures it too. It is not only the duty of the State but also its machinery and the agencies which ensure law and order to ensure that no harm comes to the citizens of this country," the Court said.
Title: JINDAL KUMAR v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ANDANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 704
The Delhi High Court has observed that subjecting a citizen to police scrutiny including verification of personal documents for no good reason would entail a serious invasion of his right to privacy.
Justice Asha Menon made the observation while dealing with a plea filed by a complainant seeking directions on the Delhi Police to make enquiry for correct identification of private person, after both the parties indulged in a quarrel.
It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent in the kalandra proceedings was using different names and identities and therefore the police must fix his true identity.
The plea thus sought directions on the Delhi Police to make an enquiry in respect of Aadhaar Cards, Voter Cards, Driving License and Pan Cards existing in the name of various names allegedly being used by the respondent individual.
Case Title: TV Today Network Pvt Ltd v. Newslaundry & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 725
While denying interim relief to TV Today Network in the defamation and copyright infringement suit filed by it against news portal Newslaundry, the Delhi High Court has observed that every broadcaster has the right of fair comment on current events and of criticism and review, including of the programmes created by others.
Justice Asha Menon further observed that the right to broadcast programmes would be included in the right to free speech and expression.However, it was added that a balance would have to be struck between the two rights, the right to free speech and right to reputation.
"The defendants No.1 to 9, in the present case, havehowever asserted another right and that is the unrestricted "right to comment". This right to comment on the content created by others is claimed by them as an exercise in public interest," the Court noted.
Case Title: SHAKARPUR SLUM UNION v. DDA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 746
Observing the action of Development Authority (DDA) in removingalleged encroachers 'overnight', the Delhi High Court has observed that persons cannot be evicted with a bulldozer at their doorstep "early in the morning or late in the evening" without any notice, rendering them completely shelterless.
Justice Subramonium Prasad further added that a reasonable period has to be given to such persons and temporary location has to be provided to them before embarking on any demolition activities.
"The DDA has to act in consultation with the DUSIB before embarking upon any such venture and persons cannot be evicted with a bulldozer at their doorstep early in the morning or late in the evening, without any notice, rendering them completely shelter-less. A reasonable period has to be given to such persons and temporary location has to be provided to them before embarking on any demolition activities," the Court observed.
Case Title: KAJAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 790
Observing that every pregnant female deserves dignity during motherhood, the Delhi High Court has granted three months interim bail to a pregnant undertrial prisoner who was expecting her delivery in jail.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also added that pregnancy of a woman is a special circumstance which needs to be appreciated as giving birth to a child while in custody, would not only be a trauma to the mother but also create an everlasting adverse impact on the child, whenever questioned about his birth.
"Every pregnant female deserves the dignity enshrined underArticle 21 of the Constitution of India during motherhood. The Court is expected to take note of interest of a child, who is not expected to be exposed to the prisons, until and unless there is a grave danger in releasing the petitioner on bail," the Court said.
Case Title: FIJA & ANR. v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 793
The Delhi High Court has observed that as per Mohammedan Law, a minor girl who had attained the age of puberty can marry without consent of her parents and has a right to reside with her husband even when she is less than18 years of age.
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while granting protection to a muslim couple who got married in March this year as per Muslim rites and rituals. The plea was moved by the couple seeking directions to ensure that nobody separates them.
The parents of the girl opposed the marriage and registered an FIR under sec. 363 of IPC against the husband. Subsequently sec. 376 and sec. 6POCSO were added.
Case Title: MEHTA TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. and other connected petitions
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 797
The Delhi High Court accepted an argument that a citizen cannot be deprived of the right to establish and administer an educational institution, unless the legislature in its wisdom decides to impose a reasonable restriction in general public interest on exercise of this fundamental right.
Justice Rekha Palli observed that any restriction on the exercise of the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India can only be by law and anything short of law would fall foul of the power under Article 19(6).
The Court thus agreed with the contention that the requirement under clause Article 19(6) can be met only by introduction of a statutory provision either in the Act or in the Regulation and not merely by the issuance of a circular or a policy decision taken by an authority, howsoever high.
Title: HANZLA IQBAL v. THE STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 806
"The person, who is in a consensual physical relationship with another person, is not required to judicially scrutinise the date of birth of the other person," the Delhi High Court has observed.
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while granting bail to a man accused in a rape case. The complainant had alleged that after becoming friends, in September 2019, the petitioner called her to a hotel and established a physical relationship with her and also made her video, thereby blackmailing her.
The complainant further alleged that the petitioner forced her to have physical relationships with different people under the threat of releasing the video.
It was also alleged that around August, 2021, the complainant managed to escape from the petitioner's house where she was held captive, after which she met an advocate who helped her lodging the FIR.
On the other hand, it was the petitioner's case that the date of incident as alleged was September, 2019, whereas the FIR was filed after three years in 2022.
Case Title: EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 867
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a convict in the Mumbai Twin Blast case (7/11 Bomb Blast case) challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) denying him information regarding the proposal and all documents concerning grant of sanction for prosecution under sec. 45(1) of the Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique was convicted under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and National Investigation Act, 2008. He is presently serving his sentence in Nagpur Central Prison since July, 2006.
The CIC, while upholding the view taken by CPIO of Ministry of Home Affairs, had found that the disclosures would stand exempted under sec. 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
Case Title: NEW MILLENNIUM EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 880
The Delhi High Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to constitute special expert teams to conduct surprise visits of law colleges that lack minimum infrastructure and adequate facilities.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the inspection reports of the law colleges shall be uploaded on its website, within one month of such inspection.
"If any colleges upon such inspection are found to be lacking minimum infrastructural facilities, then the BCI must take immediate steps to close such colleges. This is a much-needed therapy that ought to be introduced to cure the maladies that legal education is suffering from," the Court added.
The observations were made while the Court expressed concern over the condition of legal education including the status of infrastructure.
Title: LOTUS PAY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 884
The Delhi High Court has ruled that payment aggregators fall within the definition of designated payment system under Section 23A of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 and that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has the power to issue guidelines for efficient management for such payment systems.
A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju passed the ruling while dismissing a plea filed by Lotus Pay Solutions Private Limited, a company engaged in the business of providing recurring payment solutions for businesses through an authorised payment system, challenging Clauses 3, 4 and 8 of the circular dated March 17, 2020 issued by RBI titled "Guidelines on Regulation of Payment Aggregators and Payment Gateway".
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 899
The Delhi High Court has observed that extracting confession from a child regarding the manner in which the offence was committed by him is unconstitutional and beyond the scope of a preliminary assessment report required to be prepared under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
As per Section 15(1) of the Act, a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)is required to make a preliminary assessment regarding the juvenile's mental and physical capacity to commit an offence and the ability to understand its consequences along with the circumstances under which allegedly the offence was committed.
However, there are no guidelines as to how the Board would conduct such a preliminary assessment.
The observations have been made by a division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal while dealing with a criminal reference concerning issuance of guidelines to be followed by Juvenile Justice Boards in conducting preliminary assessment to try a juvenile as an adult.
Title: SUGANDHI SNUFF KING PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. COMMISSIONER(FOOD SAFETY) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 915
The Delhi High Court has quashed various notifications prohibiting the manufacture, storage, distribution or sale of Gutka, Pan Masala, flavoured tobacco and similar products in the national capital. Since 2015, seven notifications were issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety.
Justice Gaurang Kanth observed that the notifications were issued year after year "in a mechanical manner" without following the general principles laid down under the provisions of Food Safety and StandardsAct, 2006.
"The classification sought to be created between smokeless and smoking tobacco for justifying the issuance of the impugned Notification Is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution," the court observed.
Case Title: RAJESH KUMAR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 917
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of guidelines for better functioning of child care institutions in the national capital and said it's unfortunate that the "apathy of authorities" is seeping through the cracks and hampering the development of those at a vulnerable age.
Stressing on the need for improving existing institutions to ensuring that quality standard of care is provided to children, Justice Subramonium Prasad said there is a complete lack of direction and initiative among persons manning these institutions as to how they must guide the children towards a better future
Justice Prasad made the observations and passed guidelines as well as directions in an order in a plea seeking a magisterial enquiry into an incident concerning escape of five minor girls in March last year from a children home in the city and other similar incidents reported in the past.
