Delhi High Court Weekly Roundup: February 28 To March 6, 2022

CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 151 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 171

NOMINAL INDEX

RAVNEET KAUR v. PRITHPAL SINGH DHINGRA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 151

BHARATI SHIVAJI & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 152

Rashtriya Pravasi Parishad v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 153

Rohit Shukla v. DGMS (Army) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 154

Nokia India Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 155

SHRI MUKESH KUMAR v. SMT KAMLESH DEVI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 156

Raj Singh Gehlot v. Directorate of Enforcement 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 157

Gautam Thapar v. Enforcement Directorate 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 158

Abhigyan Singh v Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 159

Komal Rastogi v. Directorate General Central Reserve Police Force 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 160

Gaurav Dalal v. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 161

Adhir Kumar Verma v. Central Reserve Police Force & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 162

Saurabh Mittal Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 163

BLACK DIAMOND TRACKPARTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS v. BLACK DIAMOND MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 164

SH. HARNAM DASS LUTHRA (NOW DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS) v. USHA CHAUHAN 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 165

SMT.USHA @ DURGAWATI DEVI v. SH DILIP KUMAR SINGH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 166

Avjit Saluja v. State of NCT of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 167

Aanchal Mittal & Ors. Versus Ankur Shukla 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 168

X v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 169

M/S. LG Electronics India Private Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 170

Ram Gaua Raksha Dal v. UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 171

JUDGMENTS/ ORDERS

1. Right Of Residence U/S 19 Of Domestic Violence Act Not Indefeasible In Shared Household When Daughter In Law Pitted Against Aged In Laws: Delhi HC

Case Title: RAVNEET KAUR v. PRITHPAL SINGH DHINGRA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 151

The Delhi High Court has observed that the right of residence under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household, especially, when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law.

"Thus, where the residence is a shared household, it does not create any embargo upon the owner to claim eviction against his daughter-in-law. A strained frictional relationship between the parties would be relevant to decide whether the grounds of eviction exist," Justice Yogesh Khanna added.

The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.07.2018 passed in a Civil Suit.

The respondent claimed to be an absolute and sole owner of the property in question vide a registered sale deed dated 27.09.2004. The respondent had originally filed a suit for eviction against the defendant (appellant herein) being his daughter-in-law.

A decree of possession with damages equivalent to the market rent of the alleged illegal possession was therefore passed against the appellant and also a decree of permanent injunction to restrain her from creating any third party right in such property.

2. Delhi HC Denies Relief To Artists Against Eviction From Govt Accommodations, Says Prior Inaction Not Basis To Invoke Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation

Case Title: BHARATI SHIVAJI & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 152

The Delhi High Court has observed that prior inaction cannot possibly constitute a basis for invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation which itself is founded on Article 14 of the Constitution.

The observation came from a single bench of Justice Yashwant Varma who dismissed a bunch of petitions filed by various eminent Indian artists including dancers and musicians challenging the eviction proceedings initiated by the Centre qua government allotted residences to them. The Centre had decided to cancel the allotment subject to the allottees being granted reasonable time to vacate the premises and identify alternate accommodation.

" Indecisiveness of the respondents to have taken a principled decision or to take precipitate action against the petitioners earlier and once the original period of license had come to an end, cannot possibly lead to a legitimate expectation arising or operating in favour of the petitioners, " the Court said while dismissing the petitions.

3. Delhi High Court Refuses To Hear Plea Against Akshay Kumar Starrer 'Prithviraj'

Case Title: Rashtriya Pravasi Parishad v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 153

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking to change the title of the upcoming movie 'Prithviraj', produced by Yash Raj Films. The movie starring actors Akshay Kumar and Manushi Chillar in the lead roles is set to release on 10th June, 2022.

The petitioner, Rashtriya Pravasi Parishad, submitted that the film is based on the life of Indian Emperor Prithviraj Chauhan. Advocate Sanjeev Beniwal, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the film is based on a "great warrior". However, its name is not reflective of the same.

It was argued that by putting a simple title 'Prithiviraj', the Respondents are lowering the dignity and respect of the great emperor. Thus, directions were sought to change the title of the film and include some respectful prefixes.

4. 'Revenge Taking Petition': Delhi High Court Imposes ₹25K Cost On PIL Alleging Fraudulent Practices For Securing Employment In Indian Army

Case Title: Rohit Shukla v. DGMS (Army)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 154

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to prevent the alleged use of fraudulent measures for securing employment in the Indian Army.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that in the garb of public interest, the petitioner had filed a "revenge taking type of petition" against one Karamveer Singh, who was purportedly appointed as a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) in the Indian Army in 2015. 

The petitioner, Rohit Shukla, appearing in person, alleged that Singh had produced false certificates for securing the employment, and sought that his appointment be cancelled.

At the outset, the Court noted that reliefs were sought against Singh in his absence, as he was not made a Respondent-party.

5. Delhi High Court Directs Disposal Of Nokia's Rectification Application Over Refund Of Rs. 58 Crores Within Six Weeks

Case Title: Nokia India Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 155

A Bench of Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, directed the revenue authorities to decide Nokia's rectification application filed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in accordance with law by way of a reasoned order within six weeks.

Nokia filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to decide the rectification application filed by it under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and grant consequential refund along with the applicable interest under the Act. Nokia also sought a direction to the revenue authorities to refund over Rs. 58 Crores adjusted under Section 245 of the Act against the outstanding tax demand of the relevant assessment year.

6. Article 227 | Scope Of Supervisory Jurisdiction Limited To Correction Of Jurisdictional Errors/ Perverse View Taken By Court/ Tribunal: Delhi HC

Case Title: SHRI MUKESH KUMAR v. SMT KAMLESH DEVI & ANR.

Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 156

The Delhi High Court has observed that the scope of supervisory jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to correction of jurisdictional errors or cases where a view taken by the court or tribunal is perverse, in the sense that no reasonable court could have taken the same view.

Justice Prateek Jalan made this observation while dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 challenging an order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, being the Principal District and Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts.

The Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the respondent no. 1 against an order of the Additional Rent Controller by which her application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed.

7. Delhi High Court Dismisses Bail Plea Of Ambience Group Promoter Raj Singh Gehlot In Money Laundering Case

Case Title: Raj Singh Gehlot v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 157

The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail plea of Ambience Group promoter Raj Singh Gehlot in connection with a money laundering case. (Detailed order awaited)

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri had reserved the order earlier this month after hearing Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Gehlot in the matter. Advocate Zoheb Hussain appeared on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement.

Gehlot is accused of siphoning off the loan amount and diverting funds while entering into a criminal conspiracy.

A loan was allegedly sanctioned to M/s AHPL by a consortium of banks led by J&K Bank, Ansal Plaza, Delhi for construction of a hotel.

Gehlot was accused of siphoning off the money in connivance of bank officials through a web of shell companies and his associates.

8. Yes Bank Loan Fraud Case: Delhi High Court Dismisses Bail Plea Of Avantha Group Promoter Gautam Thapar

Case Title: Gautam Thapar v. Enforcement Directorate

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 158

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail plea filed by Avantha Group Promoter Gautam Thapar in connection with the Yes Bank loan fraud case. (Detailed order awaited)

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri pronounced the order after reserving the same earlier this month. The Court heard Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Thapar in the matter. The bail plea was opposed by Amit Mahajan representing Directorate of Enforcement.

Thapar was arrested in August last year in connection to the allegations of misappropriation of funds granted by Yes Bank in the form of Loan.

An ECIR was registered against Gautam Thapar, M/s. Avantha Realty Ltd., M/s. Oyster Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and others, alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating, criminal conspiracy and forgery for diversion and misappropriation of public money during the period 2017 to 2019, thereby causing losses to the tune of Rs. 466.51 Crores to Yes Bank. 

9. Fitness For Recruitment In Armed Forces| Opinion Of Medical Board Prevails Over Pvt/ Govt Doctors; No Interference U/A 226 Unless Malafide: Delhi HC

Case Title: Abhigyan Singh v Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 159

Case Title: Komal Rastogi v. Directorate General Central Reserve Police Force

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 160

Case Title: Gaurav Dalal v. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 161

Case Title: Adhir Kumar Verma v. Central Reserve Police Force & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 162

The Delhi High Court has held that for selection to armed forces, the candidates must be fully fit and no benefit of doubt in this regard can be given to them.

It further held that the medical opinion of doctors of the Forces, who are well aware of the demands of duties and the physical standards required to discharge the same, cannot be discarded and would, in fact, prevail over the report of private or even other government doctors.

The Court further clarified that Medical Manuals for entry to the Forces cannot be said to be laying down all the complex ailments/grounds that would make a candidate unfit for appointment to Armed Forces. The recruiting medical officer may use his clinical acumen, to the best of his knowledge and keeping in view the best interests of the Forces.

In Gaurav Dalal v. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr., WP (C ) 6595/2021, the petitioner was declared medically unfit for the appointment of a Constable, on the ground of 'undescended testis'. The petitioner alleged that disqualification on this ground is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

In the case of Adhir Kumar Verma v. Central Reserve Police Force & Ors., WP ( C ) 14926/2021, the petitioner, a Sub-Inspector aspirant, was declared unfit for 'Multiple keloid in Central area of chest and single keloid right scapular area'. This led to the petitioner filing the present petition.

10. Summons Proceedings Can't Be Through CCTV: Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash Summons In GST Fraud Case

Case Title: Saurabh Mittal Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 163

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash the summons against a person accused of creating numerous fake firms and availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraudulently. The court observed that there should be reasonable apprehension of coercion by the GST Department for 'summons proceedings' to be conducted through CCTV Cameras.

The single bench of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar has refused to quash the summons on the grounds that ​​the investigation is still at a nascent stage and that the present case involves fraud of Rs 350 crores approximately and around 200 firms are involved in placing fraudulent ITC.

11. Mere Wrong Decision Without Anything More Not Enough To Attract Jurisdiction Under Article 227: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BLACK DIAMOND TRACKPARTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS v. BLACK DIAMOND MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 164

Case Title: SH. HARNAM DASS LUTHRA (NOW DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS) v. USHA CHAUHAN

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 165

Case Title: SMT.USHA @ DURGAWATI DEVI v. SH DILIP KUMAR SINGH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 166

The Delhi High Court has observed that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the supervisory jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

"…it may be noted that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being one of judicial superintendence cannot be exercised to upset conclusions, howsoever erroneous they may be, unless there was something grossly wrong or unjust in the impugned order shocking the court's conscience or the conclusions were so perverse that it becomes absolutely necessary in the interest of justice for the court to interfere," Justice Asha Menon observed.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 by the petitioners, defendants in the suit, against an order dated 10th January, 2022 passed by the Commercial Court, Saket Courts.

In the case of Harnam Dass Luthra v. Usha Chauhan, the Court was dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 challenging a judgment wherein appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Additional Rent Controller was dismissed, thereby allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondent landlady under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

In Smt. Usha v. Sh. Dilip Kumar Singh, the Court held that the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and discretionary and that it does not extend to reappreciation of evidence as an appellate forum.

It said that the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, will not intervene to correct every error of law or fact committed by the courts below.

12. How Much Liquor Can An Individual Store At Home In Delhi? High Court Answers

Case Title: Avjit Saluja v. State of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 167

The Delhi High Court has affirmed that an individual, aged above 25 years, can possess 9 litres of Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor, i.e., whisky, vodka, gin and rum, and 18 litres of beer, wine and alcopop.

The observation was made by Justice Subramonium Prasad while adjudicating upon a petition for quashing of the FIR registered against a Delhi resident, for illicit liquor storage at his home.

132 bottles of liquor were recovered from the Petitioner's house, who did not possess a valid Liquor license. This included 51.8 litres of whisky, rum, vodka, gin, and 55.4 litres of wine, beer, alcopop.

Accordingly, he was booked under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009.

13. Delhi High Court Rules, Parties Under LLP Agreement Cannot Confer Jurisdiction On Courts

Case Title: Aanchal Mittal & Ors. Versus Ankur Shukla

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 168

A Single Bench of Delhi High Court of Justice Amit Bansal, has held that carrying of business in any place does not confer jurisdiction on courts to adjudicate a dispute inter se partners in an LLP.

