60 Important Judgments Of Delhi High Court In 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

31 Dec 2021 1:07 PM GMT

  • 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...

    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 Riots Accused Asif Iqbal Tanha

    5. "Let No One Repeat Tragic Last Words 'I Can't Breathe' Like George Floyd": Delhi High Court On Police Assault [Md. Areeb Umar v. NCT of Delhi]

    The Delhi High Court made significant observations on incidents of police brutality, saying that the same is violative of citizens' rights and may often lead to untoward incidents.

    Justice Najmi Waziri, hearing the case of two men assaulted by the officers of Delhi Police, also made a reference to the unfortunate case of African American man, George Floyd, who was killed last during arrest, as a result of asphyxiation which had been brought on by the act of Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, pressing his knee to Floyd's neck for almost nine minutes, despite Floyd repeatedly saying, "I can't breathe".

    "The law does not permit people to be beaten-up in police custody or during interrogation. The assault by the police on the petitioner and his associate is questionable. One can never be too vigilant about the rights of citizens being violated or any callousness or over-reaction by law-enforcers which may lead to an unfortunate incident or tragedy. Let no one have to repeat the tragic last words like George Perry Floyd, Jr.: "I can‟t breathe" Justice Waziri observed.

    6. "Street Dogs Have Right To Food And Citizens Have Right To Feed Them Without Impinging Upon The Rights Of Others: Delhi High Court [DR. MAYA D. CHABLANI v. RADHA MITTAL & ORS.]

    Observing that Street dogs have a right to food and citizens have a right to feed them, the Delhi High Court issued a set of guidelines for feeding and treatment of community dogs after holding that every dog is a territorial being.

    A single judge bench comprising of Justice JR Midha observed thus:

    "Community dogs (stray/street dogs) have the right to food and citizens have the right to feed community dogs but in exercising this right, care and caution should be taken to ensure that it does not impinge upon the rights of others or cause any harm, hindrance, harassment and nuisance to other individuals or members of the society."

    "Every dog is a territorial being, and therefore, the street dogs have to be fed and tended to at places within their territory which are not frequented, or less frequented, and sparingly used by the general public and residents."

    7. "Right Of A Person In Detention To Consult Lawyer Of His Choice Is A Constitutional Right,State Can't Dilute It": Delhi HC Grants Relief To Shifa Ur Rehman [Shifa Ur Rehman v. NCT of Delhi]

    Observing that it is the constitutional right of a person in detention to consult with the lawyer of his choice which cannot be diluted by the State, the Delhi High Court granted relief to Shifa Ur Rehman, President of the Alumni Association of the Jamia Milia Islamia, arrested charged under UAPA in connection with the Delhi Riots that broke out in the national capital last year.

    A single judge bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru observed thus:

    "This Court is unable to accept that in such cases, it is permissible to not comply with the principles of natural justice on the ground that even if same were complied with, it would serve no useful purpose. The right of a person in detention to consult a legal practitioner of his choice is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of India and it is not open for the State to dilute this constitutional on the ground that no purpose would have been served even if such consultation is permitted."

    8. "Individual Liberty Cannot Be Misused In A Manner That Threatens Fabric Of Society By Attempting To Destabilise It, Cause Hurt"- Delhi HC In Riots Case [Mohd. Ibrahim v. State]

    While denying bail to Mohd. Ibrahim in Head Constable Ratan Lal Murder Case during the North East Delhi riots, the Delhi High Court observed that individual liberty cannot be misused in a way that it threatens the fabric of society by attempting to destabilize it or cause hurt to others.

    Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while passing order in connection with 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. (FIR 60/2020 PS DayalPur).

    "This Court has previously opined on the importance of personal liberty in a democratic polity, but it is to be categorically noted that individual liberty cannot be misused in a manner that threatens the very fabric of civilised society by attempting to destabilise it and cause hurt to other persons," the Court said.

    9. IGST Imposition On Import of Oxygen Concentrators As Gift For Personal Use Unconstitutional: Delhi High Court [Gurucharan Singh v. Ministry of Finance]

    The Delhi High Court held that the imposition of IGST on the import of oxygen concentrators by individuals for personal use is unconstitutional.

    The High Court had reserved order in the a 85 year old's plea challenging the levy of IGST on the import of oxygen generators as gift for personal use to India. The petitioner challenged a notification dated 01.05.2021 issued by the Ministry of Finance stating that it would force payment of IGST of 12% on the oxygen concentrator, which was accordingly quashed by the High Court.

    Observing that it is a George Floyd moment for the citizens of this country while quoting "I can't breathe", the Court held that the exclusion of individuals for recieving Oxygen Concentrators as gifts for personal use without going through a canalizing agency as per government notification dated May 3 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

    Also Read: "This Is A George Floyd Moment For Citizens Of This Country": Delhi HC Strikes Down IGST Imposition On Oxygen Concentrators Imported By Individuals

    10. Delhi High Court Issues Directions To Ensure That Custody Of An Undertrial Prisoner Is Not Extended Mechanically [ABHISHEK v. STATE NCT OF DELHI]

    The Delhi High Court issued slew of directions to ensure that the custody of an undertrial is not extended mechanically in view of sec. 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and also to ensure that the rights of undertrial prisoners to seek default bail are not defeated despite legislative mandate and the principles of law.

    Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri also observed that the order of remanding an undertrial or its extension is held to be a judicial function requiring due application of mind.

    The Court directed that while extending the custody of an undertrial prisoner, the Magistrate/concerned Court shall not mechanically extend the period of custody for the maximum period of 15 days as prescribed under sec. 167(2) of CrPC.

    11. 'Many Food Articles Having Ingredients Sourced From Animals Are Passed Off As Veg': Delhi HC Orders Full Disclosure Of Manufacturing Ingredients [Ram Gaua Raksha Dal v. UOI]

    Observing that many food articles which have ingredients sourced from animals are passed off as vegetarian by affixing the green dot, the Delhi High Court directed that there should be full and complete disclosure of all the ingredients which go into the manufacture of any food article.

    Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh 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.

