40 Important Delhi HC Judgments Of 2019

Reminding the central government authorities that India is a secular country, the high court observed that missionary activities are not prohibited as fundamental right to religion is not restricted to citizens, but is available for all persons,

In this case, a Doctor's OCI card was cancelled by the authorities on the ground that he suppressed the real purpose of his visit to the country to carry out evangelical, medical missionary and conversion activities. The authorities had termed that such activities are against the interest of general public leading to unrest and law & order problems.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru also held that a person has a right to practice his faith and his rendering medical service, even if it is for furtherance of his religion, cannot be denied. The Court also added that the assumption that missionary activities are against the law of the land, are fundamentally flawed.

(Case: Dr. Christo Thomas Philip v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C) No. 1775/2018 & CM No. 27041/2018, decided on 08.01.2019)

2. Dismissed Challenge To Amendments In PMLA Through Money Bill

A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V Kameswar Rao dismissed Congress MP Jairam Ramesh's petition seeking to declare the amendments made to the anti-money laundering law since 2015 enacted via Finance Acts as 'Money Bills' as ultra-vires the Constitution and to set aside Sections 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 and 151 of the Finance Act, 2015, Section 232 of the Finance Act, 2016 and Section 208 of the Finance Act, 2018.

The High Court was of the view that the petition was filed after much delay and he had no locus to challenge the same.

(Case: Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C) 2042/2019 & CM No. 9551/2019, decided on 28.02.2019)

3. Clarified That A Lawyer Is Barred From Appearing Only Before A Court Where His Relative Is A Presiding Judge, Not Before Entire Court

Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V. Kameswar Rao observed that a lawyer is only barred from appearing before a particular Court where relative of a lawyer is a Presiding Judge, and not before the 'entire court'. In other words, the bench meant that, the Senior Advocate is not barred from appearing before the Supreme Court, only because his son, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman happens to be a judge there.

The bench dismissed Advocate Nedumpara's contention that the word 'court' used in Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, should mean "not only the particular Court where the relative of a lawyer is a Presiding Judge but it should extend to the entire Court where the relative is a Judge."

(Case: Mathews Justice Nedumpara & Ors. v. Fali S Nariman & Ors., WP (C) 2199/2019, decided on 06.03.2019)

4. Quashed TRAI's Amendment To Mobile Number Portability Regulations

The Delhi High Court has quashed the Mobile Number Portability Per Port Transaction Charge and Dipping Charge [Amendment] Regulations, 2018, holding that it is ultra vires the powers of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India under the TRAI Act, and also contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution.

The amendment reduced the "Per Port Transaction Charge of Rs. 19 to Rs. 4 and made it payable only if the porting is "successful", i.e. if subscriber successfully transfers his connection from his original TSP.

Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Prateek Jalan observed that MNP service providers ought to have been consulted prior to making this new amendment during the consultative process. they said that limiting the entitlement of the MNP service providers to situations of successful porting is not only contrary to the statutory scheme, but also penalizes them for failures which may not be attributable to them at all. Further, the Amendment was also ex facie arbitrary and unreasonable as the per-port transaction charge of Rs. 4/- had been computed on the basis of the number of porting requests received but the same charge has ultimately been granted only for "each successful porting".

(Case: Syniverse Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. TRAI & Anr., WP (C) 1507/2018 & CM Appl. No. 6169/2018 & 25847/2018, decided on 08.03.2019)

5. Upheld Circular Asking Schools To Follow Textbooks Prescribed by SCERT/ NCERT/ CBSE

The high court dismissed a challenge against stipulations in a circular issued by the Delhi Government to all the schools under it, to follow the textbooks prescribed by the SCERT, NCERT and CBSE.

Justice C. Hari Shankar observed that uniformity of dissemination of education, among students, is a necessity. If schools are to be given an absolute discretion to decide the textbooks from which they will teach the students, it would result in the level of education, and the level of knowledge, being possessed by students of the same class, studying under the same Board and subject, ultimately, to the same examination, being different, which would result in a situation of chaos, ultimately inimical to the interests of the students themselves, the court added.

(Case: Federation of Educational Publishers in India v. Directorate of Education & Anr., WP (C) 13143/2018 & CM No. 51010/2018, decided on 27.03.2019)

6. Held RDBA, SARFAESI, IBC Doesn't Prevail Over PMLA, Must Be Harmonically Construed

The high court held that the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, SARFAESI Act and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not prevail over the provisions of Prevention of Money-Laundering Act.

Justice RK Gauba observed that these laws be construed and enforced in harmony, without one being in derogation of the other with regard to the assets respecting which there is material available to show the same to have been "derived or obtained" as a result of "criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence" and consequently being "proceeds of crime", within the mischief of PMLA.

(Case: Deputy Director, ED v. Axis Bank & Ors., Crl. A. No. 143/2018 & Crl. MA No. 2262/2018, decided on 02.04.2019)

7. Held Accident While Returning To Join Duty Amounts To Accident While On Duty

While deciding a writ petition, the bench of Justice S Muralidhar and Justice IS Mehta held that an accident while returning to join duty should be held to be construed as an accident while on duty. The denial of the extra-ordinary family pension and ex gratia amount on the ground that the deceased was not on active duty during the accident is untenable, opined the court.

The bench, referring to the decisions of the apex court in Madan Singh Shekhawat v. UOI and UOI and Anr v. Ex-Naik Surendra Pandey, observed that the accident occurred during the authorized journey while on leave should be held to be an accident while on duty.

(Case: Ranju Devi v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C) 2684/2017, decided on 10.04.2019)

8. Set Aside Centre's Decision To Restrict Basmati Rice Cultivation To Seven States

Justice Vibhu Bakhru set aside he Centre's decision to restrict production of Basmati rice only to the Indo-Gangetic plains in Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and parts of Uttar Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir under the garb of maintaining the quality and purity of the seeds.

The court delved into various provisions of the Seeds Act and noted, "The Seeds Act is not concerned with where and how the seeds are used. Once a person dealing with notified variety of seeds conforms to the requirement of Section 7 of the Seeds Act, there is no restriction as to where and how the crop is to be grown."

(Case: State Govt. of MP v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C) 11704/2016 & CM No.s 1586/2017 & 14379/2017, decided on 25.04.2019)

9. Right Of Husband/Children To Live With Wife/Mother Is A Fundamental Right

The bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right of young children to live with their mother and the right of a husband to consortium with his wife, while quashing 'Leave India Notice' served on a Pakistan citizen, who was the wife of an Indian citizen and a mother of two kids.

The bench observed that while grant of a visa in the first instance may be a matter of pure discretion with the authorities, curtailing the liberty of residing in the country during the validity of an LTV cannot be permitted except by a reasoned decision.

(Case: Md. Javed & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., LPA 168/2019 & CM No. 11617/2019, decided on 28.05.2019)

10. Held HC Cannot Entertain Criminal Contempt Reference From CAT

The high court observed that Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has no application in the context of contempt of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal observed that Article 323 A (2)(b) of the Constitution provides that an administrative tribunal constituted under sub–clause (1) of Article 323A would be empowered to punish for its contempt if the statute establishing it so provides.

The bench then remitted the matter back to the C.A.T. observing that it has the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain criminal contempt proceedings in the first instance, under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

(Case: Court on its own motion v. Re: Mehmood Pracha, Cont. Cas. (Crl) No. 4/2019, decided on 30.05.2019)

11. Dismissed PIL Seeking Guidelines For Phones Surveillance By Govt. Agencies

Noting that there are adequate guidelines in place, the high court dismissed a writ petition seeking guidelines to be given for tracing, tapping and surveillance of phones by law enforcement agencies.

Justice DN Patel and Justice Hari Shanker took note of guidelines under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act and Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules which govern the process of tracing, tapping and surveillance of phone calls. The court also mentioned that Standing Operating Procedures are already in policy and all the decisions are taken with confidence of high ranking officers.

(Read Summary Here)

12. Held Different Transactions Of Cheating The Investors Cannot Be Clubbed In the Single FIR

The high court held that in a case of inducement, allurement and cheating of large number of investors/ depositors in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy, each deposit by an investor constitutes a separate and individual transaction. All such transactions cannot be amalgamated and clubbed into a single FIR by showing one investor as the complainant, and others as witnesses.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanghi and Justice Mehta also went on to hold that in respect of each FIR,a separate final report (and wherever necessary supplementary/ further charge sheet(s)) have to be filed, and there is no question of amalgamation of the final reports that may be filed in respect of different FIR.

(Case: State v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja, Crl. Ref. No. 1/2014, decided on 08.07.2019)

13. Dismissed PIL To Include Sign Language in Schedule VIII of the Constitution

Holding that there are adequate provisions under Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016, to recognize, preserve and promote Indian Sign Language, the high court rejected the prayer to direct the government to include Indian Sign Language (ISL) in Schedule VIII of the Constitution.

The Division Bench of Justice Patel and Justice Shanker said Section 16 preserves and promotes ISL for the purpose of education while section 42 ensures the access to electronic information in sign language. The court also noted that ISL Training and Research Centre had been established by the government to promote the language.

(Read Summary Here)

14. Dismissed Plea For Making 'Marital Rape' A Ground For Divorce

Holding that court cannot give directions to the legislature to make laws or by-laws on a certain matter, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Patel and Justice Hari Shankar dismissed a PIL seeking directions to make 'marital rape' a ground for divorce. The matter fell within the mandate of the Legislature and no judicial orders can be passed in that regard, held the Court.

(Read Summary Here)

15. Dismissed Petitions Seeking Quashing Of NEET UG, 2019 Result

Stating that expert/academics body are the best judge of the subject/academic issues, Justice Anu Malhotra refused to intervene or to quash NEET UG, 2019 result.

The plea stated that the MCQs had more than one correct answers and the same was not rectified by the NTA due to which candidates have suffered grossly. Notwithstanding the same, the court held that once the examining bodies have followed the procedure of inviting objections to the key and if satisfied therewith, and declared the results, then there can be no scope for judicial review unless allegations of bias, malafide, non-consideration of relevant factors are made out.

(Case: Purbhasha Das & Ors. v. National Testing Agency & Ors., WP (C) 6801/2019, decided on 09.07.2019)

16. Held Moratorium U/S 14 IBC Does Not Bar Trial Of Suit By Corporate Debtor

Justice Prathiba Singh held that moratorium under Section 14 of IBC will not bar trial of suit by the corporate debtor and a counter-claim in such suit if issues and facts in both are intertwined.

The plaintiff company SSMP Industries had instituted the suit against Perkan Food Industries Pvt Ltd for recovery of Rs.1,61,47,336.44. The defendant made a counter-claim in the suit for Rs.59,51,548/-. Meanwhile the plaintiff company went into insolvency. Therefore the issue arose whether the counter-claim was hit by Section 14 IBC.

"until and unless the proceeding has the effect of endangering, diminishing, dissipating or adversely impacting the assets of corporate debtor, it would not be prohibited under Section 14(1)(a) of the Code.", observed the Court based on an earlier decision of Delhi HC in Power Grid Corporation of India v. Jyoti Structures Ltd.

(Case: SSMP Industries Ltd. v. Perkan Food Processors Pvt. Ltd., CS (Comm) 470/2016, decided on 18.07.2019)

17. Held Courts Cannot Lower The Cut-Off Set By Colleges For Seats Reserved Under Disability Quota

Justice Hari Shankar held that the court cannot interfere with the cut-off set by colleges for seats reserved for persons with disabilities. He however, did acknowledge the claim that persons with intellectual disability shall be treated differently from persons with locomotor disability while setting the cut-offs.

The court opined that it would be for the University, or Colleges, and not the courts, to fix cut-offs, for the admission of dyslexics and with persons suffering from intellectual or learning disabilities, at inappropriate or realistic level, so that they are able to secure admission and pursue their studies.

(Case: Vaibhav Bajaj v. Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce & Ors., WP(C) 9740/2018, decided on 23.07.2019)

18. Held Exclusion Of Daughter-In-Law From Health Scheme For Govt Employees Not Discriminatory

Observing that that the State has limited resources and medical facilities provided are necessarily confined within the resources available with the State, Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that the benefits of the Delhi Government Employees Health Scheme (DGEHS) do not extend to all the members of the beneficiary.

He said that the manner in which the said resources have to be deployed is also to be determined by the State and that in absence of a clear mention, the same cannot be extended to the widowed daughter-in-law of the beneficiary.

(Case: Hukm Tejpratap Singh & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., WP (C) 9441/2018, decided on 23.07.2019)

19. Held Pre-arrest Bail Is Not Meant For High Profile Economic Offenders

While dismissing the pre-arrest bail application moved by former Union minister P Chidambaram in the corruption and money laundering cases related to the INX Media scandal, Justice Sunil Gaur observed that this was a "classic case of money laundering" and that the facts of the case prima facie revealed that Chidambram was the king pin.

Refusing to grant bail, the court observed, "Pre-arrest bail is not meant for high profile economic offenders. Time has come to recommend to the Parliament to suitably amend the law to restrict the provisions of pre-arrest bail and make it inapplicable to economic offenders of high profile cases…It is often seen that when economic offenders are on pre-arrest bail, then the investigation conducted is at a superficial level…this not only weakens mega scam cases but it actually stiffs the prosecution."

(Case: P Chidambaram v. CBI, BA No. 1316/2018, decided on 20.08.2019)

20. Upheld The Vires Of Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act 2010; CBI Empowered To Investigate

The bench comprised by Justice Manmohan and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal held that CBI is empowered to investigate in matters of foreign contribution and upheld the constitutional validity of Section 43 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA) and Rule 22 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011 (FCRR).

The Petitioner had argued that the said provisions conferred uncontrolled and unguided power upon the respondents, to choose whether the investigation should be carried out by the officer authorized by the Central Government or the CBI.

The bench said that there was a set principle and/or policy for guidance of exercise of discretion by the Government in the matter of selection of an investigative agency and there was no parallel investigation or arbitrary, vague and uncontrolled power with the Government to claim violation of fundamental rights.

(Case: M/s Advantage India & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., WP (Crl) 3595/2017, decided on 23.08.2019)

21. Held Remedies Available Under Consumer Protection Act & RERA Are Concurrent

Justice Prateek Jalan reiterated that remedies available to home buyers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA) and Real Estate (Development and Regulation) Act, 2016 (RERA) are concurrent.

The court was faced with the question whether proceedings under the CPA could be commenced by home buyers against developers, after the commencement of RERA. In this regard, the NCDRC had decided that "remedies provided under CPA and RERA are concurrent, and the jurisdiction of the forums/commissions constituted under CPA is not ousted by RERA, particularly Section 79 thereof".

Section 79 of RERA provides that no civil court shall have jurisdiction over matters empowered to be decided by RERA under the Act and no court shall grant injunction in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.

(Case: M/s M3M India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Dr. Dinesh Sharma & Anr., CM(M) 1244/2019, decided on 04.09.2019)

22. Issued Take Down Orders Against Instagram, Google

While dealing with the defamation case filed by leading contemporary artist Subodh Gupta against an Instagram post containing sexual harassment accusations against him, published by an anonymous handle, Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw passed an ex-parte interim take down order against Facebook, Instagram and Google.

The order is a fine example of the 'notice and takedown' regime; Section 79(3)(b), earlier mandated an intermediary to take down objectionable content from its website upon acquiring 'actual knowledge' from any affected person.

(Case: Subodh Gupta v. HerdSceneAnd & Ors., CS(OS) 483/2019, order on 18.09.2019)

23. Clarified That CBI Can Be Asked To Furnish Crime File Only In Exceptional Circumstances

The high court clarified that under section 172 of CrPC, custody of the diaries has to be with the Investigating Officer and thus the CBI is not required to furnish Final Report - Part I, unless the facts warrant 'exceptional circumstances'.

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that access to FR-I cannot be made in normal course as it's an internal document of the said investigation agency. It is only under exceptional circumstances, that FR-I can be summoned by the court for its exclusive perusal of necessary, but not as a routine.

(Case: CBI v. Vallalore Rangaswamy Natarajan, Crl. Rev. No. 995/2019, decided on 20.09.2019)

24. Upheld Acquittal Of 'Rape' Accused While Holding Jilting A Lover Is Not A Crime

Justice Vibhu Bakhru observed that, continuing with an intimate relationship, which also involves engaging in sexual activity, over a significant period of time, cannot be said to be induced and involuntary, merely on the assertion that the other party has expressed its intention to get married.

It is important to bear in mind that two consenting adults establishing a physical relationship, is not a crime. Jilting a lover, however abhorent that it may seem to some, is also not an offence punishable under the IPC, he said.

(Case: State v. Sandeep, Crl. LP 532/2019, decided on 25.09.2019)

25. Held Minimum Age Limit For Purchasing Liqour Is Not Applicable To Drinking

While dismissing a petition seeking to set aside and quash Section 23 of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 on the ground that it prescribes 25 years as legal age for buying and drinking alcohol in Delhi, the bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and C Hari Shankar said it is a "wrong notion" that the minimum prescribed age for drinking liquor is 25 years under the Delhi Excise Act which only prohibits its sale to people below that age.

"The age of drinking has nothing to do with the prohibition imposed by the Delhi government under the Excise Act. We see no reason to quash Section 23 of the Act which prohibits a licensee to sell or deliver liquor to a person of less than 25 years of age," they said.

The section states that "No person or licensed vendor or his employee or agent shall sell or deliver any liquor to any person apparently under the age of twenty five years, whether for consumption by self or others."

(Read Summary Here)

26. Held Employee Can Withdraw Request For Voluntary Retirement Anytime Before Its Acceptance

Justice Rekha Palli held that an application for voluntary retirement is an offer by the employee and anytime before its acceptance, the employee would be entitled to withdraw the same. The order was passed in a case where the Petitioner's request to withdraw her voluntary retirement application was not considered.

(Case: Poonam Garg v. IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. & Ors., WP (C) 9304/2019, decided on 27.09.2019)

27. Ordered Re-computation Of DJS-2019 Result While Correcting Nine Mistakes In The Answer-key

The Division Bench of Justice Muralidhar and Justice Takwant Singh accepted 9 out of the 15 corrections pointed out in the answer-key of the Delhi Judicial Services examination 2019 and noted that the same had caused substantial prejudice to the Petitioners. They thus directed the high court to recompute the results of the remaining candidates by applying the correct answer keys.

The court relied upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pallav Mongia v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court to hold that the results of the 353 candidates already declared eligible to appear in the DJS (Mains) Examination were to be left undisturbed.

(Case: Nishant Basoya v. Registrar General, Delhi HC, WP (C) 10592/2019, ordered on 01.10.2019)

28. Winding Up Order Is Not Irrevocable;Proceedings Can Be Transferred Later To NCLT Under IBC

Division Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Sanjeev Narula held that a winding up order passed by a Company Judge is not irrevocable and the proceedings can be later transferred to NCLT under IBC if the same is in the interest of the company and the creditors.

The bench also held that when the plea moved by secured creditors regarding the appropriate forum and process for liquidation comes in conflict with that of the ex- management, the preference shall be given to the creditors unless a strong reason exists for the contrary.

(Case: Action Ispat & Power Ltd. v. Shyam Metalics & Energy Ltd. & Ors., Co. Appl. 11/2019, decided on 10.10.2019)

29. Held Indian Courts Can Pass Global Injunctions To Block Web Contents Uploaded From India

While considering the suit filed by Baba Ramdev alleging that various defamatory remarks and information including videos, based on a book titled "Godman to Tycoon – the Untold Story of Baba Ramdev are being disseminated over Facebook, Twitter, and Google, Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that so long as either the uploading takes place from India or the information/data is located in India on a computer resource, Indian courts would have the jurisdiction to pass global injunctions.
Referring to Section 79 of the Information and Technology Act, the court observed that the disabling and blocking of access has to be from the computer resource, and such resource includes a computer network, i.e., the whole network and not a mere (geographically) limited network.

(Case: Swami Ramdev & Anr. v. Facebook Inc. & Ors., CS (OS) No. 27/2019, decided on 23.10.2019)

30. Held Victim Cannot Appeal Against Inadequate Sentence U/S 372 of CrPC

The high court clarified the position of law on the right of the victim to file an appeal under section 372 of CrPC which it said doesn't allow the victim to file an appeal for enhancement of sentence imposed on the convicted person.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru went on to note that victim can invoke her right under proviso to section 372 of CrPC only in three circumstances:

1. Acquittal of the accused
2. Convicting of the accused for a lesser offence
3. Imposition of inadequate compensation

(Case: Ashok Malhotra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., W.P.(Crl) 2576/2018 & Crl. MA No. 31082/2018, decided on 01.11.2019)

31. Held Company Directors Who Default In Filing Financial Returns For 3 Consecutive Years Are Disqualified From Being Appointed As Directors For 5 Years

While ruling upon the retrospective applicability of section 164(2), Justice Vibhu Bakhru observed that the said section can apply to failure in filing returns for financial years prior to 2014, the year in which the said section came into force and held that directors of companies that have defaulted on filing financial returns for 3 consecutive years are disqualified from being appointed as directors for 5 years.

(Case: Mukut Pathak & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., WP (C) 9088/2018, decided on 04.11.2019)

32. Held Rape Being A Serious Offence Can't Be Quashed Even When Parties Enter Settlement

While rejecting an application seeking quashing of a rape case, the high court held that even if the offence of rape is settled by the offender and victim, it offence being not private in nature, and having a serious impact on the society, cannot be quashed. Justice Brijesh Sethi held that rape not only causes serious injury to a woman's body, but also to her honour and dignity.

The court relied on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Parbathhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2017 SCC Online SC 1189, to note that in offences against society, it is the duty of the state to punish the offender. In consequence, deterrence provides a rationale for punishing the offender. Hence, even when there is a settlement, the view of the offender and victim will not prevail since it is in the interest of society that the offender should be punished to deter others from committing a similar crime.

(Case: Ananda DV v. State & Anr., WP (Crl) 2382/2019 & Crl. MA No. 34350/2019, decided on 14.11.2019)

33. Issued Directions To Curb Delhi's Air Pollution

In a suo moto matter concerning the rising problem of air pollution in Delhi, the Division Bench of Justice Sistani and Justice Bhambhani issued a series of directions pertaining to forest covers, illegal encroachments and other measures.

These included directions to all municipal bodies, committees and boards are directed to fix responsibility on persons under whose areas the problem of unpaved roads or uncovered malwa is persisting; to Forest Department to prepare a list of all the pending litigations on illegal encroachments before all the forums; etc.

(Case: Court on its own Motion (Air Pollution in Delhi) v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 1346/2015 and CM Nos. 35024/2016, 640/2017, 4383/2017, 4384/2017, 8565/2017 & 18856/2017, order on 14.11.2019)

34. Refused To Relax Attendance In Professional Courses

While refusing to provide relief to students who were given a year back for not meeting the required attendance criteria by the IP University, the Division Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Asha Menon opined that importance attached to attendance in classes in a professional course like BA LLB/BBA LLB cannot be overstated.

The court went on to highlight that once an academic body has decided on a minimum percentage of lectures that a student must attend at every stage or in the aggregate, then courts must show deference to the said decision as the presumption is that being an expert in the field, the body has applied its mind before prescribing an eligibility criteria.

(Case: Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University v. Naincy Sagar & Anr., LPA 713/2019 & C.M. Appl. 48802-48804/2019, decided on 19.11.2019)

35. Held Registration Of 'Zero FIR' Is Mandatory When Crime Is Committed Outside Of Jurisdiction Reported

While directing the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to take action against the police officers who refused to register 'Zero FIR', the high court held that as per section 154 of Cr.P.C., if any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence received by any Police Station, the said police station is duty bound to register the FIR.

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait clarified that if the crime is not occurred in the jurisdiction of the said police station, then after registering the 'Zero FIR', the same has to be transferred to the concerned police station for further investigation where the offence has been committed.

(Case: Kriti Vashisht v. State & Ors., CRL.M.C. 5933/2019, decided on 29.11.2019)

36. Issued Guidelines For Balancing Claims Under Domestic Violence Act & Senior Citizens Act

Taking note of the competing claims arising under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, the high court issued certain guidelines to strike a balance.

Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that in several cases, the claim of a daughter-in-law for residence in shared household often conflicted with the right of in-laws for exclusive possession of their home.

In addition to other guidelines, the high court held that in case the son or his family ill-treated the parents, then the parents would be entitled to seek unconditional eviction from their property so that they can live a peaceful life and also put the property to use for their generating income and for their own expenses for daily living.

(Case: Vinay Verma v. Kanika Pasricha & Anr., CM (M) 1582/2018, decided on 29.11.2019)

37. Held Widow's Right To Claim Compensation For Death Of Husband Will Not Abate On Remarriage

The Delhi High Court has held that the right of a widow to claim compensation on account of death of her husband due to motor vehicle accident will not abate on remarriage, and that she was entitled to equal share as the parents of the deceased for 'loss of dependency'.

"Who can judge whether the second marriage was not a compromise because of her personal circumstances and whether it would have the same value emotionally and psychologically as the first marriage. Her entitlement fructified when the dependency was calculated. Therefore as an aggrieved widow, she would be entitled to a share of compensation apropos "loss of dependency" of equal amount to her parents-in-law, who had lost their son," Justice Najmi Waziri remarked.

(Case: Dincy Devassy v. United India Insurance Co Ltd., MACA No 26/2019, decided on 12.12.2019)

38. Held Dying Declaration Can't Be Ignored Merely Because It Was Recorded By An Executive Magistrate

Justice IS Mehta held that once it is ascertained that the dying declaration was made voluntarily and is truthful, the fact that it was reported by an Executive Magistrate, won't affect its relevance. He observed that the magistrate is a disinterested witness and is a responsible officer and in absence of any circumstances or material to suspect that the magistrate had any animus against the accused or was in any way interested for fabricating a dying declaration, question of doubt on the declaration, recorded by the magistrate does not arise.

(Case: Firoza v. State, Crl. A No. 243/2016, decided on 13.12.2019)

39. Held Electronic Voting Machines Not 'Information' Under RTI Act

Noting that the CIC had erroneously passed an order in favour of the person who had asked for the production of the EVM machine itself in his RTI application, Justice Jayant Nath held that Electronic Voting Machines are not within the definition of 'information' under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

The Petitioner had contended that CIC had failed to acknowledge the fact that the ECI doesn't maintain models or samples of EVM for the purpose of section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

(Read Summary Here)

40. Dismissed Plea Challenging Internet Shutdown In Delhi Over CAA Protests

The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Hari Shankar dismissed a PIL challenging the DCP's order of shutting down mobile interent services in Delhi on 19/12/2019 in light of the Citizenship Amendment Act protests.

The petition stated that DCP was not empowered to pass an order for suspension of telecom services as he's not the competent authority to do so under the 2017 Rules.

While refusing to entertain the plea however, the court declared that issuing writ is the prerogative of the court, and the Petitioners can make a representation before an appropriate authority.

(Read Summary Here)