The Partner of an LLP, registered at Hyderabad, had filed a suit before a Commercial Court in Delhi against the denial of access by remaining partners to the business accounts of LLP. The District Judge allowed the petition, dismissing the challenge to territorial jurisdiction raised by the remaining partners/ defendants on the ground that the business of LLP was undertaken in Delhi, therefore, granting exclusive jurisdiction to the Courts in Delhi under the LLP Agreement is legally valid and enforceable. The remaining partners challenged the decision by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, before the High Court.

14.'Lives In Victim's Neighborhood, Took Advantage Of Her Mental Faculties': Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Of Rape Accused

Case Title: X v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 169

The Delhi High Court has cancelled the bail of a man accused of raping a 37 year old woman suffering from bipolar mental disorder episodic mania and psychotic features after taking her undue advantage, while directing him to surrender in custody within a week.

Justice Mukta Gupta noted that the Trial Court failed to notice that the accused was living in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix, thus was aware of her mental faculties.

The Court said "The learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to notice that the respondent No.2 was living in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix, thus was aware of the mental faculties of the victim and taking advantage thereof, as her marriage was broken and she was eager to get married, he lured her stating that he would get the evil spirit out of her soul, get her married to a boy and called her on 21st July, 2021."

15. Delhi High Court Directs CPC To Determine And Process Refund Due To LG Under A Rectification Order

Case Title: M/S. LG Electronics India Private Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 170

A Bench of Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, directed the Central Processing Center to determine and process the refund due to LG Electronics in accordance with the law after the later filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

LG had opted to be taxed under Section 115BAA of the Act, attracting a tax rate of 22%, yet the revenue authorities applied a tax rate of 25% under Section 115BA of the Act. LG filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act as well as seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to dispose of its rectification application under Section 154 of the Act seeking rectification of the impugned intimation.

16. Full Disclosure Of Food Article Being Veg Or Non-Veg Is Fundamental; Rights U/Art. 21, 25 Impacted By What Is Offered On A Platter: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ram Gaua Raksha Dal v. UOI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 171

The Delhi High Court has observed that since the right of a person under Article 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India is impacted by what is offered on a platter, it is fundamental that a full and complete disclosure of a food article being vegetarian or non-vegetarian is made a part of consumer awareness.

A Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with a plea seeking guidelines for strict implementation of the existing Rules mandating food manufacturers to label their products according to the nature of the ingredients used therein.

The Court added that the failure of the authorities to ensure such full and complete disclosure of food article as to whether the same was vegetarian or non vegetarian defeats the objective of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

It therefore directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to issue a fresh communication to the authorities concerned to state the obligation for making a clear disclosure of food article as to whether it was vegetarian or non-vegetarian.

IMPORTANT WEEKLY UPDATES

1. Can't Permit Sales Practices That Lure People Into Hoarding Liquor, Illicit Trafficking: Delhi Govt to High Court On 'No-Discount' Policy

Defending its decision to prohibit the grant of discounts or concessions by retail licensees on MRP of liquor in the city, the Delhi Government has told the High Court that it cannot permit sale practices that lure people to indulge in illicit and illegal liquor trafficking and hoarding liquor beyond the permissible limit as defined under Rule 20 of Delhi Excise Rules, 2010.

The development came in a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Delhi Government in a plea filed by five private players holding valid L7Z licenses challenging the order dated February 28, 2022 passed by the Department of Excise, Entertainment and Luxury Tax of the Delhi Government.

The petition is filed in the backdrop of the new Delhi Excise Policy approved in June last year by the Delhi government for the year 2021-2022. This policy sets out the framework for various aspects pertaining to the liquor business.

Consequent to the excise policy being approved, the Delhi Government had floated tenders for zonal licences for retail vends of Indian and foreign liquor. The petitioners participated in the tenders floated and had emerged as the successful bidders for different zones within the city.

2. "Can't Curtail Discussion In Academic World": Delhi High Court To Vikram Sampath In His Suit Against Audrey Truschke

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant any urgent relief to historian Dr. Vikram Sampath, who is aggrieved over circulation of a google document, purportedly signed by various academicians who came in support of historian Audrey Truschke over allegations of plagiarism regarding Sampath's work on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

Sampath claimed that the document was posted Truschke on social media platforms including Twitter, thereby violating court's interim order.

"You can't curtail discussion on the subject in the academic world. Your cause of action is qua those who are defaming you. For that you have orders. You can't get injunction against thousands of people," Justice Amit Bansal told Sampath's counsel.

3. Can't Reopen Entire Premises Of Nizamuddin Markaz, Few People Can Offer Prayers For Shab-e-Barat, Ramzan: Centre Tells Delhi High Court

The Central Government has informed the Delhi High Court that while few people can be permitted to offer prayers during the upcoming occasions of Shab-e-Barat and Ramzan festivals in the Nizamuddin Markaz, its entire premises cannot be reopened.

Public entry was banned at the Nizamuddin Markaz in the aftermath of Tablighi Jamaat members testing positive for Covid-19 in 2020.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri was dealing with an application filed in the petition moved by the Delhi Waqf Board seeking to ease restrictions at the Nizamuddin Markaz, which has been locked since March 31, 2020.

The said application was filed by the Wafq Board seeking reopening of Masjid in the Nizamuddin Markaz commonly known as Masjid Bangle Wali owing to the upcoming festival of Shab e-Barat next month.

4. Long Pendency Of NIA Cases: Patiala House Court To Have Three New ASJ Courts To Unburden Special Courts

In order to deal with long pendency of cases under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, the Delhi High Court has been informed that three new Additional Session Judge (ASJ) Courts will be constituted in Patiala House Court for assigning and distribution of other pending cases before two designated special courts.

In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Registrar of High Court, it has been stated that its Administrative and General Supervision Committee has resolved that five Courts of MM (NI Act) in the Patiala House Court will be shifted to the Rouse Avenue Court Complex, to enable creation of more ASJ courts.

"Considering that the pendency in the courts in New Delhi District including the court of ASJ-02 and ASJ 03 is high because of non-availability of court rooms for creation of additional courts in the Patiala House Court Complex, it is resolved that the 5 courts of MM (NI Act) in the said District be shifted to the Rouse Avenue Court Complex, to enable creation of more ASJ courts. The place of sitting of the said 5 courts of MM (NIA Act) shall be the Rouse Avenue Court Complex. However, these 5 courts shall continue to be under the administrative control and jurisdiction of the New Delhi District," the affidavit reads.

5. Delhi Riots: High Court Issues Notice On Applications Seeking Impleadment Of Political Leaders For Alleged Hate Speech

The Delhi High Court has issued notice on the applications seeking impleadment of various political leaders and others, in order to ascertain as to whether they ought to be added as party respondents in the pleas seeking registration of FIRs against politicians for alleged hate speeches during 2020 Delhi riots.

A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta issued notice on the impleadment applications filed by petitioners Shaikh Mujtaba and Lawyers Voice.

The impleadment application by Shaikh Mujtaba seeks to implead four BJP leaders Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Abhay Verma as respondents no. 5 to 8.

On the other hand, the impleadment application filed by Lawyers Voice seeks impleadment of 20 persons including:

6. Suicide By Prison Inmate, No Timely Action By Jail Authorities: Delhi High Court Appoints Sr Adv Nikhil Naiyar As Amicus Curiae

The Delhi High Court has appointed an amicus curiae over an incident of suicide committed by a jail inmate last year, who struggled for about 19 minutes inside prison cell, however no timely action was taken by the prison authorities.

Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a petition which was numbered on the statement given by the deceased inmate's father, Labh Singh, who had written a letter alleging that his son, Sohan Singh, was being tortured in the Jail. Unfortunately, Sohan Singh committed suicide on December 11, 2021.

The Court accordingly appointed Senior Advocate Nikhil Naiyar as amicus curiae in the matter to assist the Bench in the case.

The Court had issued notice on the plea in January this year and a status report was sought from the concerned Jail authorities.