Justice Vipin Sanghi bid farewell to the Delhi High Court this week, after serving as a Judge for over 16 phenomenal years and precisely 5,872 days. Justice Sanghi has now sworn in as the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court.Justice Sanghi was appointed as the Additional Judge of the High Court of Delhi with effect from May 29, 2006 and was confirmed as a Judge on 11th February,...
Justice Vipin Sanghi bid farewell to the Delhi High Court this week, after serving as a Judge for over 16 phenomenal years and precisely 5,872 days. Justice Sanghi has now sworn in as the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court.
Justice Sanghi was appointed as the Additional Judge of the High Court of Delhi with effect from May 29, 2006 and was confirmed as a Judge on 11th February, 2008.
In his long and successful judicial career, Justice Sanghi has been known, both by the Bar and the Bench, for his judicial discipline, kindness and legal acumen.
In his farewell speech, Justice Sanghi appealed to the judges of the lower as well as higher judiciary of Delhi, to give their best to achieve the objective of justice dispensation with honesty, integrity and independence.
"I realized that we all hold this position as a public trust. It is that Public trust that we have to discharge and that can be done only with complete honesty. There is no room for any biases or for or against anything, either in court or outside," he said.
Justice Sanghi added "In my view, if the institution of judiciary has to achieve its intended goal of dispensing justice without fear or favour and in accordance with constitution and laws, we have to function with complete honesty, integrity and independence."
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit the world and patients in the national capital were reeling for oxygen and medical resources, it was the bench led by Justice Sanghi which ensured that adequate facilities are timely available to the citizens of Delhi.
From day to day hearings, sometimes ending late in the night, Justice Sanghi made sure that not only are the judicial orders implemented in the right spirit by the Governmental authorities but he also ensured that hearings in such cases of public importance are followed up on a regular basis.
Speaking in his farewell reference, Justice Siddharth Mridul said "Something which never came in public domain was that in all this time, his own close relatives were suffering from COVID and despite that Justice Sanghi devoted all his time to address the grievances of the citizens of Delhi."
He added, "Justice Sanghi made sure that the grievances of the people of Delhi regarding hospitals, oxygen and medicines were met immediately and instantaneously. It is unfortunate that Dr. KK Aggarwal, his brother in law, a celebrated doctor who was himself a trouble shooter for him and the extended family and also to the people of Delhi at large, succumbed to COVID. Justice Sanghi held the Court for weeks and passed numerous orders to overcome the scarcities which I have described and which are within the knowledge of all."
Justice Sanghi has been known for his concerns regarding city centric issues on varied aspects revolving around the society at large. From issues such as air pollution and mosquito infestation to illegal hawking and squatting of vendors in public places, Justice Sanghi has relentlessly passed strictures to the authorities for ensuring that judicial orders are not limited to the court hearings and are positively implemented on ground.
Not only has Justice Sanghi been a public spirited judge, his legal acumen and understanding of legal issues is known to all.
While he bid farewell to the Delhi High Court, Justice Sanghi expressed concern about how the process of appointment of judges over the years has become more time consuming and uncertain.
He said "The process of appointment over the years has become more time consuming and more uncertain. This has dissuaded many meritorious senior advocates and other advocates from giving their consent to be considered by the Collegium of High Court for recommending their names for judgeship."
He also to emphasised the need to tackle the issue of pendency of cases. While stating that the Delhi High Court, in the past few years, saw reduction in pendency of cases owing to reasonable bench strength, Justice Sanghi remarked that the appointments did not keep pace with the retirements, transfers and elevation of judges.
Over these long years as a Delhi High Court Judge, Justice Sanghi has delivered a series of remarkable and important judgements, ranging over varied streams of law.
In this piece, LiveLaw has chronologically listed some of the major judgements and orders delivered by a Bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi.
Suo Moto Cognizance taken by Justice Vipin Sanghi
Amid COVID-19 pandemic, a bench headed by Justice Vipin Sanghi took suo moto cognisance of the grievances faced by a citizen whose mother was COVID-19 positive. The Court had directed both the Centre as well as the Delhi Government to place on record the the status of arrangements and helplines put in place to deal with serious COVID19 patients who needed hospitalisation.
The Bench had further directed both the governments to assess the adequacy of the helpline capacity and state whether the same was sufficient to deal with the present call traffic and the traffic expected in the foreseeable future.
In May last year, Justice Sanghi led bench had taken suo moto cognizance of the issue of mosquito infestation and the rise of vector borne diseases amid covid 19 pandemic after observing that the steps taken by the Delhi Government and Municipal Corporations of Delhi had taken a "back seat" in tackling the spread of Dengue and Chikungunya viruses.
While initiating the suo moto PIL, the Court had expressed its apprehension about the fact that various patients who were contacting dengue and Chikungunya viruses who require hospitalization may find it difficult to get a hospital bed as the same are occupied due to covid 19 situation.
Over the year, this bench passed several strictures and ensured evolution of a uniform protocol for the municipal authorities across the city to curb the menace.
Justice Sanghi led Bench also registered a suo moto PIL over the issue of setting up of unmanned police barricades in city's Kalkaji and CR Park Police Station areas. It had observed that unmanned blockades are blockades of roads which prima facie serve no purpose and do indeed cause inconvenience and harassment to public at large. Notices were issued to Commissioner of Police, Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs, Delhi Government and South Delhi Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner.
Taking suo moto cognizance of an incident of fire reported in a building at Nehru Place, District Commercial Centre, Justice Sanghi led Bench had directed the Delhi Police and the South Delhi Municipal Corporation to ensure no hawking and vending policy in the area on a daily basis. The Bench also directed SDMC, Delhi Police and Delhi Development Authority to hold a joint meeting and file status reports with regard to the implementation of the no-hawking no-vending policy.
In the later hearings in the suo moto case, the Bench had observed that Nehru Place market area in the national capital should not become a slum, thereby seeking suggestions from the South Delhi Municipal Corporation on the management of squatters in the area. Justice Sanghi also added that the said vendors will strictly comply with the terms of hawking and vending, will not have a permanent structure and will be confined to the hawking permitted area.
While serving as Acting Chief Justice, Justice Sanghi also took suo moto cognizance of the issue concerning the rising problem of air pollution in Delhi. The Bench expressed deep concern over the recent fire incidents at Ghazipur Landfill site in Delhi's East district, causing severe air pollution in the area.
Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi also took suo moto cognizance over poor implementation of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The proceedings in the nature of public interest litigation were initiated by the Court on its own motion based on a May 23 letter of Advocate Neha Rai, who highlighted the current state of affairs regarding implementing the said Act.
The Court had issued notices to the Delhi government, District Legal Service Authorities, District Magistrate (DM) and and all the Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs) in the national capital.
Major Rulings During COVID-19 Pandemic
"Citizen can only fall back on the State. So you have to beg, borrow or steal and ensure the protection of fundamental emergency", Justice Vipin Sanghi had remarked last year while hearing an urgent plea amid second wave of COVID-19 regarding the immediate need for oxygen at Max Hospitals in the Delhi NCR Region.
The Court was hearing an urgent plea by Balaji Medical and Research Centre seeking urgent directions as regards to the supply of oxygen in the Hospitals ran by it, popularly known as Max Hospitals, operating at various branches including Saket, Vaishali, Shalimar Bagh, Patparganj and Gurgaon.
The Bench said that it was hopeful that the emergent needs of various hospitals in Delhi would be met so that no causalities are suffered on account of discontinuing the supply of Oxygen to seriously ill COVID patients, and other serious patients who require Oxygen for support.
The Bench also directed the GNCTD yo immediately initiate the logistical work for the procurement of the oxygen. It also directed the suppliers to comply with the allocation order issued by the Central Government and make the supplies on an emergent basis.
After an advocate broke down in court during the course of a hearing on oxygen shortage in Delhi in the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic, the court expressed its empathy, stating that, "State has failed in its fundamental obligation in protecting basic fundamental right i.e. right to life contained under Article 21."
The bench headed by Justice Vipin Sanghi was informed of the passing away of the brother-in-law of the advocate, seeking help for whom he had approached the court earlier.
Taking note of the issue of black marketing and hoarding of essential covid 19 medicines and oxygen cylinders amid second COVID wave, Justice Sanghi led Bench had appealed to the people of Delhi, not to resort to hoarding and black marketing of oxygen and medicines.
"We, therefore, appeal to the good sense of the people, including the sellers of necessary medicines and Oxygen, to not to resort to hoarding of, and black marketing of Oxygen cylinders, Oxygen flow metres or medicines, and to make them available to the needy people," Justice Sanghi had ordered.
Hinting towards a collective sense of responsibility at such unprecedented times, the Court also observed that "The nation is facing an unprecedented crisis. It is at times like this, that we – the people, need to stand up to showcase our best qualities and virtues, which all of us have. To fight this scourge, we need to collectively conduct ourselves with sensitivity and empathy towards one and all –irrespective of whether the infected persons are our friends or relatives, or strangers."
Justice Sanghi led Bench had approved the functioning of High Powered Committee formed by the Delhi Government for probing into deaths due to oxygen shortage amid Covid-19 pandemic.
While giving it's nod to the Committee, the Court had said that it found no difficulty in the functioning of the HPC in discharging the roles assigned to it.
"We do not think it is necessary for us to await the order of the Supreme Court with regards to the grant of ex-gratia compensation to be paid to a victim as decided by National Disaster Management Authority," the Bench had added.
Justice Sanghi led Bench had prima facie observed that the distinction drawn by the Delhi Government between doctors and paramedic staff working in either Government or Private Hospitals requisitioned by the State with other nursing homes which may not have been requisitioned on account of their capacity, is not justified.
it was also observed that only because some nursing homes may not have been requisitioned due to their bed capacity, does not ignore the fact that the doctors and paramedic staff working at such nursing homes were also exposing themselves to the risk of contracting covid and suffering death on that account.
Observing that the Delhi Government had not opened up to reality for coming up with enough mechanism to safeguard the rights of children, Justice Sanghi led Bench had issued slew of directions to the GNCTD for ensuring that it complies to the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 in view of providing protection to children who have lost one or both parents in the wake of covid thereby being orphaned and also for children left on streets without having necessary covid 19 facilities.
"Even though the Juvenile Justice Act was enacted in 2015 when the GNCTD has full fledged department mandated to enforce provisions of the Act, little progress appears to be made on ground," Justice Sanghi had said.
Furthermore, the Court said "It appears that only after this Court has turned its focus on these aspects, there is being some favourish activity undertaken as if the concerned department of GNCTD has not open up to the reality."
The Court had observed that it will be unfair to expect children who lost their parents, one or both, due to Covid-19 to procure documents in order to avail benefits under various welfare schemes launched by the Delhi Government.
Taking note of the issues in relation to the verification process of such applications, Justice Vipin Sanghi led Bench also directed Chief Secretary of the Delhi Government to file a status report regarding the process for dealing with the welfare schemes under Juvenile Justice Act.
The bench also added that it expects the Chief Secretary to brush out the said issues after holding a meeting with the required stakeholders including Principal Secretary of Women and Child Department and Social Welfare Department.
Justice Sanghi led Bench had called the order passed by the Delhi Government mandating wearing of face mask inside private vehicle as "absurd", asking further as to why the same was still prevailing in the changed circumstances.
The Court had therefore asked the Delhi Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) to relook the orders passed by it in view of the change in scenario of the COVID-19 pandemic.
It was in this backdrop that the Delhi Government had in April this year, decided that people travelling together in private cars were not required to wear masks.
Justice Sanghi had also directed the Delhi Government to ensure that an accused person must be provided the treatment required by approaching an alternative hospital not being a dedicated covid Facility when the same cannot be done in the referral hospital for the reason of it being a 100% dedicated covid Facility.
The Bench was considering a bunch of petitions concerning decongestion of prisons, neglected treatment of non covid patients and non functioning of Undertrial Review Committee.
"We direct the State to ensure that whatever treatment/investigation is required by accused must be provided by approaching another hospital which is not 100% covid facility in case the referral hospital is 100% covid Facility," the Court had directed.
Last year, Justice Sanghi had warned the North Delhi Municipal Corporation of attachment of its properties for its failure to pay salaries and pensions to employees in the wake of covid 19 pandemic.
He had directed the Chairman of NDMC to disclose details, under his own affidavit, of all immovable and movable properties along with their estimated value in particular of the bank accounts held by NDMC with banks and financial institutions and the amount held therein.
Taking strong note of the failure on part of NDMC for not paying the respective salaries and pensions to its employees, Justice Sanghi had said "They (employees) are entitled to release of their salaries and pensions and they cannot be told that the Corporations do not have the fund to make payment of their salaries and pensions and that cannot be cited as a ground for non payment."
He added "We've already said that right to receive salaries and pensions constitutes fundamental right and we've already directed Corporations to disburse salaries and pensions to all class of employees."
Rulings on Family Law
A bench headed by Justice Sanghi 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.
The Court 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".
The bench thus dismissed the appeal filed by a wife challenging the Family Court order by way of which her divorce petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent was dismissed. The Family Court had dismissed their application over non-compliance of Section 14.
Justice Sanghi had observed that a father cannot abdicate his responsibility of looking after his unmarried daughters and that he has a duty and obligation to maintain them, including taking care of their expenses towards education and marriage.
A Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh added that 'Kanya Daan' is a solemn and pious obligation of a Hindu Father, from which he cannot renege.
The Court thus directed the father to pay a sum of Rs. 35 Lakhs and 50 Lakhs towards the expense of marriages of his two daughters.
It allowed an appeal filed by the wife challenging a Family Court order, though granting her divorce on the ground of cruelty, however, denying maintenance for herself and the two major daughters.
Mother's Love And Affection Wouldn't Be Less Merely Coz Child Was Born Out Of Surrogacy: Delhi HC
In a 2018 judgment, a Bench headed by Justice Sanghi observed that the love and affection that a mother has for a child would be no less merely because the child was born out of surrogacy and holding otherwise would be devaluing the great qualities of love and bonding experienced not only by human beings but all animal species.
The Court said so while deciding the writ petition moved by a woman, a socialite and a dermatologist, seeking direction to her estranged husband to produce minor daughter in the court and to set her at liberty in her custody.
A bench headed by Justice Sanghi upheld an order passed by the Family Court granting divorce in favour of the wife under sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 observing that the wife had well established the ground of mental cruelty by the husband.
The Family Court had granted divorce to the respondent wife under sec. 13(1)(ia) of the HMA solely relying on ground of mental cruelty. While upholding the same, the Court observed thus:
"Husband and wife are two pillars of the family. Together they can deal with any situation, balancing the family in all circumstances. If one pillar gets weak or breaks, the whole house crashes down. The pillars can withstand all the abuses together, the moment one pillar gets weak or deteriorates, it becomes difficult to hold the house together. When one pillar gives up, and puts all the burden on the other pillar, then it cannot be expected that one pillar will single handedly hold the house together," the Court ruled.
Justice Vipin Sanghi led Bench observed that maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court must be realistic and reasonable and that the order passer by such Courts must be clear and well reasoned- indicative of the facts, controversy and reasoning of it's conclusion. It also observed that the objective of granting interim or permanent maintenance to a spouse is to ensure that they are not reduced to financial constraints due to the failure of their marriage.
Justice Vipin Sanghi's Bench had observed that a wife making serious allegations of criminal conduct against her husband and his parents, which she was unable to prove in Trial Court, amounts to an act of "cruelty". It thus upheld the divorce decree granted to the husband by a Family Court and dismissed the wife's appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
Justice Sanghi led Bench explained the scope of Judicial Separation and Divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It observed that the scope of the two concepts is qualitatively different and that Judicial separation is a completely different relief that the aggrieved spouse may seek against the other, under sec. 10 of the Act.
"Thus, the aggrieved spouse may, instead of seeking the relief of divorce, seek a decree of judicial separation on the same grounds on which he/she may seek divorce. The law gives an option to the aggrieved spouse/petitioner to seek either of the two reliefs," the Court said.
Justice Sanghi's bench observed that the family courts are expected to act with due application of mind without being hyper technical, having a litigant friendly approach. It observed thus:
"The Family Court is obliged to function so as to relieve the parties of the suffering that they are going through on account of matrimonial disputes. It is expected to act with due application of mind and without being hypertechnical about matters brought before it. The Family Court should have a litigant friendly approach, and function in the spirit of helping parties resolve their disputes – either mutually, or through the Courts determination."
"We may also note that senior and experienced Judicial Officers are posted as Principal Judges of the Family Courts, with the expectation that they will display legal acumen and maturity in dealing with matrimonial and custody disputes."
A bench led by Justice Sanghi had sentenced a man to simple imprisonment for a period of three months including imposition of a fine of Rs. 2000 for wilful disobedience of repeated Court directions in a matrimonial dispute requiring him to pay maintenance to his wife.
Observing that the actions or omissions of the husband in choosing to show complete disregard to the orders of the Court cannot be countenanced, the Court said that if such action is permitted, it will lead to anarchy and the Rule of Law would become a casualty and that the orders of the Courts would be taken lightly and breached at the own sweet will of the individual concerned.
The Court took note of the fact that the man had suppressed his true income only with a view to evade compliance of the orders passed by the Family Court and as well as the High Court requiring him to pay maintenance to his wife. The Court was of the view that the man had chosen to be adamant and obstinate.
"The Respondent has not shown any regard towards the majesty of the court by obeying its orders. He has shown no remorse or regret for non-compliance of the aforesaid orders. If there is wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree direction, order writ or other process of a court, or wilful breach of undertaking given to the court, the contempt court shall take note of such violation, that needs to be punished. The wilful disobedience by the contemnor undermines the dignity and authority of the Courts and outrages the majesty of law."
Important Observations Regarding Illegal Encroachments and Hawking
Justice Sanghi had observed that it is the responsibility of the municipal corporation, North Delhi Municipal Corporation in the present case, to ensure that side walks in the concerned area are kept clear from illegal encroachments and hawkers on a "continuous basis".
"The respondents cannot shirk of their responsibility by carrying out the exercise of removing encroachment occasionally. It is their responsibility to ensure that Side-Walks are kept clear from illegal encroachments and hawkers on a continuous basis," the Court said.
A division bench headed by Justice Sanghi observed that the concept of tehbazaari, street hawking and vending does not envisage that the hawker or vendor would fix himself to any particular place or erect any structure whether permanent or temporary on it's own.
It also added that there is no question of any hawker or vendor staking a claim to occupy any public space in the name of hawking and vending round the clock by placing a structure, temporary or otherwise, at the site and converting the same into a shop where the hawker or vendor and his goods can permanently remain.
Vendors Selling Essential Goods & Services Can't Be Equated To Regular Shops: Delhi High Court
Justice Sanghi led Bench had observed that participation of vendors in weekly markets in selling or dealing with essential goods and services is no ground to equate them with regular shops or establishments.
It was added that the nature of regular shops or establishment in a market area is very different from any weekly markets owing to the reason of density of both vendors and visitors.
"Footfall in a weekly market is much higher and therefore the risk of spread of disease in weekly market is much higher," the Bench said.
Therefore, the Court observed that a weekly market cannot be controlled and managed in the same way as regular shops or establishments in a regular market.
"Merely because some of the vendors participating in weekly markets may be selling or dealing with essential goods and services, is no reason to equate regular shops/ establishments with weekly markets," the Court said.
Justice Sanghi's Bench had directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police as well as the Commissioner of North Delhi Municipal Corporation to continue the monitoring and supervision through their respective officers, the removal of unauthorized encroachments, hawking and vending in city's Chandni Chowk area.
The Court added that the exercise must be done irrespective of whether it is the shopkeepers or the hawkers and vendors who may be resorting to such illegal encroachments and hawking activities. The bench was dealing with a plea concerning illegal encroachments in Chandni Chowk area, being a no hawking and no vending zone.
The Court had earlier expressed its concern over the rampant illegal encroachment by the hawkers and vendors in city's Chandni Chowk area. It remarked that the redevelopment activity of the area is already 'falling in disrepair'.
The Court had also pulled up the Delhi Police over it's failure to install 330 CCTV cameras in city's Chandni Chowk area. It remarked that the judicial directions on the issue were falling on deaf ears.
It had also observed that due to the existing population of the city and huge influx of people from all over the country, it may not be practically feasible to completely stop the activity of hawking and vending in the Chandni Chowk area for the reason that people have become habituated to hawk and vend in the area even though the same was a no-hawking and no-vending zone.
"A large population is without employment and they find it an easy and convenient way of earning their livelihood on daily basis to undertake the activity of hawking and vending and making their ends meet. Hawking and vending has also been recognised as a Fundamental Right," the Court had added.
"We cannot let the city go to dogs. We are here to protect the Rule of Law", Justice Sanghi had remarked while expressing its concern over the illegal hawking and vending activities in the national capital.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed by Chandni Chowk Sarv Vyapar Mandal challenging the validity of Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019 framed by Delhi Government under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act.
The Court said that while it recognises vendors and hawkers as an essential part of the ecosystem, the number of petitions filed everyday on the issue was shocking for it to witness.
Other Important Rulings
Delhi Govt Can't Implement Doorstep Ration Delivery Scheme Without LG's Approval: High Court
While setting aside the Delhi government's scheme for doorstep delivery of ration, Justice Sanghi 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.
The division bench thus quashed the three tenders issued by the Delhi Government in respect of the doorstep ration delivery scheme.
However, the Court said that the Delhi Government is entitled to frame a scheme for doorstep delivery of foodgrains or rations to the beneficiaries under the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS), from its own resources in compliance with the prevailing laws.
"We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned scheme cannot be implemented and rolled out by the GNCTD since the Lieutenant Governor has expressed his difference of opinion and required that the same be referred for his decision to the President. The said scheme would necessarily have to be rolled out in the name of the Lieutenant Governor, while recording his approval thereof. That has not been done in the facts and circumstances taken note of hereinabove. The Chief Minister should, therefore, place the matter before the Council of Ministers and consider the proposed scheme in the light of the letter of the Central Government dated 17.06.2021 and 22.06.2021, and observations made by us hereinabove," it observed.
Observing that many food articles which have ingredients sourced from animals are passed off as vegetarian by affixing the green dot, Justice Sanghi directed that there should be full and complete disclosure of all the ingredients which go into the manufacture of any food article.
The Court was of the view that the failure of the authorities, Central Government and Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, in checking the lapses is not only leading to non-compliance of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Regulations but is also leading to "deceit by such Food Business Operators of the public at large, particularly those who wish to profess strict vegetarianism."
"Every person has a right to know as to what he/ she is consuming, and nothing can be offered to the person on a platter by resort to deceit, or camouflage," the Bench said.
The Court therefore directed the Food Business Operators to ensure full and strict compliance of the Regulation. It said that the there shall be a disclosure of not only the code names but also as to whether the food item originate from plant, or animal source, or whether it is manufactured in a laboratory, irrespective of the percentage in the food article.
Justice Sanghi led Bench had expressed dissatisfaction at the report filed by the Delhi Police with respect to the security arrangement made outside Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's residence, which was attacked by an "unruly mob" on March 30 this year.
"This kind of incident happening at residence of a constitutional functionary is very disturbing state of affairs. What kind of bandobast did you have? You need to look into your functioning. It could have been anybody, any Minister, Judge," the Bench had observed at the outset.
It has therefore directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police to look into the aforesaid lapse and inquire into: firstly, whether bandobast was adequate; secondly, the reasons for failure of arrangements; and thirdly, fix responsibility for the admitted lapse.
The Court had also sought a further status report, to be filed, disclosing the aspect with regard to review of security arrangement and what further steps have been taken, so that such incidents don't recur in future.
"We definitely are not at all satisfied with your report with regard to bandobast. You have only said they breached this they breached that and somehow it happened. How can the Police force be heard to say this? A security failure has to come with consequences. We want a report on how things panned out. What was the bandobast initially, how the force reacted on spot," the Bench responded.
Justice Sanghi constituted a Committee, to be led by a District Judge, to keep a close watch and monitor the situation at Adhyatmik Vidyalaya, a spiritual ashram in Rohini led by absconding self-styled godman Virendra Dev Dixit. The ashram is said to confine over 100 women in "animal-like" conditions.
The Court observed that women and children are a vulnerable class and therefore, some vigilance is required to keep a check on the functioning of these institutions
The functioning of the said committee shall be supervised by Ms. Kiran Bedi, former LG of Puducherry. It shall be obligation of the GNCTD to provide whatever assistance is required by her in discharge of her functions.
"We are of the view that a Committee should be constituted so as to keep a close watch on the welfare of the inmates of the Respondent institution, who are all stated to be women above the age of 18 years. The Committee shall function to see and ensure that no woman inmate or child, if any, found in the Respondent institution is subjected to any such treatment which may tantamount to breach of her Fundamental Rights or other legal rights," the Bench said.
Justice Sanghi led Bench had directed the Delhi Government as well as Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board to ensure that ex gratia payments are also made to construction workers whose registration might have lapsed, but are subsequently renewed after due verification.
The Court further directed the concerned authorities that an SMS should be sent to all the registered construction workers, which were 5,39,421 as on 30.09.2018 (minus those whose registrations are already live) informing them about the process of renewing their registration and the documents required for the same. The said SMS, the court directed, could preferably be in Hindi.
The order has come in a PIL claiming that the rights of the construction workers are getting violated due to their non-registration and lack of access to social welfare schemes.