Title: PAWAN RELEY AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 928
The Delhi High Court has said that Section 17 of the Maintenance And Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 will not bar parties from having legal practitioners represent them before the Maintenance Tribunal.
Section 17 of the 2007 Act specifically states no party to a proceeding before a tribunal or appellate tribunal shall be represented by a legal practitioner, notwithstanding anything contained in any law. A batch of petitions filed before the High Court in 2019 challenged the provision, alleging that it was in violation of Section 30 of the Advocates Act which gives advocates the right to practise in courts and tribunals.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan in a recent judgement expressed their agreement with a 2014 ruling of Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein it was held that if a tribunal is legally authorised to take evidence, an advocate has a right to practice there.
Title: IC-76585M MAJOR NISHANT KAUSHIK vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 980
After a division bench of Delhi High Court said the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be bypassed merely by making a provision for direct appeal to the Supreme Court, a co-ordinate bench has said that ordinarily, no appeal from a final decision or order of the Armed Forces Tribunal can lie before the High Court.
The division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said there is no provision under The Armed Forces Tribunal Act For an appeal against any such final decision or order of the AFT before any other forum like the High Courts.
"Further, as per Section 31 of the Act, such an appeal to the Apex Court shall lie within 30 days from the date of the said decision of the Tribunal with the leave of the Tribunal or the Apex Court, as the case maybe," said the bench.
Title: MOHD KASHIF v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 993
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a look out circular (LOC) is to be issued in such cases where the accused is deliberately evading arrest or summons or where he fails to appear in a court despite issuance of non-bailable warrants.
"An LOC is a coercive measure to ensure that a person surrenders and interferes with the petitioner's right of personal liberty and free movement. LOC is to be issued in cases where the accused is deliberately evading summons/arrest or where accused fails to appear in Court despite issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants," Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed.
Questions Of Faith Have No Bearing On Individual's Freedom To Choose A LifePartner: Delhi High Court
Title: NAINA RANA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1007
Observing that the freedom of choice in marriage is an intrinsic part of Article 21, the Delhi High Court has said that the questions of faith have no bearing on the freedom to choose a life partner.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that in cases where couples are legally married out of their own free will and volition, the police is expected to act expeditiously and with sensitivity in accordance with law.
The court added that the police must take necessary measures for protection and safety of such couples if they apprehend hostility and concerns for their safety from others including their own family members.
Title: M/S. M.M. TRADERS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1044
The Delhi High Court has asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to consider framing a regime whereby fruits and vegetables which are ripened artificially by using ethylene gas or other artificial ripeners should have a "necessary indication" placed on it.
A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju asked the FSSAI to draw up a broad framework which takes into account all kinds of artificial ripeners so that the consumer is made aware of the fact that the fruit or vegetable has been ripened artificially.
The counsel representing FSSAI told the court that the matter will be deliberated upon and the guidelines will be placed before the court.
Title: SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1071
The Delhi High Court dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the appointment of newly sworn-in Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioner.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad called it a "publicity interest litigation". The petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari in the PIL argued that the appointment of Justice Chandrachud was made in violation of the provisions of the constitution. He prayed for an immediate stay on Justice Chandrachud's Appointment.
Title: AK vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1077
The Delhi High Court has said that the intention of The Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was to protect the children from sexual abuse and not criminalise consensual romantic relationships of young adults.
Justice Jasmeet Singh said the factum of a consensual relationship borne out of love should be of consideration while granting bail.
Title: SHER SINGH @ RAJ BOHARA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1081
The Delhi High Court has asked its Registrar General to expeditiously implement a 2018 verdict wherein he was requested to explore the possibility of creation of a database for district courts to ensure preservation of right of default bail of the accused.
Justice Anu Malhotra referred to the observations made in Arvind Kumar Saxena v. State wherein she had requested the Registrar General to create the database on various dates in relation to pending remand applications before the trial courts, the dates of arrest and by when the chargesheet is to be filed or has been filed.
The court in the 2018 verdict had observed that such a database or software would enable the trial courts to inform the accused appearing before them that they are entitled to the indefeasible right of default bailand may exercise the same if he or she is willing to furnish bail.
Title: ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOL v. DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) & ANOTHER
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1092
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Rule 166 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 which entitles a school to charge a student with a fine of five paise for every day for delay in payment of fees after the tenth day of the month, is not applicable to private unaided schools.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan held that Chapter XIII of the Rules are applicable only in relation to aided schools and not to private unaided schools. Chapter XIII of the Rules is divided in three parts — Part A (144-155, fees and other charges in aided schools), Part B (157-170, fee concessions) and Part C (Pupil's Fund Advisory Committee).
Title: SANJAY PANDEY v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1154
The Delhi High has ruled that tapping phone lines or recording calls without the concerned individual's consent is a breach of privacy as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
"I am prima facie of the view that tapping phone lines or recording calls without consent is a breach of privacy. The right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution demands that phone calls not be recorded. Only with consent of the individuals concerned, can such activity be carried out otherwise it will amount to breach of the fundamental right to privacy," Justice Jasmeet Singh said.
The court made the observations while granting bail to Sanjay Pandey, the former Mumbai Police Commissioner, in a money laundering case related to the alleged illegal phone tapping of employees by National Stock Exchange (NSE).
ISEC Services Private Limited, an entity which had entered into a contract with NSE for analysing data and evaluating cyber vulnerabilities, was allegedly also asked by the NSE in 2009 to analyse the pre-recorded calls of its employees. This was purportedly done to "identify and isolate suspicious calls bearing on the issue of data and information security and cyber and process vulnerability".
Title: RAMESHWAR JHA v. THE PRINCIPAL RICHMOND GLOBAL SCHOOL & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1181
Observing that a "miserable state of affairs" is prevalent in the national capital as far as implementation of Right to Education Act, 2009 at elementary education level is concerned, the Delhi High Court directed all schools to ensure that no child belonging to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) under the enactment is denied admission or treated with a conduct that is unwelcoming of them.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh issued a slew of directions, while disposing of a bunch of pleas concerning the issue of admissions of EWS children in the schools in Delhi. The court said it is important to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue directions for ensuring children belonging to EWS.
The petitioners had sought admission of students under the EWS category under Section 2(e) of the RTE Act in various private schools at the elementary level. The students were given letters by Delhi Government's Department of Education (DoE) confirming their admission in the schools under the RTE Act.
Title: C.A. SANJAY JAIN v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1184
The Delhi High Court held that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has the power to suo motu initiate disciplinary proceedings against its members and that a written complaint or allegation is not a sine qua non or prerequisite for taking action.
Justice Yashwant Varma observed that "information" under section 21 of Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 would extend to any material or fact that may come to the notice of ICAI and from which it may derive knowledge.
"Viewed in the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion that Section 21 does empower the Institute to proceed suo moto and unhindered by the absence of a written complaint or allegation that may be submitted. A written complaint or allegation in writing cannot, in any manner, be understood to be a pre-requisite or a sine qua non for the initiation of action under Section 21," the court said in its ruling running into 106 pages.
Title: PRAVEEN YADAV AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1185
Questioning the Ministry of Home Affairs's decision to confine House Rent Allowance (HRA) benefit only to Personnel Below Officer Rank(PBORs), the Delhi High Court has said that every personnel in the paramilitary forces shall be entitled to the benefit irrespective of the rank, as per their entitlement.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee has directed the Centre and other authorities to take necessary steps within six weeks, in consultation with Ministry of Home Affairs As well as Ministry of Finance, to grant HRA benefit to such personnel.
"We are unable to find any reason as to why officers belonging to the rank of Officers / Coy Commanders or PBROs, should not be granted similar benefit more so as the factum of their serving at far off locations has been recognized and it cannot be differentiated on cadre basis. We fail to understand why such policy decisions discriminating within the force should be permitted to continue, especially to the officers of the force who spend their lives serving the nation," the court said.
Title: SIDDHARTH RAO v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1216
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Delhi Legislative Assembly has no separate secretarial cadre and thus, the Speaker or any authority under it has no competence to make appointments to the house secretariat.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that Article 187 of Constitution of India applies to the States for having separate secretarial staff and cannot be made applicable to Delhi which is a Union Territory.
"The Article 187, thus, has no applicability to the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi. The posts can be created in Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi with the approval of Lt. Governor, Delhi, who is the Competent Authority by virtue of delegation of powers in this regard under Article 309 of the Constitution," the court said.
