40 Important Delhi HC Judgments Of 2019

Here is a list of 40 major decisions of Delhi HC in 2019(in the order of chronology).1. Upheld Right To Conduct Missionary Activities Reminding the central government authorities that India is a secular country, the high court observed that missionary activities are not prohibited as fundamental right to religion is not restricted to citizens, but is available for all persons, In this case, a Doctor's OCI card was cancelled by the authorities on the ground that he suppressed the real purpose of his visit to the country to carry out evangelical, medical missionary and conversion activities. The authorities had termed that such activities are against the interest of general public leading to unrest and law & order problems. Justice Vibhu Bakhru also held that a person has a right to practice his faith and his rendering medical service, even if it is for furtherance of his religion, cannot be denied. The Court also added that the assumption that missionary activities are against the law of the land, are fundamentally flawed. (Case: Dr. Christo Thomas Philip v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C) No. 1775/2018 & CM No. 27041/2018, decided on 08.01.2019) 2. Dismissed Challenge To Amendments In PMLA Through Money Bill A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V Kameswar Rao dismissed Congress MP Jairam Ramesh's petition seeking to declare the amendments made to the anti-money laundering law since 2015 enacted via Finance Acts as 'Money Bills' as ultra-vires the Constitution and to set aside Sections 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 and 151 of the Finance Act, 2015, Section 232 of the Finance Act, 2016 and Section 208 of the Finance Act, 2018. The High Court was of the view that the petition was filed after much delay and he had no locus to challenge the same. (Case: Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C) 2042/2019 & CM No. 9551/2019, decided on 28.02.2019) 3. Clarified That A Lawyer Is Barred From Appearing Only Before A Court Where His Relative Is A Presiding Judge, Not Before Entire Court Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V. Kameswar Rao observed that a lawyer is only barred from appearing before a particular Court where relative of a lawyer is a Presiding Judge, and not before the 'entire court'. In other words, the bench meant that, the Senior Advocate is not barred from appearing before the Supreme Court, only because his son, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman happens to be a judge there. The bench dismissed Advocate Nedumpara's contention that the word 'court' used in Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, should mean "not only the particular Court where the relative of a lawyer is a Presiding Judge but it should extend to the entire Court where the relative is a Judge." (Case: Mathews Justice Nedumpara & Ors. v. Fali S Nariman & Ors., WP (C) 2199/2019, decided on 06.03.2019) 4. Quashed TRAI's Amendment To Mobile Number Portability Regulations The Delhi High Court has quashed the Mobile Number Portability Per Port Transaction Charge and Dipping Charge [Amendment] Regulations, 2018, holding that it is ultra vires the powers of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India under the TRAI Act, and also contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. The amendment reduced the "Per Port Transaction Charge of Rs. 19 to Rs. 4 and made it payable only if the porting is "successful", i.e. if subscriber successfully transfers his connection from his original TSP. Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Prateek Jalan observed that MNP service providers ought to have been consulted prior to making this new amendment during the consultative process. they said that limiting the entitlement of the MNP service providers to situations of successful porting is not only contrary to the statutory scheme, but also penalizes them for failures which may not be attributable to them at all. Further, the Amendment was also ex facie arbitrary and unreasonable as the per-port transaction charge of Rs. 4/- had been computed on the basis of the number of porting requests received but the same charge has ultimately been granted only for "each successful porting". (Case: Syniverse Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. TRAI & Anr., WP (C) 1507/2018 & CM Appl. No. 6169/2018 & 25847/2018, decided on 08.03.2019) 5. Upheld Circular Asking Schools To Follow Textbooks Prescribed by SCERT/ NCERT/ CBSE The high court dismissed a challenge against stipulations in a circular issued by the Delhi Government to all the schools under it, to follow the textbooks prescribed by the SCERT, NCERT and CBSE. Justice C. Hari Shankar observed that uniformity of dissemination of education, among students, is a necessity. If schools are to be given an absolute discretion to decide the textbooks from which they will teach the students, it would result in the level of education, and the level of knowledge, being possessed by students of the...

40 Important Delhi HC Judgments Of 2019

Akshita Saxena

Tags