70 Important Judgments Of Delhi High Court In 2024 [Part I]

LiveLaw reported 1394 judgments from Delhi High Court in 2024. Here are some of the important decisions:Delhi High Court Fixes Timelines For Interviews, Decision Making Process In Organ Transplant CasesTitle: AMAR SINGH BHATIA & ANR. v. SIR GANGA RAM HOSPITAL & ORS.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 12The Delhi High Court has fixed timelines to be followed by the Authorisation Committee under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, for conducting interviews and decision-making process in organ transplant cases.Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that a time-bound approach is crucial to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of organ transplantation protocols and would also be in furtherance of the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution.Person Converting Religion For Marriage Must Be Informed Of Legal Consequences Like Inheritance, Maintenance: Delhi HC Issues DirectionsTitle: MAKSOOD AHMAD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 70The Delhi High Court has observed that an individual undergoing religious conversion for the purpose of marriage must be fully informed of the legal consequences associated with it and issued a slew of directions to be followed in conversion cases.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that by providing a detailed understanding of the religious and its associated ramifications, the individual must be made aware of the potential shifts in his or her legal standing post-conversion.Retweeting Defamatory Content Amounts To Defamation: Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash Summons Against Arvind KejriwalTitle: Arvind Kejriwal v. State & Anr.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 136The Delhi High Court has refused to quash the summons issued against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a criminal defamation case for retweeting an allegedly defamatory video posted by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in 2018.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that retweeting defamatory content will attract the offence of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.Delhi High Court Allows Examination Of Two Witnesses In US Through Video Conferencing In Commercial SuitTitle: PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY v. RAAJ UNOCAL LUBRICANTS LIMITEDCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 175The Delhi High Court has allowed examination of two witnesses in a commercial suit, residing in the United States of America (USA), to be conducted through video conferencing mode as per the High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021.Justice Sanjeev Narula said courts must foster an environment where the reliability of testimony, whether delivered in person or remotely, remains unimpeachable.Right To Adopt Not A Fundamental Right, Prospective Adoptive Parents Can't Demand Their Choice Of Who To Adopt: Delhi High CourtTitle: DEBARATI NANDEE v. MS. TRIPTI GURHA & ANR and other connected mattersCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 178The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to adopt cannot be raised to the status of a fundamental right within Article 21 of the Constitution of India, nor can it be raised to a level granting Prospective Adoptive Parents (PAPs) the right to demand their choice of who to adopt.Justice Subramonium Prasad said that there is no right at all to insist on the adoption of a particular child before the final order of adoption is passed by the District Magistrate under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.'No Different From You Or Me': Delhi High Court Calls For Using Term 'Differently Abled' For Persons With DisabilitiesTitle: SANJEEV KUMAR MISHRA v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 215Observing that those who suffer from disabilities as recognized by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, are no different from anyone, the Delhi High Court has said that the more appropriate term to use for such persons would be “differently abled” rather than “disabled”.“The RPWD Act, and all laws which strive to provide support to a person suffering from a disability, merely seek to neutralize the disability, so that the person's ability matches those of the rest of his peers, and they stand on an equal footing. This is the heart of the theory of equal opportunity, which pervades Article 14 and, indeed, the Constitution as a whole,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.Policing Not Meant To Serve Interests Of Any Specific Religious Community: High Court On 'Pardanashin' Muslim Woman's Plea Against Delhi PoliceTitle: RESHMA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICECitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 242The Delhi High Court has observed that policing is not tailored to serve the interests of any specific religious or any cultural community alone and has to be guided by the principles of impartiality, fairness, and reasonability.“While respecting cultural sensitivities and religious practices, law enforcement agencies must prioritise the common good and uphold the law without discrimination,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.Regressive To ...

70 Important Judgments Of Delhi High Court In 2024 [Part I]

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags