Latest Delhi High court News | Top Delhi High court News Headlines Today | Today India news | Breaking Delhi High court News Today | English Delhi High court News Headlines - TheDailyGuardian

MP’s ‘tortured’ journalists seek safety from Delhi HC

June 1, 2025, 2:09 am

Senior journalist alleges assault, threats by MP police; seeks Delhi High Court protection amid harassment claims.

NEW DELHI: Allegations of assault and threats by Madhya Pradesh Police have surfaced, implicating Bhind Superintendent of Police (SP) Asit Yadav. Senior journalist Amarkant Singh Chouhan has alleged that he was threatened inside the SP’s office in retaliation for his reporting on alleged police involvement in extortion. Following the incident, Chouhan fled to Delhi and sought relief from the Press Council of India (PCI) and the Delhi High Court, which has since granted him police protection. Yadav has denied all allegations.

On May 1, four journalists from Madhya Pradesh—Pritam Singh Rajawat (YouTube channel operator), Shashikant Goyal (news portal owner), Amarkant Singh Chouhan (Bureau Chief of Swaraj Express Bhind), and one other—alleged that they were assaulted by police officers inside Yadav’s office. Three weeks later, fearing further reprisals, they remain in hiding in Delhi and have submitted a complaint to the PCI.

In a petition to the Delhi High Court, Chouhan claimed he fled Bhind due to a serious threat to his life and liberty. His counsel argued that the petitioner could not approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court due to the hostile environment back home.

Chouhan stated that he had been reporting on illegal sand mining in the Chambal River, allegedly operated by a mafia in collusion with local police. As per the petition, SP Yadav summoned him to his office under the pretext of having tea and then physically assaulted him. The plea further claims that more than half a dozen journalists were present in the SP’s chamber, and many were stripped to their undergarments before being beaten.

On May 19, Chouhan and Goyal travelled to Delhi to file complaints with the Press Council of India and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), citing ongoing police harassment.

The Delhi High Court, in an order dated May 26, issued by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, granted interim protection to Chouhan. The court directed Delhi Police to provide security and instructed Chouhan’s legal counsel to furnish details of his local police station, as well as share his contact information with the Station House Officer and beat officer. The plea also sought protection of Chouhan’s fundamental rights under Article 19(1) of the Constitution, including his right to life, liberty, freedom of speech, and profession.

Both the Madhya Pradesh State Press Club and the Press Club of India have issued statements condemning the alleged police action. The State Press Club released a statement on May 3 demanding action against the officers involved, while the Press Club of India echoed this demand in a detailed statement dated May 25.

In response to the allegations, Yadav told The Sunday Guardian that Chouhan is a “legal offender” who was previously terminated from his position at a news channel. Yadav claimed Chouhan has a history of blackmailing individuals and faces extortion and forgery cases. He maintained that any police action was taken in response to formal complaints and added, “Now that he has approached the Delhi High Court and has been granted protection, we will comply with the court’s order.”

Attempts by the newspaper to reach Chouhan and the other journalists for comment have gone unanswered.

Ramdev Promises Delhi HC to Remove ‘Sharbat Jihad’ Remarks from Online Platforms

April 22, 2025, 2:00 pm

Yoga mentor Baba Ramdev has told the Delhi High Court that he will remove all videos and social media posts containing his controversial “Sharbat Jihad” remark. This assurance was made in response to a lawsuit filed by Hamdard, the makers of the well-known drink Rooh Afza.

Controversial Comment Sparks Outrage

The dispute began when Ramdev, in a promotional video, allegedly claimed that Hamdard was using its profits to build mosques and madrasas. He referred to Rooh Afza as part of a supposed “sharbat jihad.” Hamdard strongly objected, accusing Ramdev of trying to spread communal tension and damage their brand.

Court Expresses Disapproval

Justice Amit Bansal, who presided over the hearing, reacted sharply to the remark. He said, “When I saw this ad, I could not believe my ears and eyes.” The court criticized the communal tone of the video.

Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, appearing for Ramdev and Patanjali, informed the court that the videos would be taken down.

Court Demands Written Commitment

Despite the assurance, the court asked Ramdev to file an affidavit. He must confirm in writing that he will not make such statements again. Justice Bansal remarked, “He can keep these thoughts in his mind but should not express them.” The court has scheduled the next hearing for May 1.

Rooh Afza Remarks Under Scrutiny

The controversy dates back to April 3, when Ramdev, while endorsing Patanjali’s Gulaab Sharbat, criticised Rooh Afza. He accused Hamdard of redirecting its revenue toward religious activities, specifically the construction of mosques and madrasas. He called this alleged campaign “sharbat jihad.” Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sandeep Sethi represented Hamdard. They argued that Ramdev’s remarks aimed to tarnish their image and incite religious bias.

Broader Concerns Over Communal Speech

The case has raised serious concerns about the use of religiously divisive language in public promotions. The court’s intervention signals a firm stance against rhetoric that threatens social harmony.

Delhi High Court Slams Ramdev Over ‘Sharbat Jihad’ Remark on Rooh Afza

April 22, 2025, 12:50 pm

The Delhi High Court sharply rebuked yoga mentor Ramdev for calling Hamdard’s Rooh Afza “Sharbat Jihad” on Tuesday. Justice Amit Bansal called the remark “indefensible.” He added that it “shocks the conscience of the court.”

Hamdard Files Defamation Suit

Hamdard Laboratories had moved the court after Ramdev’s April 3 claim that the company used its profits “to build mosques and madrasas.” Consequently, Hamdard accused him of defamation and hate speech.

Lawyer’s Strong Argument

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Hamdard, argued vigorously. He said, “This is a case of creating communal divide, akin to hate speech.” Moreover, he warned, “It will not have protection from law of defamation.” He stressed, “This should not be even allowed for a moment. We have enough problems in this country.”

Court’s Next Steps

However, the court did not deliver an immediate ruling. Instead, Justice Bansal asked Ramdev’s lawyer to appear at the next hearing.

Ramdev’s Public Defense

Meanwhile, on Friday, Ramdev defended his words to the media. He insisted that he had “not taken anybody’s name.” He claimed, “But the Rooh Afza people took ‘sharbat jihad’ on themselves… this means they are doing this ‘jihad.’” He then said, “If they are dedicated to Islam and are building masjids and madrasas, then they should be happy. However, the Sanatanis should understand… If someone has a problem with this, then let it be.”

FIR Demand by Digvijaya Singh

Furthermore, Congress leader Digvijaya Singh filed a complaint with Bhopal police. He sought an FIR against Ramdev under sections 196(1)(a) and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and the Information Technology Act. Singh claimed that Ramdev’s video on X aimed to boost Patanjali sales by stirring communal emotions.

Ramdev’s “Sharbat Jihad” Explanation

In a video shared by “Patanjali Products” on Facebook, Ramdev contrasted other cold drinks with Patanjali’s rose sharbat. He said, “In the name of quenching thirst during summers, people drink cold beverages that are basically toilet cleaners. On one side, there’s the attack of toilet-cleaner-like poison, and on the other, there’s a company selling sharbat, which uses the money earned from it to build mosques and madrasas. That’s fine, it’s their religion.”

Finally, he argued, “That’s why I say, just like there is love jihad and vote jihad, there is also sharbat jihad. So, you must protect yourself from this sharbat jihad.”

Delhi High Court Allows SC’s Plea to Transplant 26 Trees

April 7, 2025, 1:59 pm

In a unique situation, the Supreme Court of India—typically the last word in legal affairs—went to the Delhi High Court as an “ordinary litigant” requesting permission for a green project. The top court asked for the transplantation of 26 trees hindering the proposed expansion of its campus. Even though the court could have handled the issue internally, its willingness to adhere to due process demonstrated a welcome deference to environmental laws and the judicial process.

The expansion project, which is ongoing, seeks to provide space for additional courtrooms, including a specific Constitutional Court, and upgraded chambers for judges and facilities for lawyers and litigants. The development had, however, been placed on hold because the trees involved could not be destroyed without getting the proper approval of the law, as per environmental protection legislation.

In a recent court order, Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi High Court authorized the transplantation. According to directions of the court, 16 trees will be transplanted along the border of the garden between Gates A and B and the rest, 10 trees, will be transplanted to a space near the Administrative Buildings Complex near Gate No. 1.

Petitioner’s advocate Sudhir Mishra, who was present on behalf of the petitioner—the Supreme Court Project Division–1, CPWD—accompanied by Ms. Petal Chandhok, discussed the sustainable vision of the project. He informed Hindustan Times’ Chief Managing Editor Sonal Kalra, “Supreme Court expansion project is one of the most energy efficient, sustainable reconstruction attempted in the capital city for many years.

Mishra also told the court that the compensatory plantation, as required, had already been completed with 260 trees planted at Sunder Nursery.

In addition, the High Court observed that the Tree Officer’s previous order was unjustified and not a ‘speaking order’—a mandate under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act (DPTA). The court has now directed the officer to pass a fresh, reasoned order within two weeks, complying with both the DPTA and earlier judicial directions.

It should be mentioned that the leading case, CONT. CAS. (C) 1149/2022 – Bhavreen Kandhari Vs. Sh. C. D. Singh & Ors., is still pending in consideration and has not yet been decided finally in the Delhi High Court.

Why the Delhi High Court Ruled Against Mandatory Service Charges in Restaurants?

March 29, 2025, 3:00 pm

Delhi High Court ruled on Friday that tips and service charges are discretionary payments made by customers and should not be charged by restaurants and hotels on the food bill.

Justice Prathiba M Singh dismissed two pleas by the Federation of Hotels and Restaurant Associations of India (FHRAI) and the National Restaurant Association of India, challenging the 2022 guidelines of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) prohibiting automatic service charge levies. The court held that such charges were ‘violative of consumer rights’ since they constituted an unfair trade practice if automatically charged.

Here are the primary reasons for the judgment passed by the Delhi HC:

Coercive and Misleading Charges

The court held that service charges are imposed in a way that deceives consumers, who are able to mistake them as service tax or a government tax. Justice Singh noted, “In fact, for the consumers, the group of service charge is turning out to be a double whammy as they are compelled to pay service tax and GST on the service charge as well. This stance cannot be overlooked by the Court.”

She highlighted that the way service charges are concealed makes them an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Unfair Contract

The court held that forcing customers to pay a service charge without choice makes it an unfair contract under Section 2(46)(vi) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Justice Singh explained that customers tend to unknowingly pay exorbitant bills when a high volume of food is ordered since service charges can be disguised in the fine print. Even if there is an assumed contract between the restaurant and customer, it would be deemed void because of the imbalance of power. “This is because consumers, at this scale, have little bargaining power against restaurant establishments as a class. The Court believes the above said class should be protected with the aim of achieving social and economic justice. The same belief also goes in line with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

Confusing Terminology

The court raised issue with the misleading terminology for the service charge, especially since the introduction of the service tax. Justice Singh observed that many restaurants use vague abbreviations such as VSV, S.Charge, or SRVCGH, making the public question whether the charge is from the restaurant or from the state.

She also stated, “The service charge which must be in the form of a tip or gratuity to the staff after having satisfactory service, has now been amended and converted into some sort of levy. Private premises cannot make such levies or even collect such levies. A mandatory mandatory levy is a sovereign function.”

While restaurants may price their menus at will, other hidden charges like service fees ought not to be imposed without transparency.

Unfairness

The court highlighted that mandatory service fees constitute a violation of consumer rights through higher food prices without transparent disclosure. Justice Singh noted, “In actuality, the instant the restaurant outlets make the customers pay service charge, there is a minimum increase of 10 to 15 per cent price of food items, which the consumer would not realize while going through the menu card.”. This is against the basic principles of fairness because the consumer has an unfettered right to know the exact price of the food items being purchased.

Rejection of Restaurant Associations’ Arguments

The restaurant associations argued that service charges had been factored into agreements between their workers and themselves. The court however rejected this argument stating it was lacking proof.

Justice Singh noted, “The contention that collection of service charge is part of agreements and settlements reached with the work force and labour, is also lacking in any substance in so far as when the court had directed the establishments to place on record any documents to support this contention, very little was forthcoming. Furthermore, settlements with labour and work force must be funded on the basis of revenue from the establishments and service charge cannot be warranted on the grounds that employees’ salaries or bonuses have to be settled.”

The Delhi High Court not only upheld the CCPA guidelines but also levied a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each on the FHRAI and the National Restaurant Association of India, directing them to deposit the amount in the name of consumers with the CCPA. The ruling gives importance to consumer rights, ensuring that any additional charges remain optional and not made mandatory as default.

Justice Yashwant Varma Slams ‘Baseless’ Cash Recovery Claims: ‘No Cash, No Truth!’ | WATCH

March 23, 2025, 9:12 am

Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma has formally responded to allegations regarding the purported recovery of cash from his residence, asserting that the location in question is a commonly accessible storeroom, separate from his main living quarters.

Justice Varma Denies Any Involvement

In his detailed response submitted to the Delhi High Court, Justice Varma clarified that the room where the alleged cash was found is disconnected from his residence and is accessible to multiple individuals, including staff members. He firmly denied that any cash was ever stored there by him or his family.

“This storeroom is generally used for keeping old furniture, crockery, mattresses, carpets, and garden tools. It is an open and accessible space, not a part of my personal living area,” he stated.

WATCH THE VIDEO:

Video of the cash pile found at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence is now out.

Justice Varma has claimed this cash was in outhouse and not in the main building of his residence and was placed by someone in that outhouse to frame him.

I fully believe that Justice Varma will be… pic.twitter.com/GXePg1h8Ib

— Incognito (@Incognito_qfs) March 22, 2025

Fire Incident on Holi and Its Aftermath

Justice Varma also mentioned that a fire broke out in the storeroom near the staff quarters on Holi, March 14. Following the incident, household members were asked to vacate the area for safety reasons. He noted that after the fire was extinguished, no cash was found at the scene.

He emphasized the improbability of storing money in such an open and frequently accessed area, calling the accusations “highly incredible and incredulous.”

Appeal for Justice and Reputation Protection

Addressing the allegations, Justice Varma appealed to the Delhi High Court Chief Justice to clear his name, stressing the importance of a judge’s integrity.

“My reputation and character have been severely tarnished. These baseless allegations are built on mere assumptions and innuendos,” he stated.

Judicial Probe Ordered

In response to the controversy, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has constituted a three-member panel to investigate the allegations and determine the veracity of the claims. The inquiry aims to ensure transparency and uphold the credibility of the judiciary.

OpenAI to India Court: Deleting ChatGPT Data Breaches U.S. Law

January 23, 2025, 3:06 pm

OpenAI has told the Delhi High Court that complying with a request to delete training data used for its ChatGPT model would conflict with its legal obligations in the United States. This statement came in response to a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by the Indian news agency ANI in November.

It accuses the company OpenAI of using content it has published without its consent to train ChatGPT. The lawsuit seeks an injunction to delete ANI’s data already stored by the AI model and violate copyright claims.

Allegations by ANI and Defense from OpenAI

In an 86-page court filing dated January 10, OpenAI denied the allegations, emphasizing that its AI models make fair use of publicly available data. ANI claims that OpenAI continues to store and use its content despite assurances during a November hearing that ChatGPT would no longer rely on ANI’s material.

OpenAI explained that its training data is preserved under U.S. law as it faces similar lawsuits, including one filed by the New York Times. “OpenAI is therefore under a legal obligation, under the laws of the United States, to preserve, and not delete, the said training data,” the company stated.

Jurisdiction Dispute

OpenAI further argued before the Delhi High Court that it lacks the jurisdiction to deal with the matter at hand, as this company does not have a physical presence or infrastructure in India. “The servers upon which (ChatGPT) stores its training data are similarly situated outside of India”, OpenAI added in its submission.

ANI, in which Reuters holds a 26% interest, contends that the Indian court has the authority to adjudicate the matter. The news agency also expressed concerns about unfair competition due to OpenAI’s commercial partnerships with global media outlets like Time magazine and the Financial Times.

ANI Accuses ChatGPT of Verbatim Reproduction

ANI has claimed that ChatGPT reproduces verbatim or substantially similar extracts of its content in response to user prompts. OpenAI refuted this, stating ANI had deliberately used its articles as prompts to test the AI’s responses, calling it an attempt to “manipulate ChatGPT.”

High-Stakes Case for AI and Copyright

This case represents one of the most significant legal challenges to AI use in India, touching on critical issues of copyright, fair use, and jurisdiction. It also highlights the growing tension between AI firms and content creators worldwide.

The Delhi High Court will take up the case on January 28. OpenAI is, meanwhile, dealing with growing scrutiny as it moves from a nonprofit to a for-profit organization. In 2023, the company raised $6.6 billion to finance its AI progress and sealed deals with some of the world’s leading media houses.

As the date for the court approaches, the verdict in this case may mark a precedent for copyright disputes involving AI in India and elsewhere.

Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya Appointed Chief Justice of Delhi High Court

January 15, 2025, 11:39 am

The Union Law Ministry on Tuesday announced the appointment of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya as Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. Justice Upadhyaya is going to take up the mantle of Chief Justice from Bombay High Court. He was completing the tenure and replacing Justice Vibhu Bakhru who has been acting as Delhi High Court Chief Justice.

Follows Collegium Recommendation

The appointment, notably, follows a proposal by the Supreme Court Collegium. This proposal, headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Bhushan R. Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy, and Abhay S. Oka, was dated January 8. Subsequently, the official notification from the ministry read:

“In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 222 of the Constitution of India, the President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, is pleased to transfer Shri Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Chief Justice, Bombay High Court as the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and direct him to assume charge of the office of the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.”

This transfer adds a judge’s strength of the Delhi High Court to 38 but is below the sanctioned number of 60 judges.

Career Achievements by Justice Upadhyaya

Justice Upadhyaya was born in June 1965 in Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. He graduated in law from Lucknow University and enrolled with the Allahabad High Court Bar in 1991. His specialties include civil and constitutional laws; he is the main figure to contributed immensely to the Allahabad High Court.

From 2007 to 2011, he was the Chief Standing Counsel for Uttar Pradesh. The Allahabad High Court appointed him as a judge in November 2011 and confirmed him as a permanent judge in August 2013. Justice Upadhyaya was the Senior Judge at the Lucknow Bench before becoming the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court in July 2023.

Justice Alok Named Chief Justice of Bombay High Court

The ministry also appointed Justice Alok Aradhe as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, replacing Justice Upadhyaya.

The authority passed and read out a transfer order, exercising the power vested in clause 1 of Article 222 of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, the President, after consulting the Chief Justice of India, has approved the transfer of Justice Alok Aradhe. As a result, he will now assume the role of Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. Moreover, the President has directed him to assume charge as the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and take the necessary steps for its implementation.

Justice Aradhe started his practice in 1988, with a specialization in civil, constitutional, arbitration, and company law. He has served in the high courts of Madhya Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, and Telangana. His scholarship and contributions to the legal field have earned him accolades.

Delhi HC Upholds Vitiligo As Absolute Reason For Rejection in Indian Army

December 27, 2024, 7:32 pm

The Delhi High Court in a landmark decision has held that a candidate suffering from vitiligo is not entitled to be recruited into armed forces.

The Petition was filed against the rejection of his candidature for Assistant Commandant in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP).

It was argued that though the candidate was suffering from vitiligo, the same was under a covered area and in the Air Force, the candidates suffering from vitiligo can be permitted to be enrolled if the vitiligo is under a covered area.

The Ministry of Home Affairs and ITBP through Central Government Standing Counsel, Ashish Dixit Advocate argued that vitiligo is a specific disability in the recruitment rules to the ITBP, and the same was duly notified in the advertisement. Dixit further argued that the Home Ministry guidelines of 2015 also state vitiligo to be grounds for rejection.

The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shailender Kaur accepted the contention and held “…it is clear that the disease of vitiligo is an absolute reason for the rejection of the candidature. Merely because in other armed forces the disqualification is further qualified or whittled down, it cannot be a ground to import that condition into the present recruitment process. The respondent, in fact, is bound to scrupulously follow the advertisement and the conditions laid down therein. Applying which, the petitioner has been rightly rejected from being considered for the said post.”

Vitiligo is a chronic (long-lasting) autoimmune disorder that causes patches of skin to lose pigment or colour. This happens when melanocytes – skin cells that make pigment – are attacked and destroyed, causing the skin to turn a milky-white colour.

Rape, Acid Attack, Survivors, Victims To Have Free Medical Treatment: Delhi HC

December 24, 2024, 5:06 pm

Delhi High Court on Tuesday gave order that victims of rape, acid attacks, sexual assaults, and survivors of POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) cases are entitled to free medical treatment at government and private hospitals, as well as nursing homes.

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma ruled that all Central and State Government-funded institutions, as well as private hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes, must comply with the directive to ensure that survivors of rape, acid attacks, and POCSO cases receive immediate medical care and necessary services.

The Court clarified that “treatment” includes first aid, diagnosis, inpatient care, outpatient follow-ups, diagnostic and laboratory tests, surgeries if needed, physical and mental counselling, psychological support, and family counselling.

The Court noted that a significant number of rape and POCSO cases regularly come before the judiciary. Survivors in these cases often require urgent medical intervention or prolonged medical assistance, including hospital admission, diagnostics, surgical procedures, medications, and counselling services.

Despite existing provisions under the BNSS or CrPC, as well as guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), the Court observed that survivors of sexual violence and acid attacks continue to face challenges in accessing free medical treatment.

The Court issued several key directives, including the circulation of its ruling to all courts dealing with sexual offences, such as POCSO Courts, Criminal Courts, and Family Courts.

The directive aims to ensure that all victims and survivors, in accordance with Section 397 of the BNS (Section 357C of the CrPC), are informed of their legal rights. The Court also mandated that appropriate steps be taken to refer such cases to the relevant medical establishments–whether public, government, or private–whenever courts encounter cases requiring medical assistance for victims or survivors.

Delhi High Court Finds Two Answers ‘Demonstrably Wrong’, Directed To Revise Results Of Petitioner: CLAT 2025

December 24, 2024, 4:46 am

The Delhi High Court in the case Aditya Singh (minor) Versus. Consortium Of national Law Universities observed and has held that the law does not commend a total ‘hands off’ approach for Courts where the answer key is demonstrably wrong, underscoring that injustice caused to a candidate must be undone.

The bench headed by Justice Jyoti Singh in the case observed that there being no absolute proscription against a Court examining a challenge to the answer key in an examination process, even if there is an expert opinion before the Court.

The court in the case stated that the law does not commend a total ‘hands off’ approach and in exceptional cases where questions are found to be demonstrably wrong, the resultant injustice to a candidate must be redressed and undone.

The bench headed by Justice Singh partly allowed a petition filed seeking to quash of the final answer key published for CLAT-UG 2025 examination conducted on December 01.

In the present case, the petition was filed by a candidate who appeared in the examination and specifically challenged answers to five questions.

Further, the court found two errors which is to be demonstrably clear and said that shutting a blind eye to the same would be injustice to the petitioner and that it may impact the result of other candidates.

The court in the case directed that the result of the Petitioner will be revised to award marks to him for Question No.14 in accordance with the scheme of marking.

The court stated that since the court upheld option ‘C’ as the correct answer, which was also the view of the Expert Committee, benefit cannot be restricted only to the Petitioner and will extend to all candidates who have opted for option ‘C’.

The petition filed was opposed by Consortium of NLUs, wherein it is stated that an expert committee was constituted by the Consortium which has duly considered all objections received from various candidates before finalising the answer key.

It has been stated by the consortium that it has adopted a rigorous internal process before finalising and publishing the Final Answer Key on December 07 and that such process gave adequate opportunity to all candidates, which includes the Petitioner, to raise their objections to the Provisional Answer Key.

The counsel, Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Mr. Arjeet Gaur, Mr. Barinda Batra, Mr. Atul Kanti Tripathi, Mr. Suryansh Jamwal and Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocates appeared for the Petitioner.

The counsel, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Srikumar, Mr. A. K. Trivedi, Mr. Ram Shankar, Mr. Yash Jagra, Mr. Shubhansh Thakur and Ms. Shreya Sethi, Advocates represented the Respondent.

2022 Petition To Identify Ram Janmbhoomi Trust As Public Authority Quashed by Delhi HC

December 20, 2024, 5:11 pm

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a petition seeking to declare the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust as a public authority on Friday.

The petition, filed by Neeraj Kumar, challenged the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) decision on July 8, 2022, which had refused to disclose details about the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) and the First Appellate Authority of the Trust.

Kumar had also filed an RTI request with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in July 2022, seeking similar information, but this was rejected by the MHA. The Ministry argued that the “Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust” is neither owned, controlled, nor financed by the Government of India, and therefore, does not fall under the definition of a public authority.

Represented by lawyer Prashant Bhushan, the petitioner sought the intervention of the Delhi HC to overturn the CIC’s order.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula heard the matter. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Ram Janmabhumi Trust opposed the petition. Senior advocates Chetan Sharma (ASG) and Nishant Gautam (CGSC) argued that the Trust is an autonomous body and should not be categorized as a public authority.

Also read: Delhi HC Directs Meta To Block Content Encroaching Personality, Publicity Rights of TV Anchor

After considering the arguments, after hearing the matter at length, the court refrained from intervening and disposed of the petition by sending it to the CIC with the direction to the parties to present their case before it.

Delhi HC Directs Meta To Block Content Encroaching Personality, Publicity Rights of TV Anchor

December 20, 2024, 5:00 pm

TV anchor and journalist Rajat Sharma’s videos were doctored using artificial intelligence (AI) and deepfake technology videos to sell certain pharmaceutical products fraudulently said Delhi High Court on Friday.

Justice Amit Bansal in an order passed on December 18, issued prohibiting several defendants, including individuals and entities, from using or exploiting Sharma’s name, image, voice, photos, or videos for any personal or commercial purposes without his explicit written consent.

The Court passed an ad interim injunction and also directed Meta Platforms Inc. to immediately block/remove/take down the following impugned content of Defendants and further disclose complete details (such as name, address, email, phone number, etc.) of Defendants

According to the suit, eight defendants are perpetuating gross misinformation including through the wrongful use of AI technology for creation of doctored videos bearing distorted, modified and modulated images/voice and other personality traits of Plaintiff Rajat Sharma.

It was also submitted that the impugned content is being circulated either to promote purported drug(s) for diabetes/ prostatitis/ joint pain alleged to have been formulated by certain eminent doctors or certified by the government or as alleged health tips by Plaintiff along with other eminent persons such as Amitabh Bachchan and Naresh Trehan, thereby resulting in gross violation of the personality and publicity rights of Plaintiff Rajat Sharma.

It was further submitted that given Plaintiff Rajat Sharma’s unique position as a trusted voice in Indian households, any misrepresentation of his endorsement risks irreparable damage not only to his personal reputation but also to public trust at large. The misuse of his persona for fraudulent health claims exacerbates the propensity for harm, potentially endangering the health and safety of countless individuals who rely on the purported endorsement.

Also read: Study Links Statin Use to Increased Glaucoma Risk: What You Need to Know

Sharma further claimed that the defendants were unlawfully using and violating several registered trademarks of INDIA TV, as well as infringing on the copyright of footage from its show ‘AAJ KI BAAT: RAJAT SHARMA KE SAATH.’

Wrong Evidence Presented Against Delhi Riots Accused Sharjeel Imam Says Counsel

December 12, 2024, 10:10 pm

The Delhi High Court on Thursday heard arguments on the bail plea of Sharjeel Imam, an accused in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots. His counsel argued that Sharjeel Imam never incited people to violence nor was he involved in any violence or overt acts.

A division bench of justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, after hearing the arguments, listed the matter for further submissions by the Delhi Police counsel on December 20. The High Court has also scheduled arguments on the merits of Shadab Ahmed’s case for January 14, 2025.

Sharjeel Imam’s counsel, Advocates Talib Mustafa and Ahmad Ibrahim, concluded their arguments while seeking bail on the grounds of parity with other accused individuals. It was argued that Sharjeel never encouraged violence and only called for ‘Chakka Jaam’ (roadblock) against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) during his speeches.

Advocate Talib Mustafa further contended that Sharjeel Imam consistently advocated for peaceful protests against the CAA and warned that political parties might incite violence during such protests. The counsel highlighted that the basis of Imam’s indictment is a speech delivered at Jamia Millia Islamia on December 13, 2019, which led to five cases being registered against him for speeches made in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Bihar in 2019 and 2020.

The counsel argued that the Delhi Police Crime Branch had registered a case in 2020 for the December 2019 speech, and Sharjeel Imam had already been granted bail in that case. The police investigation, according to the defense, relied heavily on chats recovered by the crime branch related to the Jamia speech case.

Also read: India Approves Rs 20,000 Cr For 12 Su-30 MKI fighter jets, 100 K-9 Vajra Self-Propelled Howitzers

Sharjeel Imam was arrested in August 2020 while already in custody for a crime branch case following his earlier arrest on January 28. His counsel further argued that he has been in custody for more than four years.

Delhi HC Seeks Responses From Centre on Alleged Illegal Construction Through Goyla Khurd Pond

December 3, 2024, 5:36 pm

Based on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the alleged unlawful construction of Urban Extension Road II through the village pond land in Goyla Khurd, located in the Southwest District of Delhi, the Delhi High Court has issued a notice to centre demanding answers. The construction, which took place between 2018 and 2024, is visible in Google satellite images and raises concerns about the loss of natural resources crucial for environmental sustainability, especially as the city grapples with pollution, heatwaves, groundwater depletion, and climate change, the plea stated.

The petition, moved by the Centre for Youth Culture Law and Environment through Advocate Paras Tyagi, stated that this construction occurred nearly nine years after the court’s 2013 order, which directed the cancellation of all allotments on pond and waterbody lands, and the provision of alternative land. The PIL argued that, in this case, it was feasible to avoid the construction through such ecologically significant areas.

The bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rak Gedela sought responses from all respondents, including the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Delhi Government, and Delhi Development Authority (DDA), and listed the matter for a detailed hearing in March 2025.

The plea alleges that the respondents, including the Revenue Department of the Delhi Government and the DDA, have consistently failed to protect vital environmental assets in the national capital. In 2022, they constructed a significant portion of the Urban Extension Road II through the village pond in Goyla Khurd. Satellite imagery indicates that this was done in a planned manner, disregarding Delhi High Court’s orders from 2002 and the subsequent directions in 2013.

The petition also contends that the respondents deliberately ignored these court directives, showing willful contempt for both the Court’s orders and environmental concerns.

This development follows a similar notice issued by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in October 2024, where the NGT sought a response from the NHAI over the alleged illegal construction of a highway encroaching upon the protected pond in Goyla Khurd village. The NGT’s action was based on reports that the NHAI proceeded without conducting a necessary environmental impact assessment, potentially endangering local biodiversity and disrupting the ecosystem. It was alleged that 80 percent of the pond was already lost to the construction.

Environmental activists have raised concerns that the construction violates orders of the Supreme Court and high court, as well as wetland rules. Despite these claims, the NHAI maintains that all necessary statutory permissions were obtained for the project.

Also read: Congress Moves SC To Halt Ongoing Surveys of Islamic Sites Across India

The case highlights the ongoing tension between infrastructure development and environmental conservation in Delhi, bringing attention to the need for sustainable planning that respects ecological assets.

Rouse Avenue Court to Deliver Verdict on Former Congress MP in 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Case

November 28, 2024, 10:39 pm

The Rouse Avenue Court will deliver its verdict on Friday in a case against former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar, linked to the killings of Jaswant Singh and his son Tarundeep Singh during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Saraswati Vihar, Delhi. Special Judge Kaveri Baweja will announce the judgement, reserved earlier on November 8.

Case Background

The case dates back to November 1, 1984, amidst the anti-Sikh riots following the assassination of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The prosecution alleges that Sajjan Kumar instigated and led a mob that murdered the victims, burned their house, and looted their property. The charges include murder (Section 302 IPC), rioting (Sections 147, 148, 149 IPC), arson, and other offenses.

Initially registered at the Punjabi Bagh police station, the case was later investigated by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) formed on the recommendation of the Justice G.P. Mathur committee. The SIT filed a charge sheet against Sajjan Kumar after reopening 114 cases in 2016.

Defence Arguments

Advocate Anil Sharma, representing Sajjan Kumar, argued that Kumar’s name was not mentioned initially and was only introduced 16 years later by a witness. He claimed the investigation was delayed and flawed, asserting that the law of foreign lands and international conventions cited by the prosecution were not applicable.

Sharma also pointed out that a separate case in which Kumar was convicted by the Delhi High Court is under appeal in the Supreme Court. He emphasized that the law of the land prevails in such extraordinary cases.

Prosecution’s Stand

Additional Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat rebutted the defense, stating that the witness identified Sajjan Kumar after recognizing his photograph in a magazine. He argued that extraordinary circumstances during the riots, which the Delhi High Court termed “crimes against humanity,” justified the delay in the investigation.

Senior advocate H.S. Phoolka, representing riot victims, argued that the anti-Sikh riots were not isolated incidents but part of a broader genocide targeting minorities. He criticized the police for manipulating investigations to shield influential individuals and referred to the Geneva Convention and international rulings on genocide.

Phoolka also highlighted that the Supreme Court’s intervention, leading to the SIT’s formation, showed the seriousness of the delays in bringing justice.

Victim Testimonies

The complainant, in her statement recorded in 2016, described the mob’s violence, including the looting, arson, and murders of her husband and son. She alleged that Sajjan Kumar’s instigation led to the violence and claimed to have identified Kumar through his photograph in a magazine weeks after the incident.

Also read: Bengaluru Concert to Support ‘Chennai Express’ Singer SP Balasubrahmanyam Through Kannada Hits

Anticipation for Justice

The case against Sajjan Kumar is one of the most high-profile cases tied to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, during which over 2,700 Sikhs were killed in Delhi alone. The Delhi High Court, in a previous case, termed the riots as “crimes against humanity.” The verdict on this case is expected to serve as a significant milestone in the decades-long quest for justice for riot victims.

Authorities and the public await the court’s judgement, which will not only decide Sajjan Kumar’s fate but also reaffirm the judiciary’s stance on justice in cases of communal violence and genocide.

Delhi High Court Rejects PIL for Establishing Sanatan Dharma Protection Body

November 27, 2024, 1:47 pm

The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that requested the establishment of a religious body, akin to a “Sanatan Dharm Raksha Board,” to safeguard Sanatan Dharma and its culture. The bench, led by Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, stated that the court cannot intervene in policy matters.

The petition was filed by the Sanatan Hindu Sewa Sangh Trust

The petition was filed by the Sanatan Hindu Sewa Sangh Trust, represented by Advocate Ashok Kumar. It emphasized that India is a secular nation, as explicitly stated in the Constitution. The petition argued that while the Government of India has established various bodies for followers of different religions, there is no dedicated board or government entity to protect the rights and customs of those adhering to Sanatan Dharma, also known as Hindu Dharma.

The plea expressed concerns that individuals from other religious communities are engaging in actions perceived as attacks on Sanatan Dharma, including attempts to convert its followers to other religions, which contradicts the customs and beliefs of Sanatan Dharma adherents. It asserted that since the majority of the population in India identifies with Sanatan/Hinduism, they are entitled to protection and facilities related to their religion, which have not been provided by the government for many years.

The petition further argued that the government has a legal obligation to protect the rights and customs of the Sanatan/Hindu religion. It highlighted that many temples across the country are managed by the Government of India and state governments, which collect funds from these temples. Despite this, the government has yet to create a dedicated national body to protect Sanatan/Hindu religion, underscoring the necessity for such an establishment.

Jacqueline Fernandez’s Counsel Denies Involvement In Criminal Activity, Seeks Dismissal Of Money Laundering Charges

November 27, 2024, 1:29 am

Jacqueline Fernandez’s counsel argued before the Delhi High Court on Tuesday that the Bollywood actor cannot be prosecuted for money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) because she did not derive any economic advantage from any criminal activity. The counsel argued that Fernandez was not involved in any criminal activity for financial gain, and therefore, cannot be charged with money laundering.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) is set to make its submissions in response to Fernandez’s plea challenging the charge sheet filed against her in a money laundering case. Justice Anish Dayal scheduled the next hearing for December 3, when the Special Counsel for ED will present their arguments.

Must Read: “I Remember Being Heartbroken”: Madhavan Reflects On The Initial Failure Of RHTDM At IFFI 2024

Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, along with Advocates Prashant Patil and Shakti Pandey, appeared for Fernandez, while Advocate Zoheb Hossain represented the ED. Agarwal argued that while a person who derives economic benefit from a scheduled offence can be prosecuted for money laundering, Fernandez was not part of any criminal activity. He further stated that Fernandez was unaware that the gifts she received from Sukesh Chandrasekar were proceeds of crime, specifically from a Rs 200 crore extortion case involving Aditi Singh. Agarwal emphasized that knowledge of criminal activity is essential for establishing involvement in money laundering.

The counsel also referred to a judgment in the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary, asserting that not all attached property during an investigation needs to be linked directly to proceeds of crime. Furthermore, he argued that two separate cases should not be prosecuted on the same facts. The extortion case involving Aditi Singh is already being prosecuted under MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act), where Fernandez is a witness. Since she was not part of the crime syndicate and did not derive financial gain from the activities, she should not be charged with money laundering, the senior advocate argued.

Fernandez has challenged the charge sheet in the money laundering case, in which Sukesh Chandrasekar is also named as an accused.

Also Read: ‘Absolute Lies Were…’ Samantha Ruth Prabhu Opens Up On Divorce And Trolling

Delhi HC Orders SBI to Compensate Rs 2.6 lakh to Phishing Victim

November 21, 2024, 5:22 pm

The Delhi High Court has directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to compensate a customer, Hare Ram Singh, who lost Rs 2.6 lakh due to a phishing attack. The court identified SBI’s negligence in handling Singh’s complaint and its failure to prevent the fraudulent transactions, emphasizing the bank’s duty of care in such situations.

Singh, a victim of cyber fraud, promptly notified SBI’s customer care and branch manager. However, the bank did not provide timely assistance. Months later, SBI rejected Singh’s claim, citing the use of OTPs and Singh’s clicking on a malicious link as reasons for the unauthorised transactions.

Justice Dharmesh Sharma noted the bank’s “glaring service deficiency” in responding to the complaint. The court emphasized that SBI‘s failure to act swiftly and block the suspicious transactions amounted to a breach of its duty of care. The court stated, “It has to be presumed that it is on account of the failure on the part of the bank to put in place a system which prevents such withdrawals, that the petitioner suffered monetary losses.”

The court also highlighted SBI’s non-compliance with the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) guidelines on digital payment security. It ruled that the transactions fell under the “zero liability” category, making SBI liable for the loss.

Consequently, the court ordered SBI to reimburse Singh the lost amount with interest and pay a token compensation of Rs 25,000.

Also read: Rajasthan Acts to Protect Bikaner House

This judgment underscores the importance of banks taking proactive measures to protect their customers from cyberattacks. It also serves as a reminder that banks have a responsibility to act swiftly and efficiently in responding to such incidents.

Delhi HC Denies Kejriwal’s Plea To Stay Excise Policy Case

November 21, 2024, 4:59 pm

The Delhi High Court has declined to halt trial court proceedings against former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case linked to the alleged excise policy scam.

The court has also issued a notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding Kejriwal‘s plea challenging the trial court’s decision to take cognizance of the ED’s prosecution complaints in the excise policy case, citing a lack of sanction.

A detailed hearing is scheduled for December 20, 2024.

This development follows Kejriwal’s recent request to set aside a trial court’s order, arguing that the special judge took cognizance of the chargesheet without the necessary sanction for his prosecution during his tenure as Delhi Chief Minister.

On November 12, the court sought the ED’s response to Kejriwal’s plea challenging the summons issued to him based on the agency’s complaint in the money laundering case. At this stage, the court has refused to stay the trial court’s proceedings in the criminal case.

Kejriwal was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court on July 12 in the money laundering case and was released on bail by the apex court in the CBI case on September 13.

Also read: ‘Break-Up Google’, Says US Govt, Tech Giant Pushes Back

The Delhi government implemented the excise policy on November 17, 2021, and scrapped it by the end of September 2022 amid allegations of corruption. The money laundering case stems from a CBI FIR lodged after Delhi Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena recommended a probe into the alleged irregularities in the policy’s implementation.

Delhi Court Lifts 36-Year Ban On Salman Rushdie “The Satanic Verses”, Import Door Opens

November 8, 2024, 1:24 am

The Delhi High Court has officially lifted the 36-year-old ban on importing Salman Rushdie’s controversial novel “The Satanic Verses”, citing the lack of an original notification enforcing the restriction.

The ban, which was imposed in 1988 under then-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, was a response to protests from Muslim groups, who deemed the book blasphemous. However, in a significant ruling on November 5, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs informed the court that it could no longer locate the notification that had originally enacted the ban.

In their ruling, Justices Rekha Palli and Saurabh Banerjee stated that without the official notification on record, they were compelled to assume it did not exist. The case stemmed from a petition filed by Sandipan Khan in 2019, who challenged the import ban and argued it hindered his ability to acquire a copy of the book.

Khan had highlighted the absence of any official record of the ban on government websites or with relevant authorities, even though the Ministry of Home Affairs confirmed it had initially imposed the ban after a Right to Information request.

With the court’s decision, the ban on importing “The Satanic Verses” into India has been effectively lifted, allowing the book’s legal entry into the country for the first time in over three decades.

Delhi High Court Sentences Lawyer to Four Months in Jail For Making Offensive Remarks Against Judges

November 7, 2024, 1:25 pm

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has sentenced a lawyer to four months in jail for criminal contempt. The lawyer was found guilty of making offensive remarks against judges and filing numerous baseless complaints against judicial and police officials, actions deemed to be an attempt to undermine the judiciary’s authority.

In their order, a division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma noted that the lawyer had filed 30 to 40 complaints against judicial officers, police officers, and judges, clearly intending to scandalise the court. The court further highlighted the lawyer’s lack of remorse, stating he had neither offered an apology nor shown any inclination toward taking responsibility for his actions.

Baseless Allegations Against Judges Addressed by Court

The bench remarked that magistrates and judges had appropriately reviewed all of the lawyer’s complaints at various levels, including this court. The court emphasised that the allegations should not have been the subject of frivolous complaints, noting that such behavior was inappropriate and grossly unprofessional.

No Suspension of Sentence

During the proceedings, the lawyer sought a suspension of his sentence, requesting time to approach the Supreme Court for relief. However, the High Court declined, citing his continuous campaign to vilify the judiciary and his brazen submissions during the contempt hearings.

The court also stated that while the lawyer had previously represented himself, he could choose to have representation through the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, which would provide him with legal assistance if he desired.

Delhi High Court Denies Chhath Puja At Yamuna Banks, Citing Health Risks

November 6, 2024, 1:36 pm

On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court denied permission for Chhath Puja rituals at the Yamuna riverbank in Geeta Colony due to serious pollution concerns. Highlighting the potential health risks, a bench led by Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela expressed their worries about the high contamination levels in the river. They noted, “It will be very harmful to you. The fact is that the river is so polluted that if you dip into it, there is the likelihood that…person will suffer harm. We can’t allow that. The river itself is highly polluted.”

Delhi government counsel Santosh Kumar Tripathi supported the decision, explaining that the current pollution levels in the Yamuna make it dangerous for devotees to perform rituals on the riverbed, as they may risk falling ill. According to Tripathi, the Delhi government has already designated 1,000 alternative spots across the capital for Chhath Puja, ensuring ample arrangements for worshippers.

The high court also referenced its recent ruling in the Shabnam Burney case, where it recognized that pollution in the Yamuna had reached unprecedented levels. Toxic foam was recently observed on the river’s surface at Kalindi Kunj, a clear indicator of the pollution severity.

Despite these warnings, many devotees gathered on Tuesday, the first day of Chhath Puja, to take ritual baths in the Yamuna, which was still covered in thick foam. The Puja is an essential festival for Delhi’s Purvanchali community, comprising Bhojpuri-speaking individuals from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Jharkhand. This group makes up a significant 30-40% of Delhi’s voter base, ahead of the upcoming assembly elections early next year.

Delhi High Court Criticizes Wikipedia’s Open Editing Functionality

October 25, 2024, 4:30 pm

The Delhi High Court has expressed serious concerns regarding Wikipedia’s open-access editing feature during a defamation suit filed against the platform by news agency ANI. The court labeled this functionality as “dangerous,” raising questions about the reliability of information on the site.

During the proceedings, Justice Subramonium Prasad questioned, “Anybody can edit a page on Wikipedia? What kind of page is this if it is open to anybody (for editing)?”

Defense of Wikipedia’s Editing System

In response to the judge’s remarks, senior advocate Jayant Mehta, representing Wikipedia, defended the platform by stating that users must comply with legal standards when creating or updating content. He distinguished Wikipedia from social media platforms, asserting that it operates as an encyclopedia where credible information is valued.

“It is not social media where you have a page and anybody can do anything. The page is open to editing by anybody, and that is how it gains credibility. Every information is required to be cross-referenced to sources,” Mehta explained.

Background of the Defamation Suit

The lawsuit from ANI stems from allegedly defamatory edits that referred to the agency as a “propaganda tool” for the current government. ANI is seeking the removal of these statements from its Wikipedia page. Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing ANI, argued that despite Wikipedia’s presentation of information as factual, it acts as an “aggregator of defamation.”

Earlier, the high court had ordered Wikimedia to disclose the identities of the three individuals who made edits to the ANI page. However, Wikimedia has appealed against this summons, and the matter is now with a division bench. The court has adjourned the case until October 28.

Man Claims Wife is Transgender, Seeks Medical Examination in Delhi High Court

October 22, 2024, 5:48 pm

A man has approached the Delhi High Court seeking directions for the Delhi Police to conduct a gender examination of his wife at a Central government hospital, claiming she is a “transgender individual.” The petitioner alleges that his wife concealed her gender identity before their marriage, which he claims has resulted in mental trauma and prevented the consummation of their marriage.

Allegations of Concealment and Legal Complications

In his plea, filed by Advocate Abhishek Kumar Choudhary, the man contends that the concealment of his wife’s transgender status has led to various false legal proceedings against him. He argues that while an individual’s sex or gender identity is a private matter, in the context of marriage, the rights of both parties are interconnected. To maintain a healthy marital life, he emphasizes the importance of respecting the fundamental rights to life of both individuals as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner asserts that he is entitled to a fair investigation and determination of facts before facing legal proceedings designed for women. He also argues that if his wife does not qualify as a “woman” under relevant laws, he should not be required to pay maintenance or face allegations under domestic violence and dowry laws.

Previous Legal Proceedings

The petitioner had previously sought the formation of a medical board for his wife’s examination under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). However, his application was dismissed by the trial court.

In a related case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled that referring to a husband as ‘hijra’ (transgender) constitutes an act of cruelty, highlighting the sensitivity surrounding issues of gender identity in legal contexts.

Delhi Judge Fired After Viral Chair-Outburst Video

October 14, 2024, 11:36 pm

In a dramatic turn of events, Dwarka district judge Aman Pratap Singh was terminated from his position by the Delhi government on October 10, following a recommendation from the Delhi High Court. The decision came after a video surfaced on social media, showing Singh standing on his chair and yelling at court staff and the defense counsel.

The Viral Video Incident

The controversial video, which went viral, showed the judge in an unprofessional outburst during a court proceeding. Singh was seen standing on his chair, shouting at the court staff and the counsel of an accused individual, sparking widespread public criticism and a formal investigation.

High Court Recommendation

Following the incident, the Delhi High Court had ordered the withdrawal of Singh’s judicial duties on September 19. Singh, who had been serving in the Dwarka court since June, was placed under probation until the investigation concluded. The high court’s recommendation for his termination ultimately led to the Delhi government’s decision.

A Sudden Fall from Grace

Aman Pratap Singh was appointed as an additional district judge in Delhi in May, after passing the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examinations. However, his career has now been cut short due to his unprofessional behavior in the courtroom. The termination highlights the serious consequences faced by judicial officers in cases of misconduct.

AgustaWestland Chopper Scam: Delhi HC Rejects Bail Plea of British National Christian Michel in CBI Case

September 25, 2024, 4:26 pm

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday rejected the bail plea of Christian Michel James, a British national and the alleged middleman in the Rs 3,600-crore AgustaWestland chopper scam. Michel had sought regular bail in the case, which is being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Bail Plea Rejected by Delhi High Court

The bench, headed by Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, dismissed Christian Michel’s plea, stating that no significant changes in circumstances warranted reconsidering his bail application. The High Court noted that the serious nature of the allegations, along with Michel’s previous conduct, did not justify his release on bail. The court also reiterated the findings of the trial court, which had earlier rejected his plea on similar grounds.

Pending Enforcement Directorate Case

While Michel’s bail plea in the CBI case has been rejected, his separate plea for bail in a related Enforcement Directorate (ED) case is still pending. The ED case involves money laundering charges tied to alleged bribes paid during the helicopter deal. The Delhi High Court has scheduled the next hearing for arguments in the ED case for November 18, 2024. Both cases remain under intense scrutiny due to their international implications and high-profile nature.

Michel’s Arrest and Extradition

Christian Michel was arrested in Dubai following the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) in 2015, and a subsequent Red Corner Notice. He was extradited to India on December 4, 2018. The courts have repeatedly cited Michel’s flight risk status due to his failure to cooperate with investigations and his refusal to voluntarily appear before authorities.

CBI’s Opposition to Bail

Senior Advocate DP Singh, representing the CBI, strongly opposed the bail plea, expressing concerns that Michel could use his high-level connections to influence witnesses and tamper with evidence. The CBI argued that Michel’s central role in the scam made it essential to keep him in custody to safeguard the integrity of the investigation. The agency also highlighted that Michel’s release could hinder ongoing judicial proceedings.

The Supreme Court had previously rejected Michel’s bail plea in both the CBI and ED cases. Despite Michel’s extended pre-trial detention, the apex court, along with lower courts, consistently denied bail due to the severity of the charges and the potential risks involved in granting his release.

The AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam involves the alleged irregularities in the purchase of 12 VVIP helicopters for the Indian government. The deal, worth Rs 3,600 crore, has led to several high-profile arrests and investigations involving multiple international figures. Michel is accused of acting as a middleman, facilitating the payment of bribes to secure the deal.

UPSC Aspirants’ Death Case: Delhi HC Grants Interim Bail to 4 Basement Co-Owners, Orders Rs 5 Crore Deposit

September 13, 2024, 11:52 pm

The Delhi High Court on Friday granted interim bail to four co-owners of a basement in Old Rajinder Nagar, linked to the tragic deaths of three IAS aspirants. The bail is valid until January 30, 2025. Justice DK Sharma, who presided over the case, also directed the co-owners to deposit Rs 5 crore to the Red Cross Society and requested the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi to form a committee to regulate coaching centers operating in unsanctioned basements.

Co-Owners Held Liable for Unlawful Use of Basement

Justice Sharma remarked that the actions of the co-owners were “unpardonable” and driven by “greed.” The court’s decision follows a CBI investigation revealing that the basement was designated solely for storage but was unlawfully used as a coaching center, endangering lives. The illegal use of the basement was a direct factor in the tragic incident, according to the court.

Delhi High Court Orders Further Investigation

On Thursday, the Delhi High Court also ordered the CBI to submit a status report addressing the causes of waterlogging in the area, along with rainfall data from the day of the incident. The CBI claimed that the co-owners were fully aware of the risks associated with using the basement as a classroom, particularly given prior warnings from local residents.

Co-Owners’ Plea for Bail Cites “Act of God”

Despite the trial court denying their earlier bail plea, the co-owners approached the Delhi High Court, arguing that they were not named in the FIR and had cooperated fully with the investigation. They also asserted that the incident was caused by heavy rain, labeling it an “act of God,” and partially blamed the civic authorities for the area’s faulty sewer system.

The co-owners’ defense further contended that vicarious liability does not apply in this case, emphasizing that criminal responsibility should lie only with those directly involved in the criminal act.

Also read:

CBI Accuses Rau’s IAS Study Circle Owner of Violating Building Norms; Six Taken into Custody After Deaths of Three UPSC Aspirants</strong>

Delhi UPSC Aspirants’ Deaths: Key Demands Of Hunger Strike Protesters

Accountability For The UPSC’s ASPIRANTS’ DEATH Must Be Fixed

High Court Requests LG to Form Committee on Basement Coaching Centers

In a broader ruling, the court urged the Lieutenant Governor to establish a committee supervised by a retired High Court judge to ensure that no coaching centers operate in basements without proper authorization across Delhi.

Delhi High Court Upholds Order for SpiceJet to Ground Three Engines Over Payment Default

September 11, 2024, 1:39 pm

The Delhi High Court, in a judgment on Wednesday, upheld an earlier order directing SpiceJet Airlines to ground three of its aircraft engines due to a payment default to French engine lessors. SpiceJet had filed an appeal against the order to ground the engines and return them to the lessors, Team France 01 SAS and Sunbird France 02 SAS.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal dismissed the airline’s appeal, finding “no suitable reason” to interfere with the original ruling. The order was initially passed by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora on August 14, 2024, directing SpiceJet to ground the engines and return them within a specified timeframe.

The court sided with the lessors, agreeing that they were suffering irreparable losses due to the continued use of the engines by SpiceJet, emphasizing that engines are depreciating assets subject to wear and tear. The court observed that SpiceJet, being in default, had no legal or contractual right to continue using the engines without making the necessary payments.

Justice Arora’s ruling noted that allowing SpiceJet to use the engines without settling its outstanding dues would only exacerbate the financial harm to the lessors. The court ordered the engines to be grounded by August 16 and returned within 15 days. SpiceJet was also instructed to facilitate the inspection of the engines by the lessors’ representatives at Delhi Airport within seven days and to provide access passes for this purpose.

The lessors, Team France 01 SAS and Sunbird France 02 SAS, had claimed that SpiceJet owed them several million dollars, leading to the legal action and subsequent court rulings.