    12. "Indian Society Becoming Homogenous, Traditional Barriers Of Religion Slowly Dissipating": Delhi High Court Bats For Uniform Civil Code [SATPRAKASH MEENA v. ALKA MEENA]

    Observing that the hope expressed under Article 44 of the Constitution should not remain a 'mere hope', the Delhi High Court expressed the need for having a Uniform Civil Code after noting that the Indian society is gradually becoming homogenous while the traditional barriers are slowly disappearing.

    Justice Pratibha M Singh observed,

    "In modern Indian society which is gradually becoming homogenous, the traditional barriers of religion, community and caste are slowly dissipating. The youth of India belonging to various communities, tribes, castes or religions who solemnise their marriages ought not to be forced to struggle with issues arising due to conflicts in various personal laws, especially in relation to marriage and divorce."

    "The hope expressed in Article 44 of the Constitution that the State shall secure for its citizens Uniform Civil Code ought not to remain a mere hope."

    13. CM Advocates' Welfare Scheme Has Laudable Objective But Its Applicability To Only Delhi Residents Is Discriminatory: Delhi High Court [Govind Swaroop Chaturvedi and ors v. State of NCT of Delhi]

    The Delhi High Court ruled that the benefits of the Chief Minister's Advocates' Welfare Scheme have to be extended to all advocates registered with the Bar Council of Delhi, and are residing in the National Capital Region (NCR).

    Ruling thus, the Bench of Justice Prathiba Singh observed that the CM's Advocates' Welfare Scheme has a laudable objective, however its condition that it would apply only to Delhi residents with Voter ID cars is discriminatory and arbitrary.

    "The condition in the Scheme that it would be applicable only to residents in Delhi with Voter IDs, is held to be discriminatory and arbitrary as the sub-classification from amongst the advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, has no rational nexus with the object to be achieved," the Bench observed.

    14. 'Chief Minister's Promise In Press Conference Enforceable' : Delhi High Court Directs To Implement Kejriwal's Assurance On Rent Payment For Poor [NAJMA v. GNCTD]

    In a notable judgment, the Delhi High Court held that a promise or assurance given by the Chief Minister in a press conference amounts to an enforceable promise and that a CM is expected to exercise his authority to give effect to such a promise.

    A single judge bench comprising of Justice Pratibha M Singh observed thus:

    "The promise/assurance/representation given by the CM clearly amounts to an enforceable promise, the implementation of which ought to be considered by the Government. Good governance requires that promises made to citizens, by those who govern, are not broken, without valid and justifiable reasons."

    "The CM is expected to have had the said knowledge and is expected to exercise his authority to give effect to his promise/assurance. To that extent, it would not be out of the place to state that a reasonable citizen would believe that the CM has spoken on behalf of his Government, while making the said promise."

    15. "Inordinate Delay Would Frustrate Decree Holders From Reaping Benefits": Delhi High Court Modifies Guidelines For Expediting Execution Of Decrees, Awards [M/S BHANDARI ENGINEERS & BUILDERS PVT LTD v. M/S MAHARIA RAJ JOINT VENTURE & ORS]

    Observing that an inordinate delay would frustrate the decree holders from reaping benefits, the Delhi High Court modified the guidelines issued by it with regards to the execution of decrees and awards by directing the lower courts to expedite the proceedings within one year of their institution.

    A single judge bench comprising of Justice JR Midha observed thus:

    "Delays and difficulties in execution of decrees/awards erode public confidence and trust in the justice delivery system. Execution jurisdiction deserves special attention and expeditious disposal considering that the decree-holders have already succeeded in the litigation and hold a decree/award in their favour."

    The Court further opined "Justice is the ideal to be achieved by law. Justice is the goal of law. ̳Law as it is', may fall short of 'Law as it ought to be' for doing complete justice in a cause. The gap between the two gives an occasion to the Court to develop the law by evolving juristic principles for doing complete justice according to the current needs of the society."

    16. State And It's Instrumentalities Obliged To Act As Model Employer, Employees' Welfare In Time When Jobs Are Difficult Form Crucial Ingredient In Decision Making Process: Delhi HC [Air India Ltd. v. Kanwardeep Singh Bamrah]

    The High Court observed that the State and its instrumentalities are obliged to act as a model employer and cannot be seen to deprive the pilots of the right to serve the organization at a point in time when finding jobs in the private sector is a difficult proposition.

    "The State and its instrumentalities are expected to look at myriad aspects and not just profits. Welfare of employees in times when jobs are difficult to come by should form a crucial ingredient of its decision making process. The State cannot be seen to cast off its social responsibility towards its employees and their families when it expects the private sector to bear that burden," the Court said.

    "The reason given, broadly, was that they could not afford being without a job. Since the period of disengagement had continued for far too long, they had taken up other avenues of engagement that came their way and therefore, the only relief that they sought was, payment of back wages till such time they found alternate jobs," the Court noted.

    17. Rights Of Persons With Disability Act Not An Embargo On Exercise Of Parens Patriae Jurisdiction By HC Under Article 226: Delhi High Court [SD v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.]

    The Delhi High Court held that the Rights of Persons With Disability Act, 2016 Act or the Rules framed thereunder do not create any embargo on the exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction by it under Article 226 of the Constitution.

    "So long as the "wills and preferences" of the mentally ill person and the other factors set out in the rules are borne in mind by the Court exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, it cannot be held that the High Court exercising power under Article 226 is denuded of power in view of the provisions of the RPWD-2016 Act or the Rules thereunder," observed Justice Pratibha M Singh.

    While going through the Indian laws as well as the international convention on the subject, the Court highlighted certain concerns with regards to Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016 and Mental Healthcare Act 2017. The said concerns were also expressed by legislators, when the bills of the two statutes were being debated and discussed in the Parliament.

    In this backdrop, the Court was of the view that the Mental Healthcare Act 2017 has to be interpreted as having been enacted only to deal with the delivery of mental healthcare, and services and for connected matters.

    18. Unreasonable Denial Of Employee's Inter Cadre Transfer Request By State Impinges Upon Right To Demand Respect For Family Life: Delhi HC [LAKSHMI BHAVYA TANNEERU v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.]

    The Delhi High Court observed that unreasonable denial of an employee's request seeking inter cadre transfer by the State impinges upon such person's right to demand respect for her or his family life.

    "We have no doubt that the right to meaningful family life, which allows a person to live a fulfilling life and helps in retaining her/his physical, psychological and emotional integrity would find a place in the four corners of Article 21 of the Constitution of India2. Therefore, when the State unreasonably denies a request of an employee [in this case, the petitioner] seeking inter-cadre transfer, it impinges upon such person's right to demand respect for her/his family life," a bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh observed.

    19. 'Entitled To Right To Be Forgotten & Protection From Invasion Of Privacy': Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Bengali Actress [X v. HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=IQ6K5Z3ZYS0 & Ors.]

    Citing the right to be forgotten and entitlement to protection of privacy from invasion by strangers, the Delhi High Court granted interim relief to a Bengali actress, seeking restraint on publication and streaming of her naked videos on various online platforms including YouTube.

    Justice Asha Menon, as an interim measure, directed the defendants to remove or pull down the impugned videos.

    "...this Court is also of the opinion that the right to privacy of the plaintiff is to be protected, especially when it is her person that is being exhibited, and against her will," the Bench observed at the outset.

    Further, placing reliance on a decision delivered by another bench of the Delhi High Court which observed that the "right to privacy" includes the right to be forgotten and the right to be left alone as "inherent aspects", the Court observed thus:

    "In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the plaintiff is entitled "to be left alone" and "to be forgotten", she is entitled to protection from invasion of her privacy by strangers and anonymous callers on account of such publication/streaming/transmission of the suit videos by the defendants."

    20. Freedom Of Movement A Constitutional Guarantee, Should Not Be Hemmed-In By Lack Of Requisite Civil Amenities: Delhi High Court [BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. GYANESH BHARTI & ORS]

    The Delhi High Court observed that the constitutional guarantee of citizens' freedom of movement as enshrined in the Constitution should not be hemmed in by the lack of civic amenities.

    "While freedom of movement is a constitutional guarantee, it should not be hemmed-in by the lack of requisite civic amenities. Citizens need to be empowered and facilitated in the enjoyment of their constitutional rights, for which provision of basic civic amenities is essential, like a safe and secure neighbourhood, tree-lined avenues and footpaths, where an endeavour of a leisurely stroll is actually a pleasurable exercise and not an obstacle-dodging, harrowing experience," Justice Najmi Waziri said.

    21. "Right Of Access To Justice Gravely Hampered Due To Pandemic; Take Expeditious Steps For Hybrid Courts Infrastructure": High Court To Delhi Govt [ANIL KUMAR HAJELAY & ORS. v. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI]

    Observing that citizens' right of access to justice has been gravely hampered due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Government to take expeditious steps for providing infrastructure and other facilities for hybrid hearings in district courts and quasi-judicial bodies in the national capital.

    "This is a bullet that they would have to bite. In our view, it is only the matter of prioritizing the expenditure that government has to incur on several of its activities. We are mindful of the fact that there is a huge ambit of expenditure in not only providing subsidies but also on advertising. The expenditure that the present proposal requires would only be a fraction of the same," observed the bench.

    "Access to justice is the right which is available to all citizens and on account of ongoing pandemic, the same has been gravely hampered. The district courts as well as consumer forums/ tribunals are not being able to function efficiently due to lack of infrastructure and other facilities. The arrears of cases are mounting, people have to wait for redressal of their grievances," added the bench.

    22. Right To Access To Drinking Water Is A Fundamental Right And It Is The Duty Of State Under Article 21 To Provide It To Citizens:Delhi High Court [Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Building Society Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.]

    Delhi High Court held that right to access to drinking water is fundamental to life and there is a duty of the State under Article 21 of the Constitution to provide clean drinking water to its citizens

    Justice Jayant Nath also held that the petitioners cannot be denied basic facilities including the right to access drinking water merely on the ground that they reside in unauthorized colony. 

    The Court relied on the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board II vs. Prof.M. V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 62 wherein it was held that the right to access to drinking water is fundamental to life and there is a duty on the State under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to its citizens.

    It was therefore held that the petitioners cannot be deprived of a right to access to drinking water merely on the ground that it is an unauthorized colony. "The petitioners have been residing in the said area for the last 50 years and cannot continuously be deprived of this right to access to drinking and portable water." The bench held.

    23. Expenses Borne By Prosecutrix During Live In Relationship Would Not Constitute Criminal Offence: Delhi High Court [RAHUL KUSHWAHA v. STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI]

    The Delhi High Court observed that in a live-in relationship where both partners are living together, it would not be a criminal offence in case expenses are borne by the prosecutrix or by both the partners.

    Justice Mukta Gupta made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to a man in a rape case filed by the prosecutrix with an allegation that she was made to spend Rs. 1,25,000 under pressure.

    "In a live-in relationship where both the partners are living together, it is not that only one partner has to bear the expenses and in case expenses are born by the prosecutrix or both bear the expenses, the same would not be a criminal offence," the Court observed.

    24. Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines For Declaring Persons As Proclaimed Offenders & Their Early Apprehension [SUNIL TYAGI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR]

    The Delhi High Court issued detailed guidelines to be followed while declaring a person as a Proclaimed Offender so as to ensure that the process under sec. 82 and 83 of CrPC is not issued in a routine manner and due process of law is followed.

    The directions also state detailed mechanism for early apprehension of such proclaimed offenders including a direction that a Digital Surveillance System shall be placed by the Delhi Police by giving access to specific departments for tracking such proclaimed offenders.

    A single judge bench comprising of Justice JR Midha set out detailed guidelines after observing thus:

    "This Court is of the view that declaring a person as a Proclaimed Offender leads to a serious offence under Section 174A IPC which is punishable for a period upto 3 or 7 years. It affects the life and liberty of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it is necessary to ensure that the process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC is not issued in a routine manner and due process of law is followed."

    25. "Delhi Govt Not Opened Up To Reality": Delhi HC Issues Directions For Complying To JJ Act, Protection Of Children Orphaned, On Streets In Covid [Rakesh Malhotra v. GNCTD]

    Observing that the Delhi Government has not yet opened up to reality for coming up with enough mechanism to safeguard the rights of children, the Delhi High Court 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 therby being orphaned and also for children left on streets without having necessary covid 19 facilities.

    Opining that there is a complete bankruptcy in the departments of the Delhi Government, a division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh ordered thus:

    "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."

    " 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."

    26. 'Grave Matter, Requires Immediate Attention' : Delhi High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of Rohini Court Firing Incident [Court on its own motion v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.]

    The Chief Justice led bench of the Delhi High Court had taken suo moto cognizance of the recent gun firing incident inside Delhi's Rohini Court hall.

    "This is a grave matter and requires immediate attention," observed the Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh at the outset.

    It had impleaded the Commissioner of Delhi Police, Ministry of Home Affairs and the Union Law Ministry as Respondent parties. The Court has also added all the Bar Associations in Delhi, including the Delhi High Court Bar Association as Respondents.

    A shocking incident of gun-firing took place in a court room in Delhi's Rohini Court. As per various media reports, Gangster Jitendra Gogi was shot dead in a broad daylight shootout that took place in Rohini court today. Media portals have reported that apart from Gogi, 3 others have been killed in the shootout.

    27. Delhi High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of Fire At Nehru Place Market, Directs Authorities To Ensure No Hawking & Vending Policy [COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS]

    Taking suo moto cognizance of an incident of fire reported in a building at Nehru Place, District Commercial Centre, the Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police and the South Delhi Municipal Corporation to ensure no hawking and vending policy on a daily basis.

    Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh 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.

    Also Read: 'Nehru Place Should Not Become A Slum': Delhi High Court Seeks SDMC's Suggestions On Management Of Squatters

    28. 'Memory Of Second Wave Hasn't Left Us' : Delhi High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of COVID Protocol Violations [Court on its own motion v. GNCTD]

    Taking suo motu cognizance about concerns regarding mass violations of Covid-19 protocol in overcrowded Delhi markets since the unlocking of the city, the Delhi High Court issued notice to the Centre and Delhi governments on the issue.

    The bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Asha Menon remarked on pictures produced by an AIIMS doctor with the court, "The memory of the second wave has not left us, yet people behave in this manner. This is very unfortunate."

    The images received via WhatsApp showed people without masks not following Covid-19 appropriate behaviour such as social distancing in crowded marketplaces.

    29. "Steps Taken By GNCTD, Municipal Corporations Have Taken A Back Seat": Delhi HC Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of Mosquito Infestation, Rise Of Vector Borne Diseases Amid Covid [Re: Mosquito Infestation in NCT of Delhi]

    The Delhi High Court took 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 have taken a "back seat" in tackling the spread of Dengue and Chikungunya viruses.

    A division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh took the suo moto cognizance and ordered thus:

    "We are inclined to take suo moto cognizance of the mosquito infestation which is prevalent in GNCTD. It appears that in account of the prevailing Pandemic situation, steps by GNCTD and municipal corporations have taken a back seat."

    Owing to the surge in such vector borne diseases each other this time, the Court directed all the municipal corporations of Delhi, the Delhi Government and other authorities to inform the Court about the steps they are undertaking and they are willing to undertake in the GNCTD on the aforesaid issue.

    30. Delhi High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of "Stubborn Reluctance To Wear Masks Properly" On Flight; Issues Guidelines [COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ORS.]

    Justice C Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court,taking suo-motu cognizance of what he described as an "alarming situation" on an Air India flight bound towards Delhi from Kolkata on March 5, had issued slew of directions to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and commercial airlines in the country with respect to in-flight Covid-19 protocol.

    He noted that "though all the passengers had worn masks, many passengers had worn the masks below their chin and were exhibiting a stubborn reluctance to wear their masks properly."

    However, he said that while the court does not intend to criticise efforts by the Government authorities in trying to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic situation, "Sensitization of the citizenry has to precede, not succeed, galvanization of the governmental machinery."

    31. No Further Extension Of Interim Bails By District Courts, Closes Suo Moto Extension Of Interim Orders Plea: Delhi High Court [COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI]

    The Delhi High Court disposed of its plea concerning the suo moto petition registered on the extension of interim orders in all matters pending before it and subordinate Courts including interim bails.

    Modifying it's order dated 20th April, 2021, a full bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi, Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Talwant Singh directed that the interim bails granted by the district courts shall not be further extended under the orders of the High Court.

    The bench also directed that in order to facilitate their surrender before jail authorities and to avoid any inconvenience being caused to the jail authorities during surrender of a large number of undertrials, the surrender shall take place in a phased manner.

    "The above 793 prisoners are at liberty to move the respective courts for extension of their interim bails and the concerned courts shall consider the said applications for extension of interim bails on its own merits and take a decision accordingly, without being influenced by any order passed by this Court in the past," the Court added.

    32. 'Courts Must Play Doctor & Save Rights From Demise Before They Are Extinguished': Delhi HC Grants Bail To Man Incarcerated For 12 Yrs In 2008 Serial Blasts Case [Mohd. Hakim v. State]

    The Delhi High Court granted bail to a man incarcerated as an undertrial for over 12 years in connection with 2008 serial blasts case after observing that Courts must play doctor and save constitutional rights from demise before they are extinguished.

    Justice Anup J Bhambhani and Justice Siddharth Mridul observed thus:

    "Courts must not play coroner and attend to legal or constitutional rights only after they are "dead‟. Instead we must play doctor, and save such rights from demise before they are extinguished."

    "Courts should pro-actively step-in to protect such rights from being stifled and buried. If equity calls upon affected persons to be vigilant to protect their rights, then surely the courts must also be vigilant, and, to quote the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, act as sentinels on the qui vive when it comes to protecting constitutional and legal rights."

    Also Read: 9 Years In Custody; Trial Not Complete : Delhi High Court Grants Bail To NDPS Accused; Says Process Becoming Punishment

    33. Bank Employees Owe Larger Responsibility To Uphold Customers' Trust, Even Suspicion Of Fraud With Some Credibility Sufficient To Dismiss From Service: Delhi HC [ASSTT GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA v. ASHOK KUMAR BHATIA]

    The Delhi High Court observed that the employees and officials working in banks have a larger responsibility of ensuring the integrity of the banking system and maintaining the trust of the millions of customers, who repose faith in them.

    Observing that the banking system is the backbone of any country's economy, Justice Pratibha M Singh said that once there is a loss of confidence, that too by a Bank qua one of its officials, the standard on which such loss of faith or confidence is to be tested cannot be a very high standard.

    "Even a suspicion or doubt, with some credibility or some evidence, would be sufficient to objectively uphold the dismissal from service," it said.

    34. No Requirement For CMM To Fix Time Limit For Taking Possession Of Secured Asset While Exercising Jurisdiction Under Sec. 14 Of SARFAESI Act: Delhi HC [HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. v. RAKESH KUMAR & ORS.]

    The Delhi High Court held that there is no requirement or justification for a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to fix a time limit for taking possession of the secured asset while exercising jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

    Justice Amit Bansal also held that in context of the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, an order passed in a civil suit instituted by a third party in respect of the mortgaged property or secured asset would not bind the secured creditor, if the said secured creditor was not a party to the Civil Suit.

    35. 'Defective, Vexatious' : Delhi High Court Dismisses Juhi Chawla's Civil Suit Against 5G Roll Out With Rs 20 Lakhs Cost [JUHI CHAWLA & ORS. v. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH BOARD & ORS.]

    Imposing a heavy cost of Rupees 20 lakhs on actor Juhi Chawla , the Delhi High Court dismissed her civil suit against 5G Roll out as "defective and not maintainable"

    "Vexatious allegations were made", a single bench of Justice J R Midha noted in the order.

    "This is a classic textbook case of, how not to draft a plaint, which should be taught in law colleges and to young lawyers so that such bloopers in drafting of pleadings, damaging to one's own client, are avoided", the High Court observed in the judgment.

    The Court termed the suit an "abuse of process of law" which resulted in wastage of judicial time. Therefore, a cost of Rs 20 laksh was imposed, which was directed to be deposited before the Delhi Legal Services Authority. Also, the balance court fee payable of Rs 1,95, 594/- was also directed to be deposited. DSLSA shall utilize this cost for the cause of the victims of road accidents.

    Also Read: Classic Textbook Case Of How Not To Draft A Plaint, Which Should Be Taught In Law Colleges : Delhi High Court About Juhi Chawla's Suit

    36. Juvenile Justice Act: Delhi High Court Terminates All Petty Offences Cases Against Children Where Inquiry Is Pending For Over 1 Year [COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE]

    The Delhi High Court directed that all cases alleging petty offences against children or juveniles, where the inquiry has been pending and remains inconclusive for a period longer than one year, regardless of whether such child or juvenile has been produced before the Juvenile Justice Boards in Delhi, shall stand terminated with immediate effect. The order was passed in view of Section 14 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

    The Court noted that the long pendency of cases was due to pandemic, where children were not produced before the JJ Boards. It was understood by the stakeholders that the time of 04 months stipulated in section 14 would begin to run only after the date of first production of the child before the JJB, hundreds of matters relating even to petty offences have been languishing at various stages for much longer than 04 months.

    The Court thus made it clear that:

    "...since section 14 says that the period of 04 months shall run from the date of first production of the child before the JJB, we direct that in consonance with the spirit of section 10, the child must be so produced before the JJB, whether or not apprehended or otherwise detained, without any loss of time but in any case within a period of twenty-four hours of the child becoming subject of processes under the JJ Act."

    Also Read: Delhi High Court Orders Release Of Child In Conflict With Law, Incarcerated In Observation Home Despite Bail

    Also Read: "JJBs To Review Progress Of Child In Conflict With Law, Ensure Post Release Plans": Delhi High Court Issues Slew Of Directions

    37. 'Central Vista Project Of National Importance' : Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Suspend Work Amid COVID; Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Petitioners [ANYA MALHOTRA & ANR. v. UOI]

    A division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh  dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- a public interest litigation seeking the temporary suspension of construction work on Central Vista Redevelopment Project, in light of Covid

    The court said that the government had already stated that the workers were "staying on site" and all arrangements had been made to ensure Covid-19 appropriate behaviour on site.

    Therefore, the court refused to stay the construction work on the project stating that, "As the workers are staying on site, no question of suspending the construction work arises in light of Covid-19." The court also termed the petition a "motivated petition" and not a "genuine public interest litigation".

    38. "State Has Failed In Protecting Basic Right To Life Under Art. 21": Delhi High Court Remarks During Oxygen Shortage Hearing [Rakesh Malhotra v. GNCTD]

    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 of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli of the Delhi High Court, was informed of the passing away of the brother-in-law of Adv. Amit Sharma, seeking help for whom he had approached the court earlier.

    39. Medical/Health Insurance Essential Services During COVID, Employees Of Insurance Companies Can't Be Restrained From Free Movement: Delhi HC [Max Bupa Health Insurance Co Limited v. Government of NCT Delhi and Anr.]

    Underlining that medical insurance and health insurance services are essential services during the COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Delhi High Court observed that the employees of insurance companies cannot be restrained from free movement, as their movement is essential during the situation of a pandemic.

    The Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh was dealing with a plea filed by the Petitioner Insurance Company, Max Bupa Health Insurance Co Limited which is engaged in the business of health insurance plans and mediclaim policies.

    The Bench also observed that during the pandemic, the issuance of an e-pass should not be made a complex process for persons dealing with health insurance policies and claims as it would result in enormous delays.

    40. Financial Constraints Or Pandemic Not Grounds For State Agencies To Sack Employees : Delhi High Court In Air India Pilots Case [ARJUN AHLUWALIA v. AIR INDIA LIMITED]

    "State or its Agencies under Article 12 of the Constitution cannot claim financial constraints or impact of the Pandemic as a ground for dispensing the services of its employees" observed the Delhi High Court in its judgment quashing Air India's decision terminating pilots by directing their reinstatement with back wages.

    A single judge bench comprising of Justice Jyoti Singh held thus:

    "State or its Agencies under Article 12 of the Constitution cannot claim financial constraints or impact of the Pandemic as a ground for dispensing the services of its employees, in the manner adopted in the present case. State has a fiduciary duty to perform towards the citizens under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution and thus it becomes the bounden duty of a welfare State to secure the rights of livelihood of the citizens. In view of the above findings and circumstances, it is held that financial crunch cannot be a relevant consideration in deciding the issue of acceptance of resignations."

    41. 'Can't Prosecute Good Samaritans For Providing Oxygen When State, Centre Failed': Delhi High Court [Rakesh Malhotra v. GNCTD]

    The Delhi High Court pulled up the Drug Controller of the Delhi Government for initiating prosecution against AAP MLA Praveen Kumar for procuring medical oxygen after observing that such an action cannot be initiated in a situation where both Centre and the Delhi Government failed to provide sufficient oxygen to people.

    Calling it an action of targetting a particular political party, the Court also said that the Drug Controller, while following the same reasoning, should also prosecute Gurudwaras, temples and other organizations as well who had procured medical oxygen during the second covid wave.

    "How can you prosecute him? The State, both GNCTD and Union, failed in providing sufficient oxygen to people in Delhi. There were some Samaritans who provided oxygen. You can't prosecute them," a division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh said.

    42. "Mask Is Like A Suraksha Kavach": Delhi High Court Holds Wearing Of Mask Compulsory Even While Alone In Vehicle [SAURABH SHARMA v. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE (EAST) & ORS.]

    A single judge bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh dismissed writ petitions challenging the imposition of fines by the Delhi government on persons not wearing masks while travelling alone in personal vehicles. The Court said that the mask is like a "suraksha kavach" protecting both the person wearing it and those around.

    "Scientists and international governments advise wearing of a mask. The challenge of the pandemic was enormous and the wearing of face masks is necessary whether a person is vaccinated or not," the Court said.

    The Court held that a private vehicle moving in a public place, even if occupied by a single person, is a "public place" for the purposes of COVID-19 control.

    "A vehicle which is moving across the city, even if occupied at a given point in time by one person, would be a public place owing to the immediate risk of exposure to other persons under varying circumstances. Thus, a vehicle even if occupied by only one person would constitute a 'public place' and wearing of a mask therein,would be compulsory. The wearing of a mask or a face cover in a vehicle, which may be occupied by either a single person or multiple persons is thus,held to be compulsory in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic".

    43. SDM Issuing Notices At Residence Of Couple Seeking Registration Of Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Prima Facie Contempt Of Court: Delhi High Court [PARVEEN BANO & ANR. v. CHANDRA SHEKHAR SDM SOUTH WEST]

    The Delhi High Court observed that the act of a Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) to issue notices at the residence of a couple seeking registration of marriage under the Special Marriage Act is prima facie contempt of court as being in clear violation of its earlier directions issued in 2009 directing all Marriage Officers to not despatch notices to the residence of the applicants, seeking solemnization of their marriage under Chapter II of the Act.

    Justice Najmi Waziri reiterated that the prohibition to send such notices is put in place which could otherwise jeopardize the plans of the applicants or become a cause for threat to their lives or limb.

    "Despite the above, the respondent/SDM, South West District, issued notices at the residence of one of the applicants/petitioners apropos the registration of marriage sought by him and his partner, under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 on 25.02.2020," the Court said.

    44. Advocates Have Right To Practice Before Maintenance Tribunals: Delhi HC Declares S.17 Of Senior Citizens Act Ultra Vires To S.30 Advocate Act [Tarun Saxena v. Union of India & Ors.]

    The Delhi High Court declared as ultra vires Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which bars lawyers from representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals.

    The order is in line with the judgment delivered by a Division bench of the Kerala High Court in April this year, stating that the provision is ultra vires of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

    Relying on the aforesaid decision of the Kerala High Court, Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed,

    "...since Section 17 has been declared ultra vires Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, it would obviously mean that an advocate would have the right to represent parties before the Tribunal under the Act. Ordered accordingly."

    45. Inter-Country Adoptions: Delhi High Court Asks Centre To Submit its Report On A Permanent Mechanism To Deal With Inter-Country Adoptions [RK & Anr. v. CARA]

    The Delhi High Court directed the Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India to file a report before it regarding the manner and mode of creating a permanent mechanism to deal with inter-country adoptions under Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, both direct and indirect, within a period of two months.

    In order to ensure the welfare of the adopted children and to provide a timely mechanism for the biological/adoptive parents as also the child, in view of the experience of Central Adoption Resource Authority(CARA) in dealing with inter country adoptions, the court directed CARA to act as the Authority for the purposes of enabling inter country adoptions under HAMA.

    Also Read: Inter Country Adoptions: Delhi HC Issues Directions For Enabling Parties To Obtain Certification From DMs, Foreign Authorities And CARA

    Also Read: Will Consider Permitting Advocates To Appear As 'Authorized Representatives' To Facilitate Formalities In Inter-Country Adoptions: CARA Tells Delhi HC

    46. Emergency Arbitration Recognized By Current Legal Framework; No Need For Amendment, Says Delhi High Court [AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC v. FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.]

    An Emergency Arbitrator is an 'Arbitrator' for all intents and purposes of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, held the Delhi High Court in the high-profile Amazon-Future case.

    While allowing Amazon's plea to enforce the emergency award against the Future-Reliance deal, the High Court held that an emergency award is enforceable under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

    A single bench of Justice JR Midha held that the current legal framework for recognizing emergency arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is sufficient and no amendment in the laws is necessary in this regard. The Court held that sec. 17(1) of the Act empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to pass interim orders which are enforceable under sec. 17(2) of the Act. Such order is thereafter appealable under sec. 37 of the Act.

    "The current legal framework is sufficient to recognize the Emergency Arbitration and there is no necessity for an amendment in this regard. In that view of the matter, reference to 246th Law Commission Report does not help the respondents."

    "The Emergency Arbitration is a very effective and expeditious mechanism to deal with the Emergency Interim Relief Application and has added a new dimension to the protection of the rights of the parties. The advantage of the Emergency Arbitration mechanism is that a litigant is able to get the justice within 15 days, which is not possible in Courts. However, if the order of the Emergency Arbitrator is not enforced, it would make the entire mechanism of Emergency Arbitration redundant."

    47. Agatha Christie's Book "And Then There Were None" A Distinctive Mark : Delhi HC Directs Trademark Registration [AGATHA CHRISTIE LIMITED v. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS]

    The Delhi High Court quashed an order which has refused the registration of trademark to Agatha Christie Limited, a Company established in 1955 by famous book writer Agatha Christie, for one of her works "And There Were None".

    Justice C Hari Shankar set aside the order dated 14 January, 2021 rejecting the company's application seeking registration of trademark and remitted the matter back to the office of the Registrar of Trade Marks.

    Justice Harishankar observed at the outset that he heard the matter after disclosing that he was an "avowed aficionado and an admirer of Agatha Christie".

    "The right to register a mark under which one intends to provide good or services is a valuable right, partaking of the character of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Any decision not to allow registration of a mark has, therefore, to be informed by reasons which should be apparent on the face of the decision. The impugned order, in my view, is bereft of sufficient reasons to justify the decision taken therein," the Court said.

    48. RTI- CPIO/PIO Cannot Function As 'Post Offices' And Withhold Information Without Reasonable Cause, Delhi High Court [RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA (ERSTWHILE CPIO) UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS. v. CIC]

    The Delhi High Court recently held that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or PIOs cannot withhold information without reasonable cause and that such officers cannot function merely as "post offices" while dealing with information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

    The judgment was delivered by a Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Pratibha M. Singh.

    The Court while reiterating various principles of the CPIOs and other Public information Officers held that the government departments cannot be permitted to evade disclosure of information. In cases where the department is of an opinion that any information is not available or traceable, a thorough search and enquiry must be conducted.

    Also Read: Personal Information Having No Relation To Any Public Activity, Public Interest Cannot Be Disclosed Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

    49. Delhi High Court Quashes Govt Orders Preventing Pvt Unaided Schools From Collecting Annual Charges, Development Fees During Lockdown [Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools v. Directorate of Education]

    The Delhi High Court quashed two orders issued by the Delhi Government dated 18th April and 28th August 2020 restraining private schools from collecting Annual Charges and Development Fees from students amid covid 19 lockdown.

    Justice Jayant Nath held thus:

    "The impugned acts are prejudicial to the said Schools and would cause an unreasonable restriction in their functioning. In the above facts and circumstances, clearly the impugned orders dated 18.04.2020 and 28.08.2020 issued by the respondent to the extent that they forbid the petitioner/postpone collection of Annual Charges and Development Fees are illegal and ultra vires the powers of the respondent stipulated under the DSE Act and the Rules. The orders to that extent are quashed."

    "The power of the respondent DOE is for prevention of commercialization of education. Clearly in the absence of a finding of commercialization of education or exploitation the respondent cannot indefinitely cut down the established fees or restrain a said school from collecting a portion of the existing fees," the Court added.

    50. GST Authorities' Power Of Arrest Under CGST Act Prima Facie Constitutional : Delhi High Court [DHRUV KRISHAN MAGGU v. UOI]

    The Delhi High Court expressed a prima facie view to uphold Sections 69 and 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act provision which gives the authorities the power to arrest any person if there exists a "reason to believe" that the person has committed tax evasion.

    A Division Bench of Justices Manmohan Singh and Sanjeev Narula was hearing a plea preferred by a man and a firm who had allegedly availed of fraudulent IGST refund as well as Input Tax Credits.

    "Accordingly, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that even if Sections 69 and 132of the Act could not have been enacted in pursuance to power under Article 246A, they could have been enacted under Entry 1 of List III, as laying down of a crime and providing for its punishment is criminal law.Consequently, this Court is of the prima facie view that in either option both Sections 69 and 132 of the Act are constitutional and fall within the legislative competence of Parliament"

    51. Delhi High Court Directs Setting Up Of Rare Diseases Fund, Committee & Notification Of Policy [Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.]

    The Delhi High Court directed the Centre to set up a Rare Diseases Committee, a Rare Diseases Fund and to finalise and notify the National Health Policy for Rare Diseases on or before March 31, 2021 taking into account the court's directions from today's order.

    The Rare Diseases Committee, which has been designated as the nodal agency and primary manager of the Rare Diseases Fund, will be responsible to carry out the task of examining applications for treatment and funding of rare diseases and will be set up at the All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).

    While stating that the government may consider increasing the budget for rare diseases for the upcoming financial year, the Court also directed that the entire unspent budget allocated for rare diseases for the past three years shall be immediately moved into the Rare Diseases Fund.

    Also Read: "Children Are Dying": Delhi High Court Raps Centre Over Non-Utilization Of Unspent Budget, Allocated To Rare Diseases Fund

    Also Read: Delhi High Court Orders For Treatment Of Children Suffering From Rare Diseases, Directs Centre To Ensure Availability Of Necessary Funds

    52. Delhi High Court Transfers Probe Into Alleged Murder Of Tihar Inmate Ankit Gujjar To CBI [GEETA AND ORS v. STATE & ORS]

    The Delhi High Court transferred the probe into 29 year old Tihar Jail inmate, Ankit Gujjar's alleged murder inside the jail premises, from Delhi Police to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

    "Walls of prison, howsoever high they may be, the foundation of a prison is laid on the Rule of Law ensuring the rights to its inmates enshrined in the Constitution of India," said the Court.

    The Court also added that it has issued directions to Director General of Prisons on the issue of laxity in not providing proper treatment on time and also for making necessary rules and regulations so that when CCTV cameras are not working inside jail premises, officers don't take advantage of the same.

    Also Read: "Witnesses In Ankit Gujjar Death Case Kept Under CCTV Surveillance, Jail Staff Briefed For Keeping Safety & Security": Delhi High Court Told

    Also Read: "Examined 60 Witnesses, Investigation Likely To Reach A Substantial Stage In One Month": CBI Tells Delhi HC In Ankit Gujjar Death Case Inside Tihar Jail

    53. Taxation Relaxation Act Does Not Validate Reassessment Notices Issued Under Old Income Tax Act Regime : Delhi High Court Quashes 1.3K Notices [MON MOHAN KOHLI v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.]

    The Delhi High Court held that sec. 3(1) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 empowers the Government or Executive to extend only the time limits and does not delegate the power to legislate on provisions to be followed for initiation of reassessment proceedings.

    Pursuant to the lockdown imposed in March last year amid the covid 19 pandemic, looking at the difficulties faced by citizens in complying with the statutory time limits, the Legislature enacted Relaxation Act, 2020.

    "Revenue cannot rely on Covid-19 for contending that the new provisions Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not operate during the period 1st April, 2021 to 30th June, 2021 as Parliament was fully aware of Covid-19 Pandemic when it passed the Finance Act, 2021. Also, the arguments of the respondents qua non-obstante clause in Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 'legal fiction' and 'stop the clock provision' are contrary to facts and untenable in law," the Court observed.

    54. Municipal Corporation Can't Shirk Responsibility By Removing Encroachments Occasionally, Has To Keep Regular Check: Delhi High Court [RAJAN v. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR]

    The Delhi High Court 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".

    Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh observed:

    "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."

    55. "Interests Of Deity And Devotees Are Paramount": Delhi HC Issues Directions Regarding Administration, Maintenance Of Kalkaji Temple And Bari Rights [NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA]

    Observing that the interests of deity and devotees are paramount, the Delhi High Court issued slew of directions regarding the administration and maintenance of Kalkaji Temple as also for resolution of disputes pertaining to the bari rights between baridaars to ensure smooth functioning of the temple.

    Observing that there is a need to streamline the manner in which offerings and donations are made in the temple by the devotees, Justice Pratibha M Singh said:

    "The Court cannot turn a blind eye to the situation on ground, which appears to be a result of the multifarious disputes between the baridaars and the litigations filed, in respect thereof, before various Courts."

    "Owing to encroachments, unauthorised constructions, lack of unity amongst the baridaars, the callous conduct of the civic agencies and the police, there is no doubt that the Mandir and the complex surrounding the same could lead to untoward incidents."

    56. "Non-Availability Of Enabling Infra For Persons With Disability Glaring Throughout City": HC Directs Delhi Govt To Conduct Social Disability Audit [JYOTI SINGH v. NAND KISHORE & ORS]

    Observing that the non-availability of enabling infrastructure for persons with disability is glaring and apparent throughout the city, the Delhi High Court called for a Social Disability Audit to be conducted by the Delhi Government within six weeks for the purpose of assessing the existing public infrastructure, including roads and other modes of transportation with regards to accessibility for persons with disabilities.

    "The non-availability of requisite and enabling infrastructure for persons with disability is glaring and apparent throughout the city. It is also a violation of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Freedom of movement has to be honoured and assured in every way possible, it cannot be restrained by lack of civic amenities," Justice Najmi Waziri observed.

    57. Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Rakesh Asthana's Appointment As Delhi Police Commissioner [Sadre Alam v. Union of India]

    The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition which challenged the appointment of IPS Officer Rakesh Asthana as the Commissioner of Delhi Police.

    A division bench comprising Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed the petition filed by one Sadre Alam. The NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation' had intervened in the petition through Advocate Prashant Bhushan challenging Asthana's appointment.

    It held that directions issued by the Supreme Court in the decisions rendered in Prakash Singh's Case (I) and Prakash Singh's Case (II) are applicable only for appointment to the post of "DGP of a State", and not the Union Territories.

    "The judgement and the directions therein, have no application for appointment of Commissioners/Police Heads of Union Territories falling under the AGMUT Cadre," the Bench ruled.

    58. COVID- One Time Relief Measure: Cap of 20 Lakh Beneficiaries for Distribution of Non-PDS Ration Arbitrary and Ad-hoc, Says Delhi High Court [Rozi Roti Abhiyan v. GNCTD]

    Forming a prima facie observation that the policy appears to be arbitrary and an ad hoc figure, the Delhi High Court on Friday said that even on a broad brush basis to say that there are only 20 lacs non PDS Beneficiaries looking for food grain under the Delhi Government's guidelines will be a substantial under-estimation.

    The observation came in the plea filed by Delhi Rozi Roti Adhikar Abhiyan challenging the non PDS guidelines dated 27 May 2021 issued by NCT of Delhi which provided for good grain to be given to people without ration cards as a one time relief measure in view of economic and other impacts of covid 19 pandemic and consequent lockdowns.

    "Since in the limited jurisdiction and in the petition, we are of the view that Court must exercise it's judicial restraint and wait for appropriate action by the Govt. We say nothing more to express our confidence that the Govt must rise up to its responsibility of providing adequate food grain to requisite number of beneficiaries, especially in the given circumstances in which several residents of Delhi find themselves today."

    59. Foreign State Cannot Claim Sovereign Immunity Against Enforcement Of Arbitral Award Arising Out Of Commercial Transaction: Delhi High Court [KLA CONST TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD v. THE EMBASSY OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN]

    The Delhi High Court held that a Foreign State cannot claim sovereign immunity under sec. 86 of Code of Civil Procedure against enforcement of an Arbitral Award arising out of a commercial transaction.

    A single judge bench comprising of Justice JR Midha observed thus:

    "In a contract arising out of a commercial transaction, such as the transactions which are subject matter of the present petitions, a Foreign State cannot seek Sovereign Immunity for the purpose of stalling execution of an arbitral award rendered against it. Once a Foreign State opts to wear the hat of a commercial entity, it would be bound by the rules of the commercial legal ecosystem and cannot be permitted to seek any immunity, which is otherwise available to it only when it is acting in its sovereign capacity."

    "However, if Foreign States are permitted to stymie the enforcement of arbitral awards, which are the ultimate fruits of the above consensual process, on the specious ground that they are entitled to special treatment purely on account of being Foreign States, then the very edifice of International Commercial Arbitration would collapse. Foreign States cannot be permitted to act with impunity in this regard to the grave detriment of the counter-party in the arbitration proceedings."

    60. Free Education May Be Availed At Govt School; Can't Force State To Pay Private School Fees Of Children Orphaned Due To Covid: Delhi High Court [Yasmin Kataria & Anr v GNCTD & Ors.]

    The Delhi High Court expressed reservation over compelling the Government to pay private school fees for children, orphaned during Covid-19 pandemic. It opined that such children may be shifted to a Government school instead, for availing free education under Article 21-A of the Constitution.

    "They (Government) also have their limitations...It may be very far-fetched to ask them to pay the fees of a private school..." Justice Rekha Palli remarked.

    The Court was hearing a petition filed by Yasmin Kataria (minor), who lost her sole bread-earning parent to Covid-19 allegedly due to deficient supply of oxygen at Jaipur Golden Hospital in the national capital. The plea is filed though her mother.

    Next Story