All High Courts Weekly Roundup [31 January- 06 February, 2022]

1. S 45 PMLA: Twin Conditions for Bail That We're Declared Unconstitutional By SC Stand Revived by 2018 Amendment Act - Bombay High Court

1. 'He Has Suffered Mental Pain': Calcutta High Court Reduces Sentence For Conviction U/S 489B IPC In Appeal Pending Since 1986

Case Title: Biswanath Das v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 18

The Calcutta High Court reduced the sentence awarded to a man charged under Section 489B and Section 489C of the IPC for forging currency notes after observing that he had undergone mental agony due to long pendency of criminal proceedings. The appellant had been convicted only on April 13, 1986 in criminal proceedings initiated against him on December 28, 1983. Thereafter, the instant appeal preferred by him has been pending since 1986. Justice Rabindranath Samanta noted that the appellant had already served out the sentence for one and half months and accordingly observed, "Owing to continuance of the appeal, the appellant/convict suffered worries, mental pains and agonies. As stated above, he has already served out the sentence for one and half months. Considering the long pendency of the criminal proceedings and the instant appeal and the mental pains suffered by the appellant/convict I feel that the sentence as imposed by the learned Trial Judge if reduced to the sentence already undergone by him would sub-serve the interest of justice." Accordingly, the Court reduced the sentence imposed to the period already served by the appellant which is only one and half months. "The conviction as recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the aforesaid Sessions trial case is confirmed. However, the sentence is reduced to only one and half months which the appellant has already served out", the Court directed further.

2. 'Vague Reference To Previous Medical Treatment' : Calcutta HC Dismisses Plea Of Legal Insanity, Upholds Life Sentence Of Man For Murdering His Mother

Case Title: Md. Wasim v. The State of West Bengal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 19

The Calcutta High Court has recently upheld the life sentence awarded to a man for murdering his mother by dismissing his plea of legal insanity. A Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Kausik Chanda while dismissing the plea of legal insanity underscored, "I find it difficult to persuade myself that the appellant had discharged his onus to establish that he committed the crime while suffering from a bout of insanity. To fall within the general exception of legal insanity, it is incumbent on the part of the defence to establish that the accused was suffering from mental ailment of such degree at the time of commission of the offence that he was unaware of the consequences of his act. Appellant has singularly failed to discharge such onus. Vague reference to previous medical treatment by PW-6 without cogent materials like prescriptions or other medical evidence being placed on record to prove the nature and degree of mental impairment at the time of commission of the offence would not sustain the plea of legal insanity." During the proceedings, it was argued that the appellant was suffering from mental imbalance and hence ought to be acquitted. However, the Court dismissed such a contention by stating that the record only shows that he had received some treatment for mental problems, however no witness evidence had divulged that the appellant was violent due to any mental disorder. Accordingly, the Court observed further, "I find little force in such submission. PW-6 merely stated that the appellant was a simple person and had previously received some treatment for mental problems. He, however, denied that the appellant was violent due to mental disorder. On the contrary, ample evidence has come on record that the appellant was leading a healthy and normal life. He was carrying on business in perfume on his own."

Case Title: Divyajot Singh Jendu v. Manikaran Analytics Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 20

The Calcutta High Court on Monday held that before issuing summons to an accused under Section 204 of the CrPC, a Magistrate has to mandatorily hold an inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC. Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee held that the scope of such enquiry under section 202 CrPC is limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: (i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defense that the accused may have. The Court therefore set aside an order of the concerned Magistrate issuing summons to the accused (residing outside its jurisdictional limits) after observing that the Magistrate had merely conducted an inquiry under Section 200 of the CrPC and not under Section 202 of the CrPC. "In the case under considering the learned Magistrate did not hold any inquiry under section 202 of Cr. P.C though it is apparent from the complaint that the accused resided outside the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint has been lodged. Learned Magistrate on the other hand held an inquiry under section 200 of Cr. P.C simpliciter and only examined the complainant and no other witness or document", the Court observed.

Case Title: Sumit Roy v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 21

The Calcutta High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to not arrest Sumit Roy, secretary to All India Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee, during his appearance before the agency in the ongoing investigation the alleged coal scam in West Bengal. The CBI had issued a notice dated January 25, 2022 to Roy, directing him to appear before the investigating authorities on February 1 at 11 am. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed, "I am inclined that upon the petitioner resuming the investigation before the Central Bureau of Investigation and cooperating with the Investigating Authorities in terms of the impugned notice, the petitioner shall not be arrested in terms of the impugned notice requesting the petitioner to appear on 1 February, 2022. I make it clear that no other issue is being decided in this petition. In view of the fact that the matter has been heard at a belated stage, this limited order is passed only in respect of the impugned notice dated 25 January, 2022." Further considering that the matter was being heard after the petitioner has practically complied with the impugned notice, the Court opined that there appears to be no immediate threat or apprehension of the petitioner being arrested on Tuesday in terms of the impugned notice.

Case Title: Lakshi Ram Hembram @ Laxmiram Hembram v. State of West Bengal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 22

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the testimony of a sole eyewitness with respect to an accused cannot be ignored solely because her evidence with respect to the other co-accused persons has been found to be unreliable. A Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Bibhas Ranjan De observed that the principal of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' (false in one thing, false in everything) is not applicable in India with respect to appreciation of evidence. Accordingly, the Bench upheld the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellant for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC on the basis of the testimony of the sole eye witness (PW 5). The Court held, "In India, the principal 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' does not apply in the matter of appreciation of evidence. When the Court is called upon to assess the evidence of a witness, it becomes its bounden duty to assess the evidence of the witness on the anvil of probability and separate the kernel of truth from the chaff of embellishment. The trial court has rightly assessed the evidence of PW 5 and upon ignoring her embellished effort to implicate other associates of the appellant in the crime, correctly relied on the role of the appellant as the sole assailant of the deceased." It was further held that although the sole eye witness (PW 5) may have been 'over enthusiastic' in implicating the other co-accused persons, however, her testimony with regards to the role of the appellant in the murder of the deceased has been corroborated by other sources. "Effort of PW 5 to implicate other accused persons appears to be over enthusiastic and was rightly mixed by the trial Judge due to lack of corroboration. However, her version vis-à-vis role of the appellant in the murder resonates with truth and finds corroboration from other sources. It would be wrong to ignore her evidence qua the appellant while discarding her embellished version with regard to other accused persons. Hence, the acquittal of the other accused persons does not affect the truthfulness of the prosecution case, vis-à-vis the appellant", the Court underscored.

