60 Important Judgments Of Delhi High Court In 2021

The Delhi High Court gave several significant verdicts in 2021. LiveLaw brings to you the top 60 judgments and orders. 1. "In Its Anxiety To Suppress Dissent, In The Mind Of State, Line Between Right To Protest And Terrorist Activity Seems To Be Getting Blurred": Delhi HC In Natasha Narwal's Bail Order [Natasha Narwal v. State]"We are constrained to express, that it seems, that in its anxiety to suppress dissent, in the mind of the State, the line between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity seems to be getting somewhat blurred" observed the Delhi High Court while granting bail to Natasha Narwal in the Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case involving sections under the UAPA. A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J. Bhambhani also observed that "If this mindset gains traction, it would be a sad day for democracy."The Court also observed that merely because an independent review of the evidence gathered may have been undertaken by an independent authority and the Central Government may have accorded sanction for prosecution for offences under the UAPA, "does not in any manner imply that the court need not apply its own mind to form its own judicial view as to whether any offence under the UAPA is disclosed in the charge-sheet and the material placed alongwith it." 2. Dissent & Right To Protest Fundamental For Democratic Polity; Sole Act Of Protesting Must Not Be Employed As A Weapon To Justify Incarceration Of Protestors: Delhi High Court [Tabassum v. State]"…the sole act of protesting should not be employed as a weapon to justify the incarceration of those who are exercising this right," observed the Delhi High Court as it granted bail to five accused booked in connection with the murder of Head Constable Ratan Lal and causing head injuries to a DCP during the North-East Delhi riots that rocked the national capital last year."It is the Constitutional duty of the Court to ensure that there is no arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty in the face of excess of State power." 3. ''Intellectual Freedom Can't Be Stifled Merely Because View Expressed Is Disagreeable To Some" : Delhi HC While Refusing To Ban Salman Khurshid's Book [Vineet Jindal v. Union of India & Ors.]"The freedom to freely express ideas and opinions cannot be permitted to be overshadowed by the ominous cloud of being non-conformist," said the Delhi High Court while dismissing a plea seeking directions to stop the publication and sale of the book "Sunrise Over Ayodhya" written by Congress Leader and Former Union Minister Salman Khurshid. Justice Yashwant Varma further observed that the right to dissent or to have and express a contrarian view with respect to current affairs or historical events are the essence of a vibrant democracy. "In the considered opinion of this Court, the freedom of speech and expression as conferred and guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution must be zealously protected by Courts unless it is conclusively established that the work would fall foul of the constitutional or statutory restrictions on the exercise of that right which apply. A democracy governed by the rule of law would be placed in serious peril if creative voices were stifled or intellectual freedom suppressed or suffocated," the Court added. 4. 'Right To Protest Not 'Terrorist Act' Under UAPA' : Delhi High Court Finds No Prima Facie Case Against Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal & Devangana Kalita [Natasha Narwal v. State]The Delhi High Court has found that offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) are not made out prima facie against student leaders Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.The Delhi Police had filed chargesheet against them alleging that the protests organized by them against the Citizenship Amendment Act from December 2019 were part of a "larger conspiracy" behind the North East Delhi communal riots which took place in the last week of February 2020. However, a High Court bench comprising Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani, after a preliminary analysis of the chargesheet, observed that the allegations do not prima facie constitute the alleged UAPA offences relating to terrorist activities(Sections 15,17 and 18). "Allegations relating to inflammatory speeches, organising of chakka jaam, instigating women to protest and to stock-pile various articles and other similar allegations, in our view, at worst, are evidence that the appellant participated in organising protests, but we can discern no specific or particularised allegation, much less any material to bear-out the allegation, that the appellant incited violence, what to talk of committing a terrorist act or a conspiracy or act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act as understood in the UAPA"Also Read: "Should This Court Wait Till Right To Speedy Trial Fully Negated?": Delhi High Court While Granting Bail To Delhi...

60 Important Judgments Of Delhi High Court In 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags