80+ Important Delhi High Court Judgments of 2020

Orders Relating to Fundamental Rights 1. Delhi High Court Holds "To Have A Name And Express The Same" Is Protected Under Articles 19 & 21, Allows DU Student's Plea In a landmark judgment, the single judge bench of Justice Jayant Nath while hearing a DU student's plea, held that "to have a name and express the same" is protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution and allowed the student petitioner before it to change his name, stating that "normally a person would have a right to have his name changed subject to fulfilment of appropriate formalities/procedures to ensure that there is no misuse or confusion created on account of the change in name." [Case: Rayaan Chawla v. DU & Anr.] 2. Horrific Handling of Bodies of Those Who Died Of COVID19: Delhi HC Takes Suo Moto Cognizance of a Newspaper Report A Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice Asha Menon took cognizance of the horrific handling of bodies of those who have died of COVID19. The Court emphasized on the "rights of the dead" and sought response from the Government as to the staeps being taken by it to ensure proper disposal. [Case: Court on its own motion. GNCTD & Ors.] 3. Granting Injunction For Interference With Contractual Relations of Two Parties In Absence of Law Would Violate Art 19(5) of Constitution: Delhi HC Single Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw held that providing injunction for alleged interference with contractual relations of two parties, in absence of any law, would violate the fundamental right of carrying out trade under Article 19(5) of the Constitution. The order was passed in a case where INOX Ltd had asked the court to injunct PVR Cinemas from dealing with third parties with whom INOX was in a process of developing contractual relations. The court noted that the grant of injunction claimed by the Plaintiff on the premise of the actions of the Defendant comprising a tortious act of interference with contractual relations of the Plaintiff, would be in violation of the fundamental right of the Defendant, its promoters and directors to carry on trade and business, without any law having been enacted by the State in this respect in the interest of general public, within the meaning of Article 19 (5) of the Constitution of India. [Case: Inox Leisure Ltd. v. PVR Ltd.] Orders Relating to Women Rights 4. Motherhood Can't Be Equated With Loss Of Employment; Maternity Leave Not A Reason To Deny Tenure Extension To Contract Staff: Delhi HC A Division Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Asha Menon quashed the termination letter of an ad-hoc Professor whose contract was not renewed by the College as she had taken a maternity leave, which was not approved by the said College. The bench also imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the Respondents for giving arbitrary and unmerited reasons for not renewing the term of the Appellant. The Court added that such denial would amount to penalizing a woman for electing to become a mother: "Such a justification offered by the respondents for declining to grant an extension to the appellant/petitioner as she had highlighted her need for leave due to her pregnancy and confinement would tantamount to penalizing a woman for electing to become a mother while still employed and thus pushing her into a choiceless situation as motherhood would be equated with loss of employment. This is violative of the basic principle of equality in the eyes of law. It would also tantamount to depriving her of the protection assured under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of her right to employment and protection of her reproductive rights as a woman. Such a consequence is therefore absolutely unacceptable and goes against the very grain of the equality principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16". [Case: Manisha Priyadarshani v. Aurobindo College- Evening & Ors.] 5. An Adult Woman Is Free To Reside Wherever She Wishes And With Whoever She Wishes: Delhi HC Directs Police To Counsel The Parents A Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar provided relief to an adult woman who left her home to marry the man of her choice. After taking her consent and wishes into consideration, the court noted that being a major, she has a free will to reside wherever she wants and with whoever she wishes. The order was passed in a habeas corpus petition moved by the family members of the said woman, seeking her production before the court. As per the petition, she went missing on 12/09/20. Also Read: "Family Can't Force A Woman To Get Married": Delhi HC Directs Family Not To Contact Her; Allows 26Yr Old Woman To Stay With Shabnam Hashmi As Per Her Wish [Case: Parveen v. GNCTD] 6. Plea Seeking Period Leave For Women Employees: Delhi HC Directs Centre To Consider It As Representation A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan directed...

80+ Important Delhi High Court Judgments of 2020

Akshita Saxena

Tags