6. 'Not Unmindful Of Social Stigma Attached To Nature Of The Offence': Calcutta HC Condones Delay In Lodging FIR In POCSO Case Of Man Raping 14 Yr Old

Case Title: Md. Israil v. The State of West Bengal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 23

The Calcutta High Court observed that there is existing social stigma associated with the offence of rape and accordingly held that a delay in lodging FIR in cases of such nature would not vitiate the prosecution case. The Court accordingly upheld the conviction of a man for raping a minor victim aged 14 years who had subsequently given birth to a still born child. A Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattnayak observed that it is apparent that the victim did not inform anyone about the crime due to continuous threats by the appellant and that she had proceeded to lodge the police complaint only after her pregnancy was discovered. "I am also not unmindful of social stigma attached to the nature of the offence which might have also attributed to the delay in lodging FIR. Even otherwise, the mere factum of delay in filing complaint in regard to an offence of this nature by itself would not be fatal so as to vitiate the prosecution case", the Court underscored. Further the Court observed that there is no evidence of concoction of a false version or embellishment and accordingly dismissed contentions pertaining to the delay lodging of an FIR.

7. Magistrate Cannot Discharge Accused U/S 245(2) CrPC On The Ground That Complainant Was Absent Without Recording Reasons & Examining Witnesses

Case Title: Supratik Ghosh v. State of West Bengal & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 24

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a Magistrate while discharging an accused under Section 245(2) CrPC has to record reasons showing that no case has been made out and thus cannot simply order for such discharge on the ground that the complainant has failed to show cause by not verifying and affixing proper signature on the application. Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee observed, "In my considered view it would be a legal necessity on the part of learned Magistrate under section 245 (2) of the Cr. P.C to consider and record reasons that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted would warrant his conviction. In absence of such evidence the accused may be discharged. I do not find any such finding or observation made by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order. It appears that learned Magistrate has been swayed by the sole reason that he did not find the cause shown by the complainant to be in proper form." The Court further noted that an accused can be discharged under Section 245(2) CrPC if the Magistrate for reasons recorded comes to the conclusion that the charge is groundless. However, it was observed that in the instant case, the Magistrate has discharged the accused without considering the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) and the concerned S.I of Police (PW-2). "The provision under section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code however does not foresee a situation where the absence of the complainant can be a ground for discharging of the accused without considering the evidence already adduced by the complainant witnesses before charge", the Court underscored further.

8. S. 37 NDPS Act| 'Reasonable Grounds' Mean Something More Than 'Prima Facie' Grounds: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Manik Das @Manik Chandra Das v. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 25

While interpreting Section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Calcutta High Court has recently opined that 'reasonable grounds' to believe that the accused has not committed an offence must be more than mere 'prima facie' grounds. Justice Bibhas Ranjan De observed, "It is axiometic that 'reasonable grounds' means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. It requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates a more stricter approach than an application for bail sans the NDPS Act." "After careful scrutiny of section 37 of the NDPS Act 1985 we find that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained in section 439 Cr.P.C, but is also subject to the limitations placed by section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause", the Court underscored further. Enumerating further, the Court observed that enlargement on bail of any person accused of commission of an offence under the NDPS Act must satisfy two conditions- First condition is that the persecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are 'reasonable grounds for believing' that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, rejection of bail is rule, the Court stated further.

9. 'Deliberately Tried To Hoodwink The Court': Calcutta High Court Raps Former Chairman Of WBCSSC, Imposes 20K Costs

Case Title: Sumana Layek v. State of West Bengal & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 26

he Calcutta High Court has recently come down heavily on the former Chairman of the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBCSSC) while setting aside an order issued by the former Chairman depriving a candidate for the recruitment of assistant teachers in secondary and higher secondary classes in the State of her right to counselling. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay while referring to the rules for recruitment as envisaged under the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the Posts of Teachers for Classes IX and X in Secondary and Higher Secondary Classes) Rules, 2016 (2016 Rules) observed with dismay, "It is clear from the order that the order is an incomplete, suppressing and evasive one. The order is motivated to deprive the petitioner of her valuable accrued Right of counselling. The Commission is mandated under Rule 16 (1) of the above mentions Rules of 2016 to hold counselling. The order has deliberately tried to hoodwink the court and other persons, if possible, which has not been possible because of the scrutinizing eyes of the petitioners and of the court." Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Commission and further directed the former Chairman of WBCSSC to pay costs to the tune of Rs 20,000 from his own pocket and not form the fund of WBCSSC. The Court observed further, "I do not know what kind and quality of person is now manning the post of Chairman of a statutory body, namely, WBCSSC. On the basis of the discussion made above, the report filed by the Chairman is quashed and set aside with a cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid personally by the Chairman of the West Bengal Central School Service Commission from his own pocket to the petitioner by cheque and not from the fund of the WBCSSC within a period of 15 days from date."

10. 'Unconditionally Undertakes To Take Good Care': Calcutta High Court Directs NGO To Return French Mastiff Dog 'Bruno' To Its Rightful Owners

Case Title: Sukanya Mirbahar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 27

In an interesting development, the Calcutta High Court on Thursday directed an NGO to return a French Mastiff dog named 'Bruno' to its rightful owners after the dog had gone missing and was subsequently kept in the custody of the concerned NGO. The NGO was however allowed to visit and inspect the dog at least once in a month. The NGO Debasree Roy Foundation had deposed before the Court that the dog had not been treated well by the owners and was thus not in a very good state of heath. Accordingly, the NGO had opposed the plea of the petitioners to take back custody of the dog. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha observed, "Bruno shall be returned to its owners, i.e. the writ petitioner and her family in course of the day by the Debasree Roy Foundation. The writ petitioner unconditionally undertakes before this Court that she will take good care of the French Mastiff Dog, 'Bruno', physically and mentally".

11. S.311 CrPC Confers Power To Examine Witnesses At Any Stage Of Trial: Calcutta HC Asks Trial Court To Consider Plea Of Alibi After Closing Of Evidence

Case Title: Uttam Saha & Anr v. State of West Bengal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 28

The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that powers under Section 311 of CrPC have been conferred upon the Court to serve the ends of justice and may be exercised at any stage of inquiry, trial or proceeding for reaching to a just decision. Accordingly, it proceeded to allow the petitioners in the present murder case to adduce evidence on their plea of alibi after closing of evidence. Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee observed, "One cannot be oblivious of the fact that when a substantial legal right is claimed by the litigants, the court has to consider its implication and to exercise its jurisdiction judiciously for meeting the ends of justice...their plea of alibi needs to be admitted in evidence if they are in a position to adduce substantive evidence on that count and stand the test of cross-examination. Denial of such right would lead to miscarriage of justice." Opining on the necessity to allow the plea of alibi, the Court underscored further, "Whatever the outcome of the case may be, on consideration of the totality of the evidence together with its trustworthiness, I am of the view that the petitioners who raised a question of being away at the time the incident of fire, should get an opportunity to examine relevant witness and prove the documents they are relying upon. End of justice would be served if the petitioner witness proving such documents for the purpose of admission, stands the test of cross-examination for which prosecution will not suffer any prejudice. "

12. Calcutta High Court Directs CBI To Not Take Any Coercive Action Against TMC Leader Anubrata Mondal In WB Post Poll Violence Case

Case Title: Anubrata Mondal v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 29

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to not take any coercive measures against Trinamool Congress Birbhum district president Anubrata Mondal without the leave of the Court. Mondal had moved the High Court seeking protection from arrest pursuant to the issuance of a CBI notice directing him to appear before its investigating team for the ongoing probe into the West Bengal post poll violence cases. He had been summoned by the CBI as a witness at the NIT camp office in Durgapur in neighbouring Paschim Bardhaman district at 11am on Thursday in connection with a murder case at Alambazar in Birbhum which is alleged to have a connection with the post-poll violence in West Bengal. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha directed the petitioner to appear before the CBI at its Durgapur office and corporate with the ongoing investigation and further observed, "In the event of any such fresh notice, the petitioner shall appear and cooperate in such investigation. However, no coercive measures shall be taken by the CBI against the petitioner without the leave of this Court." While dictating the order, the Court further noted that the instant petition had become infructuous since the impugned notice issued by the CBI had directed the petitioner to appear on Thursday at 11am. However, it was observed that the notice issued under Section 160 CrPC by the CBI is still at large as such a notice has not been withdrawn by the CBI. Accordingly, Justice Mantha observed that the CBI is entitled to fix any other time for investigation and accordingly directed the CBI to issue notice afresh if necessary and call upon the petitioner for questioning at its Durgapur office.

Also Read: Territorial Limitations Of Section 160 CrPC Apply Even To CBI Investigations: Calcutta High Court

Important Weekly Updates

1. Calcutta HC Imposes 10K Costs On Visva-Bharati University For Not Filing Response In Plea Concerning Initiation Of Departmental Enquiry Against A Professor

Case Title: Sudipta Bhattacharyya v. Visva-Bharati & Ors

The Calcutta High Court imposed costs to the tune of Rs 10,000 on the authorities of Visva-Bharati University, Santiniketan for its repeated failure to file an affidavit-in-opposition in a case pertaining to initiation of departmental proceedings against a professor of the University on the basis of allegations of sexual harassment. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya on Friday noted that the University had failed to file its affidavit-in-opposition despite given three prior opportunities to do so. Accordingly, the Court recorded in its order, "It appears from the records that the University was to file its affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks from the order dated 25th September, 2020. The time to file the affidavit-in- opposition was extended by another order dated 6th January, 2021 by which the University was to file its affidavit-in-opposition within 20th January, 2021." Thereafter, the Court directed the University authorities to file its affidavit-in-opposition within 3 weeks and further ordered the authorities to pay costs amounting to Rs 10,000 to the Bharat Sevasram Sangha, Kolkata within 2 weeks. The petitioner was also directed to file its reply within 2 weeks thereafter.

2. Calcutta High Court Directs State To Disclose Number Of Pending Cases Under SC/ST Act In WB

Case Title: Thaddeus Lakra and Ors v. State of West Bengal and Ors

The Calcutta High Court directed the State government as well as the High Court administration to file an affidavit disclosing the existing number of pending cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) in the State as on January 31, 2022. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition alleging that land belonging to impoverished members of the Scheduled Case and Scheduled Tribe community are being forcefully seized by miscreants. Accordingly, the Bench directed, "Learned Advocate General for State as also learned counsel for respondent 6 are directed to file affidavit disclosing pending figures of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as on 31st January, 2022".

3. Calcutta High Court Seeks State's Response In PIL Seeking Regular Maintenance And Preservation Of Maidan

Case Title: Subhas Datta v. Local Military Authority and Ors

The Calcutta High Court sought response from the State government in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking directions for regular maintenance and preservation of the Brigade Parade Ground and adjoining greens popularly known as the Maidan which is considered to be the lungs of the city. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was apprised by the petitioner Subhas Datta, an activist by profession that the Maidan ground and surrounding areas constitute a Heritage Zone and that the State government should take measures to preserve them. Accordingly, the Bench on Monday directed the State government to file its affidavit-in-opposition before the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on March 15. The petitioner was further directed to implead the Union of India in the instant petition and serve a copy of the petition along with relevant enclosures to the Additional Solicitor General Y.J Dastoor.

4. 'Examine CCTV Footage': Calcutta High Court Calls For Reports From Police & Zoo Authorities On Outsiders' Entry Over Control Of Workers' Union

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Director, Alipore Zoological Garden & Ors

The Calcutta High Court took cognisance of incidents of alleged trespass at the premises of the Kolkata Zoological Garden popularly known as the Alipore Zoo over control of its employees' trade union. The police authorities and the Zoo authorities were directed to submit detailed reports in this regard by February 2 pursuant to the examination of the relevant CCTV footage. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was adjudicating upon a plea moved by BJP leader Rakesh Kumar Singh alleging that on January 24 about 600-700 persons had forcefully entered the Zoo premises even though the premises were not open to the public due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. It was contended by the petitioner that on January 24, a group of about 600-700 persons some of them with firearms and weapons had barged into the Alipore Zoo primarily through its main gate after breaking open its padlocks while others had jumped in over the surrounding walls. It was further submitted that till date such trespassers are still residing inside the zoo premises illegally. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, the Court directed, "The Director of Zoo, shall inspect the entire Zoo premises today and tomorrow and submit a report of what he sees including the outsiders. All such outsiders shall be identified, from the regular employees." Furthermore, the Court directed the police authorities to examine the relevant CCTV footage from January 23 till January 28 and submit a detailed report. The zoo management authorities were also ordered to submit a report after examining the CCTV footage in their possession.

Also Read: 'Dispute In Realm Of Trade Union Recognition/Labour Matter': Calcutta High Court's Prima Facie View In Plea Alleging Outsiders' Entry Inside Alipore Zoo

5. Calcutta High Court Seeks Personal Appearance Of School Headmistress For Non-Compliance Of Court's Directions Regarding Issuance Of No-Objection Certificate

Case Title: Mostafizur Molla v. The State of West Bengal & Ors

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday sought the personal appearance of a school headmaster for not complying with an earlier order of the Court wherein the concerned school had been instructed to file an affidavit enumerating as to why a no-objection certificate (NOC) could not be granted to the petitioner. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay noted that the earlier order of the Court dated January 21, 2022 had been communicated by email to the school authorities on January 24, 2022. Furthermore, it was recorded that despite the Court's directions no affidavit enumerating the reasons for non-issuance of the NOC had been filed by the school authorities on January 28, 2022. "Despite having the said copy of the order of this court dated 21st January, 2022, neither the school filed any report in the form of an affidavit nor the school granted the petitioner no-objection", the Court observed. Accordingly, the Court sought the personal appearance of the school headmaster and further remarked, "This court is surprised by the letter of the school sent to the petitioner via email dated 29.01.2022 demanding order of this court dated 28.01.2022.In such circumstances I direct the headmaster of the school to appear personally on 08.02.2022 at 10.30 a.m. before this court either with the no-objection certificate or with the report if the school thinks that no- objection cannot be issued to the petitioner. The report should be in the form of an affidavit."

6. 'Taking Serious View Of The Matter': Calcutta HC Raps State For Non-Compliance Of Order Prohibiting Plying Of Unregistered E-Rickshaws

Case Title: Rita Mitra v. Narayan Swarup Nigam & Ors

The Calcutta High Court expressed displeasure at the conduct of the State government for not complying with the Court's earlier order directing the State to ensure a ban on plying of unregistered E-rickshaws in the State. The Court vide order dated August 17, 2018 had disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition after directing the State government to ensure that all E-rickshaws playing in the State are registered with the Regional Transport Authorities subject to compliance of such vehicles with Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The State authorities were further instructed to ensure that unregistered E-rickshaws are not allowed to ply on the roads. "We are taking a serious view of the matter. The parent order was passed about three and a half years ago. The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of West Bengal, shall file a report before us on the next date stating the present status of compliance of the order dated August 17, 2018, as modified by the subsequent orders referred to above. It is in public interest that illegal plying of unregistered E-rickshaws must be stopped. We trust and hope that the Transport Department appreciates the immediate need and importance of stopping all unregistered E-rickshaws from plying", the Court directed.

7. 'To Say The Least, Report Is Absolutely Vague': Calcutta High Court On Police Investigation In Case Of Missing Minor Girl

Case Title: Israfil Sk. v. State of West Bengal & Ors

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday expressed displeasure at the manner in which the investigation is being carried out by police authorities of Kalna Police Station, Purba Bardhaman in a case pertaining to the disappearance of a minor girl in Kalna district of West Bengal. The Court was adjudicating upon a Habeas Corpus Plea moved by the parents of the missing minor girl. A Bench comprising Justices T. S. Sivagnanam and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya on Thursday took on record a status report filed by Rakesh Singh, Officer-in-Charge, Kalna Police Station, Purba Bardhaman dated February 1. On a perusal of the report, the Bench observed with dismay, "To say the least, the report is absolutely vague. We have expressed our displeasure to the learned Government counsel and gave an option to withdraw the report and file a proper report and ensure that the investigation is done in a proper manner."

Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Continental Engineering Corporation v. Sugesan Transport Pvt Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 59

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an execution petition filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act by a Decree Holder for an arbitral award because the the Judgment Debtor was carrying out its business in Chennai and it did not have any office or asset within Delhi jurisdiction.

The present petition was filed under Section 36 (the award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court) of the Arbitration Act ('the Act'). The Court also relied on Order XXI, Rule 30 of CPC for grant of execution of a money decree.

While going through the assets of the Judgement Debtor, the judge noted that, the Judgement Debtor is a company carrying out its business in Chennai, its primary bank account is based out of Chennai and it does not have any office/ asset located in Delhi. The affidavit of assets filed by the Judgement Debtor also does not disclose an moveable/ immoveable assets within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

2. "Serious Assault On Dignity Of Complainant": Delhi HC Refuses To Quash FIR Of Stalking, Sexual Harassment Despite Settlement Between Parties

Case Title: MOHD. NAZIM v. THE STATE (G.N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 60

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR filed against a man accused of stalking, sexual harassing and circulating morphed photographs of an undergraduate girl, despite settlement between parties.

Considering the nature of offences committed against the girl, Justice Mukta Gupta was of the view that the FIR cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the man later showed repentance for the offences committed as the same was a "serious assault on the fundamental right to live with dignity of the complainant."

3. Fair Trial Is Hallmark Of Criminal Procedure, Court's Duty To Ensure Fair & Proper Opportunities To Accused For Just Decision: Delhi HC

Case Title: KRISHAN KUMAR v. THE STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 61

The Delhi High Court has observed that a fair trial is the hallmark of criminal procedure which entails not only the rights of the victims but also the interest of the accused.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri added that it is the duty of every Court to ensure that fair and proper opportunities are granted to the accused for just decision of the case.

"In furtherance of the above, adducing of evidence by the accused in support of his defence is also a valuable right and allowing the same is in the interest of justice," the Court said.

4. S. 3(1)(w) Of SC/ST Act Does Not Come Into Play When Offence Had No Reference To Prosecutrix's Caste : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Joy Dev Nath v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 62

The Delhi High Court has held that to prosecute a person for an offence committed under Section Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act, the prosecution must show that the offence was committed in reference to the 'caste' of the victim/ prosecutrix.

Section 3(1)(w) penalizes a person, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient's consent.

5. Liquidated Damages Over & Above Actual Damages Cannot Be Awarded By Sole Arbitrator: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bhopal Dal Udyog v. Food Corporation of India, FAO (OS) 415/2011

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 63

The Delhi High Court observed that in breach of a contract, if the actual damages have been ascertained then the sole arbitrator is not justified in granting liquidated damages over and above such actual damages.

The Bench comprising of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manmohan observed,

" In the present case as the actual damages suffered by the respondent were proven and accepted by the learned Sole Arbitrator, liquidated damages over and above such actual damages could not have been awarded. Accordingly, the Arbitral Award insofar as it grants Rs.8,38,656/- in favour of the respondent is set aside."

6. 'Strong Suspicion' Of Prima Facie Case Based On Materials On Record Sufficient To Frame Charges; Need Not Assess Probative Value Of Evidence: Delhi HC

Case Name: Shakiluddin @ Babloo v. The State CRL.REV.P.-150/2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 64

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a Revision Petition filed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge framing the charge of murder against the accused-revisionist.

It held that at the stage of framing charges, the Court need not consider the probative value of the evidence. A prima facie view of the materials on record is sufficient for framing charges.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar held:

"When the material placed before the Court discloses great suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be justified in framing charge. No roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial was being conducted. If on the basis of materials on record a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case of framing of charge exists."

7. Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Of 72 Yrs Old Accused In POCSO Case

Case Title: Miss M (Minor) v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr., Crl. M. C. 1909/2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 65

The Delhi High Court cancelled the bail granted to a 72 years old man, who is accused of raping a 7 years old girl child and is booked for the offence of Rape under Section 376 IPC and Penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The petitioner/ complainant had filed a petition under Article 227, read with Section 439(2) CrPC, assailing the order granting bail to the accused.

8. Assembly Elections 2022: Delhi HC Refuses To Entertain Congress Leader's Plea To Postpone Polls In Five States Amid Third COVID Wave

Case Title: Jagdish Sharma v. UOI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 66

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a plea filed by Congress Leader Jagdish Sharma seeking postponement of polls in States of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Manipur, Uttarakhand and Goa in view of the growing cases of new Covid-19 variant Omicron.

The Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh expressed their displeasure and termed the petition as "frivolous" amid decline in the cases. It asked the counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the plea and warned that the same will otherwise be dismissed with cost.

Accordingly, the plea was withdrawn from Court.

9. "Sensitive Matter": Delhi High Court Grants Protection To Inter Faith Couple Apprehending Honour Killing

Title: FARHEEN SAINI & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 67

The Delhi High Court has granted police protection to an inter faith couple who was apprehending honour killing at the hands of woman's family members, after observing that their constitutional right to life and liberty was under threat.

Noting that the matter was sensitive in nature as the parties belonged to different religious communities, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said:

"There is no doubt that the present matter is of sensitive nature as the parties involved belong to different religious communities. The right to life and liberty is guaranteed by the Constitution of India and the same is an essential right to be protected, and in the present matter the Petitioners right was under threat at the instance of Respondents No. 3 to 5."

10. Delhi Riots: High Court Grants Bail To Two Accused Of Killing 85 Yrs Old Woman, One Denied Relief

Case Title: State v. Vishal Singh and other connected pleas

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 68

The Delhi High Court granted bail to two men accused in the murder case of 85 year old woman, Akbari who died of asphyxiation due to inhaling smoke during the North East Delhi riots after her house was set on fire by a riotous mob. One other accused has however been denied relief.

Justice Subramonium Prasad denied bail to Vishal Singh. Relief was granted to Arun Kumar and Ravi Kumar, all booked in FIR 70/2020 registered at Bhajanpura police station.

11. Vendors Selling Essential Goods & Services Can't Be Equated To Regular Shops: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SAPTAHIK PATRI BAZAR ASSOCIATION v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 69

The Delhi High Court has observed that participation of vendors in weekly markets in selling or dealing with essential goods and services is no ground to equate them with regular shops or establishments.

A Bench of Justicr Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh added that the nature of regular shops or establishment in a market area is very different from any weekly markets owing to the reason of density of both vendors and visitors.

"Footfall in a weekly market is much higher and therefore the risk of spread of disease in weekly market is much higher," the Bench said.

Therefore, the Court observed that a weekly market cannot be controlled and managed in the same way as regular shops or establishments in a regular market.

12. Delhi High Court Dismisses Allegations Of False Implication Against Complainant, Cites Law On Appreciation Of Injured Witness' Testimony

Case Title: Ankit v. State (NCT of Delhi) CRL.A. 170/2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 70

The Delhi High Court recently referred to the law on appreciation of testimony of an injured witness, while upholding the judgment and conviction for attempted Murder punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri noted that the complainant/ witness had identified the appellant (convict) in Court and in cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the appellant was falsely implicated by him as he had taken loan from the appellant.

In this regard, the Judge referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh and Others (2011), to hold that the testimony of the complainant can be relevant and reliable, depending on the facts and circumstances of every case.

13. Award Of Interest Contrary To Express Terms Of Agreement Susceptible To Challenge Under S.34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seeds Corporation (India), OMP (COMM) 432/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 71

The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that the award of interest contrary to the express terms of the agreement between the parties would be susceptible to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996.

However, Justice Vibhu Bakhru added, if there is no such agreement proscribing award of interest, the award of interest cannot be faulted.

The observation was made while dealing with an application filed by the National Seeds Corporation Limited under Section 34 of the Act, impugning an arbitral award rendered by a Sole Arbitrator.

14. Appears To Be Dishonest Adoption Of Plaintiff's Trademark: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Protection To Owner Of "Baazi" Games

Case Name: MOONSHINE TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED versus TICTOK SKILL GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 72

In a case concerning alleged trademarks infringement, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction against the Defendants under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 unjustifiably using the trademarked word "Baazi" for its gaming services.

Holding that dishonest use of trademark "Baazi" or a similar word by a competitor of the registered proprietor of the trademark would suffice to restrain such user, the Court allowed the application of the Plaintiff/the registered proprietor for ad-interim injunction till the disposal of the suit.

15. Adequacy Of Court Fees Has To Be Decided By Joint Registrar, Independent Of Any Objections Recorded By Registry: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SHAILENDRA GHAI v. ANIL GHAI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 73

The Delhi High Court has said that it is incumbent on the Joint Registrar to consider the question of adequacy of court fees filed by a party, independent of any objections recorded by the Registry in that regard.

"It is underlined that when an objection as to adequacy of Court Fees is raised, it is incumbent upon the learned Joint Registrar to consider the question independently of any objections recorded by the Registry and to pass appropriate orders," Justice Asha Menon said.

The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved with the orders of the Joint Registrar dated 8th October, 2021 directing him to pay the deficient Court Fees without fail before the next date of hearing.

16. NI Act- Limitation Period For Issuance Of Legal Notice To Exclude Day On Which Intimation Received From Bank About Return Of Cheque: Delhi HC

Title: M/S RAYAPATI POWER GENERATION PVT. LTD. AND ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 75

The Delhi High Court has observed that while computing the limitation period of 30 days prescribed under sec. 138(b) Negotiable Instruments Act for issuance of a valid legal notice, the day on which intimation is received by the complainant from the bank that the cheque in question has been returned unpaid has to be excluded.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri was dealing with a bunch of petitions filed under sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Criminal Complaints qua them.

17. Encroachment Of Govt Land An 'Ill That Plagues Civil Litigation', Trial Courts Must Decide Maintainability Of Such Cases At Initial Stage: Delhi HC

Case Title: NATHU RAM v. D.D.A & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 76

The Delhi High Court has observed that it is incumbent on the Trial Courts to consider the maintainability of suits at the initial stage so as to ensure that long delays do not take place, especially in respect of government land.

Justice Pratibha M Singh dismissed a second appeal challenging a single Judge's order against possession of the Appellants of a government land.

It was the case of the plaintiffs (Appellants herein) that they were in possession of the suit property situated in revenue estate of Humayunpur since the time of their forefathers. The original suit was filed against the DDA on the ground that on 8th May, 1984, DDA had threatened to demolish the construction of the house and asked the Plaintiffs to hand over the possession of the same.

18. Limitation Under Art. 68 & 91(a) Runs From 'Date Of Actual Knowledge' Of Misappropriation: Delhi High Court

Case Name: K.N. Rao & Anr. V. M/s. Composite Securities Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 77

The Delhi High Court has clarified that the phrase "first learns" used in the Limitation Act 1963 vide Articles 68 and 91(a) in its Schedule means "actual knowledge" of misappropriation and not merely "speculative knowledge."

Limitation under Article 68 pertains to specific movable property lost, or acquired by theft, or dishonest misappropriation or conversion. The period of limitation is 3 years, time from which begins to run when the person having the right to the possession of the property first learns in whose possession it is.

Similarly, Article 91(a) pertains to wrongfully taking or detaining any specific movable property lost, or acquired by theft, or dishonest misappropriation, or conversion. The period of limitation is three years, time fir which begins to run when the person having the right to the possession of the property first learns in whose possession it is.

19. S.34 SARFAESI Act | General Bar On Civil Proceedings Not Applicable When Secured Creditor Accused Of Committing Fraud: Delhi High Court

Case Name: Tajunissa & Anr. V. Mr. Vishal Sharma & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 78

The Delhi High Court has held that invocation of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act results in a general bar to civil court proceedings, in light of Section 34 of the Act. However, this general rule is subject to the exceptions of fraud or absurd claims by the secured creditor.

Justice C. Hari Shankar, quoted the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. UOI (2004), in the context of this invocation:

"To the statutory proscription engrafted in Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, therefore, the Supreme Court has, in the aforeextracted passage from Mardia Chemicals, chiseled out an exception, in a case in which "for example, the action of the secured creditor is alleged to be fraudulent or his claim may be so absurd and untenable which may not require any probe whatsoever".

20. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Rotation Of Wards For Reserved Categories In Upcoming Municipal Polls

Case Title: Pankaj Sharma v. State Election Commission, WP (C ) 1892/2022 connected with Manoj Kumar Jha v. State Election Commission & Ors., WP (C ) 2027/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 79

The Delhi High Court has dismissed two petitions challenging a notification issued by the State Election Commission last month, changing the seats reserved in some wards under the General and Scheduled Caste category, for the upcoming municipal elections on the basis of descending order of percentage of population.

The Division Bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh noted that relied reservation and rotation of seats for SC/ST members in municipal seats is not prohibited under Article 243T(1) of the Constitution.

The Court further noted that the power for rotation for the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes in different wards is vested upon the Central Government, and the delegation of this power to the State Election Commission (via a 1993 notification) has not been challenged.

21. Delhi High Court Refunds Entire Court Fees In A Trademark Infringement Suit Resolved Amicably Outside Court

Case Title: Western Infrabuild Products LLP v. M/s Western Steel India & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 80

The Delhi High Court recently decided to refund the entire court fees in a trademark infringement case, which was amicably settled by the parties outside the Court.

In doing so, the Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait followed suit of the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Madras vs. M.C. Subramaniam.

In the said case, the Top Court had held that the parties who privately agree to settle their dispute outside the modes contemplated under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure are also entitled to refund of Court fees.

22. Order VII Rule 11 CPC | There Cannot Be Piecemeal Rejection Of Plaint: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Kavita Tushir v. Pushpraj Dalal, CM (M) 13/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 81

The Delhi High Court has held that there cannot be a piecemeal rejection of a plaint under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In other words, Plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all.

The observation is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & Anr. v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr. Therein, a Division Bench had held as follows:

"it is not permissible to reject plaint qua any particular portion of a plaint including against some of the defendant(s) and continue the same against the others. In no uncertain terms the Court has held that if the plaint survives against certain defendant(s) and/or properties, Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then proceed to trial. 12. In view of this settled legal position we may now turn to the nature of relief."

23. 'Policy Matter': Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL To Reduce Covid Booster Dose Interval

Case Title: Dishank Dhawan v. GNCTD, WP (C ) 5239/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 82

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking to reduce the time gap for administration of precautionary doses of Covid-19 vaccines (booster shots) to front line workers and senior citizens.

The Bench comprising of Chief Justice Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed that it is an administrative decision and the Court cannot interfere in policy matters, based on the whims of the petitioners.

" These policies are made by Doctors who are subject-matter experts and High Courts will be extremely slow in interfering in such matters," the Bench remarked orally.

24. Espionage Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Freelance Journalist Rajeev Sharma

Case Title: Rajeev Sharma v. Enforcement Directorate

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 83

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to freelance journalist Rajeev Sharma in connection with a case alleging that he supplied confidential information to Chinese Officials, in exchange of remuneration.

Enforcement Directorate had initiated investigation on the basis of an FIR filed against Sharma under the provisions of IPC and Official Secrets Act.

Justice Mukta Gupta pronounced the order after reserving the judgment on December 21, 2021.

25. Take Immediate Steps For Filling Vacancies, Providing Infra At Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora Across State: High Court Tells Delhi Govt

Case Title: MOHAN PRASAD (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS SH. YOGESH & ORS. v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 84

The Delhi High Court has called for a report in respect of filling up of vacancies and infrastructure requirements across all District Fora and the State Consumer Redressal Forum in the city.

Justice Pratibha M Singh directed the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Affairs of the Delhi Government to submit the said report within six weeks.

The Court also directed the said officer to coordinate with Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (Retd.), President of the State Consumer Redressal Forum, in order to ascertain the vacancies across the District Fora in Delhi and further requirements of the said fora and the State Forum.

The Court was dealing with a petition highlighting a grievance that the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (West), Janakpuri, Delhi had not disposed of the consumer complaint, which was filed way back in 2007.

26. POCSO | Child Witness' Testimony Must Be Evaluated More Carefully, Sufficient For Conviction If It Inspires Confidence & Is Reliable: Delhi HC

Case Title: Ravinder v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 85

The Delhi High Court has held that a trustworthy testimony of a child witness is sufficient to record a conviction under the POCSO Act. At the same time, the Court struck a note of caution that the testimony has to be evaluated more carefully..

The observation was made by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri while hearing an appeal against conviction under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, which pertains to sexual harassment upon a child.

After perusing the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finally set aside the conviction of the accused, citing unreliable testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

27. Chapter XXIA CrPC | Provisions Of Plea Bargaining Applicable To Offences U/S 132 & 135 Of Customs Act: Delhi High Court

Case Name: AIR Customs v. Begaim Akynova

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 86

In a case concerning illegal smuggling of gold by two Kazakh nationals, the Delhi High Court upheld the plea bargain reached between the Smuggler Respondent, Consul at the Kazakh Embassy, Air Customs Officer, and Senior SPP for the Customs Department vide Mutually Satisfactory Declaration (MSD).

Per the MSD, the Respondent pled guilty to Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. In return, the Respondent shall plead for a lenient sentence from the Court.

Accordingly, Trial Court sentenced her to a period of imprisonment already undergone along with a fine under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.

28. Inherent Jurisdiction Of High Court U/S 482 CrPC Can't Be Invoked To Override Bar Of Review U/S 362: Delhi HC

Case Title: Dr Sanjeev Kumar Rasania v. CBI and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 87

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for setting aside its own Judgment, citing the bar on review envisaged under Section 362 CrPC.

Section 362 stipulates that no Court, when it has signed its Judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

Explaining that the Court's inherent powers under Section 482 does not confer any new powers, at the cost of an existing provision under the Code, the Court held that the provision does not grant unlimited jurisdiction.

29. "Young Students Should Not Be Denied Opportunity To Pursue LLB Degree": High Court Directs Delhi University To Fill Vacant Seats

Case Title: DEEPANSHU KHANNA & ANR. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 88

The Delhi High Court has directed the University of Delhi to fill up all the available vacant seats across all the categories in its LLB course, with a period of two weeks, notwithstanding the cut-off date for admission.

Justice Rekha Palli observed that young students should not be denied the opportunity to pursue LLB degree who have shown their grit and determination in clearing the entrance examination.

The Court was dealing with the pleas moved by three students aggrieved of not being granted admission in LLB course of Delhi University despite availability of vacant seats. The Court directed that the University must consider all eligible candidates for filling up the vacancies including the petitioners.

30. Delhi High Court Directs Employees' State Insurance Corporation To Constitute Committee To Frame Policy Regarding Contractual Workers

Title: Sh. Hansraj & Ors v. ESIC & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 89

The Delhi High Court has directed the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to constitute a committee in order to frame a broad policy for all its establishments in respect of contractual workers.

Justice Pratibha M Singh added that the Committee shall consist of at least two experts, two representatives from the Workmen and two representatives from the Contractors, as also other officials, as the ESIC deems appropriate, in order to frame the proposed policy.

31. Purpose Of Admitting Students In Schools Under EWS Category Is To Ensure Access To Quality Education To Under-Privileged Students: Delhi High Court

Title: AMBIENCE PUBLIC SCHOOL v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 90

The Delhi High Court has observed that the purpose of admitting students to schools under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category is to ensure that students of the under-privileged strata of society get access to quality education as envisaged under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.

Justice Rekha Palli was dealing with a petition moved by a private unaided and recognised school, assailling the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Directorate of Education of Delhi Government vide which the school's request for grant of exemption from admitting 25 students in the EWS category based on the permissible intake to the schools was rejected.

32. Employee Of Border Roads Organization Has No Fundamental Right To Claim Deputation To Any Other Organization Or Dept Like NHAI: Delhi High Court

Title: KAMLESH KUMAR JHA v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL BORDER ROADS AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 91

The Delhi High Court has held that an employee of the Border Roads Organisation has no fundamental right to claim a deputation to any other Organisation or Department like National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

A bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla added that since an employee of Border Roads Organisation has to work primarily in the said Organisation, he has only a right of fair consideration in accordance with the policy and needs of the organisation.

The Court dismissed a plea filed by one Kamlesh Kumar Jha challenging the rejection letter dated and show cause notice thereby seeking directions to the Border Roads Organisation to allow the his application for deputation to the NHAI on the ground of parity.

IMPORTANT WEEKLY UPDATES

1. Marital Rape Exception: Centre Requests Delhi High Court To Defer Hearing In View Of Pending Consultative Process

The Central government has reiterated its request before the Delhi High Court to defer hearing in a bunch of pleas challenging the exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife from the offence of rape provided the wife is above 15 years of age.

Time is sought for providing a stipulated timeline within which the Central Government would conduct an effective consultative process in order to assist the Court on the issue.

Also Read: Leave It To Trial Courts To Decide How Marital Rape Is Proved : Colin Gonsalves To Delhi High Court

Also Read: Marital Rape Exception Restricts Women's Freedom Of Sexual Expression, Violates Art. 19(1)(a) Of Constitution: Adv Karuna Nundy To Delhi High Court

Also Read: 'Marital Rape Will Remain Condoned Unless Criminalized, Marriage Not License To Ignore Consent': Adv Karuna Nundy Argues In Delhi HC

2. "Constitute High Level Committee For Preventive Measures To Ensure Juveniles Are Not Lodged In Adult Jails": DCPCR To Delhi High Court

The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) has prayed from the Delhi High Court to constitute a High Level Committee for outlining preventive measures to ensure that juveniles are not lodged in adult jails.

In the written submissions filed before a bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J Bhambhani, DCPCR has stated that it believes that a serious inquiry into "every lapse made in age investigation of juveniles" is the strongest deterrent for the erring police officials to be conscious of the aspect of age of juveniles.

3. Whether Parents Of A Deceased Unmarried Man Have Right Over His Preserved Sperm? Plea Filed In Delhi High Court

An interesting case has come up before the Delhi High Court wherein the parents of a deceased unmarried young man have sought a direction upon the Ganga Ram Hospital to release their late son's frozen semen sample to them.

It is their case that following the unfortunate demise of their son, they are the "sole claimants" over his remaining "bodily assets" and such, the Hospital's action of denying them access to the semen sample is violative of their rights.

Notices in the matter were issued to the Health Department of Delhi government and the Hospital in December 2021. Justice V. Kameswar Rao has now posted it for hearing on 13 May 2022.

4. Delhi Riots: High Court To Hear Next Week Pleas Seeking SIT Investigation, Registration Of FIRs Against Politicians For Alleged Hate Speech

The Delhi High Court will commence hearing next week a bunch a pleas seeking independent SIT investigation into the North East Delhi Riots of 2020. The pleas also seek registration of FIRs against politicians for alleged hate speeches and action to be taken against errant police officials.

A bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J Bhambhani posted the matter for hearing on February 8.

The Bench however told the counsels appearing for the petitioners to identify and collate the prayers in the pleas in order to enable the Court to determine the issues which are to be considered and those which may have been rendered infructuous.

5. Search Engines Like Google Not 'Publishers' Under Part III Of IT Rules, 2021: Centre Tells Delhi High Court

The Central Government has told the Delhi High Court that search engines like Google are not 'publishers' under Part III of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

Section 2(s) of the Rules defines a publisher as a "publisher of news and current affairs content or a publisher of online curated content."

The Centre through Ministry of Information & Broadcasting has filed a counter affidavit in a plea filed by a CBSE official seeking removal of various links and news items published in the year 2017, regarding the alleged NET answer sheet scam case, after a closure report was filed by the CBI finding no criminal involvement of the officials.

6. Delhi HC Directs Centre To Issue Communications To AIIMS, Centres Of Excellence To Start Treatment Of Children Suffering From Rare Diseases

The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to issue communications to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and Centres for Excellence established across the Country, for starting the treatment of the children suffering from rare diseases, without any delay.

The Court was hearing a clutch of petitions concerning children suffering from rare diseases like Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), Hunter's syndrome. The pleas sought directions to provide them free of cost treatment owing to the reason that the medical treatment involved was very expensive.

7. 'It Is Absurd': Delhi High Court Asks Govt To Reconsider Order Mandating Face Masks Inside Private Vehicles

The Delhi High Court called the order passed by the Delhi Government mandating wearing of face mask inside private vehicle as "absurd", asking further as to why the same was still prevailing in the changed circumstances.

A bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh was apprised by Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra appearing for the Delhi Government that the order needed revisitation.

Since the order was passed by the Delhi Government, the Bench asked Mehra as to why can't it consider withdrawing the same. To this, Mehra responded that while the Governmental exercise might take a few months, an observation from the Court will be a more expeditious option.

Gauhati High Court

1. Law Student's Suicide: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Accused Husband

"The appellant is accused of being a Maoist, wedded to violence, as a means to bring about a political change. Now the question is, if the appellant continues to believe in this ideology, would it be appropriate for this Court to release her on bail and allow her to unleash violence on the instrumentalities of the State. The Indian State now rests on the Constitution of India drafted by a committee of noble men headed by Dr. B.R.Ambedkar", the court observed before listing out the bail conditions.

16. Decline In Covid Cases: Madras High Court & Its Subordinate Courts To Function In Hybrid Mode From February 7

In a notification issued by the Registrar General of Madras High Court dated 4th February, the Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari has directed that the Principal Seat at Madras and the Madurai Bench should resume Hybrid mode of functioning from February 7. The notification comes in light of the declining number of Omicron variant/ Covid 19 cases in Tamil Nadu.

A similar notification has been issued with regards to the functioning of all subordinate courts in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry.